survtech

Couldn't you enable "Wake on Lan" in BIOS?

How do you bouble up cameras?

You can get by for a lot less. A hub is definitely not necessary unless the cable lengths require active receivers, in which case RG-59 is not an option anyway. The cost of passive baluns is typically $20 to $30 each for reasonable quality. You need two of them for each camera unless the cameras have built-in baluns, in which case you'd only need one at the DVR end for each camera. Not using a hub also saves on bnc-bnc patch cables.

The phase or "line lock" adjustment was used with older switchers, recorders and monitors so that when switching from camera-to-camera, the picture would not roll or break up. Modern switchers, DVR/NVR recorders and monitors do not have that problem so it is usually not necessary to touch that adjustment.

There is no such thing as too much supply current. There can be too little, but never too much. If a device is fed the correct voltage and hooked up correctly, it will draw only as much current as it needs to operate. You can also have too little (as well as too much) voltage. Too much or the wrong type (DC vs. AC) can cause problems, including frying cameras. Too little will cause non-operation. You should check the voltage at the camera with a good VOM.

CAT-5 with baluns can be comparable in cost to RG-59 or RG-6, depending on the length of the runs and the layout of the system. Since you can theoretically put 4 cameras on a single run of CAT-5, and since CAT-5 is approximately the same cost per foot as RG-59, for longer runs the cost of the baluns is around the same or less than the cost of running 3 additional RG-59 cables. Also, some cameras have an optional built-in passive balun that adds even less to the cost than an external balun, saving even more. As far as picture quality, there is little discernable difference between coax and twisted-pair for most applications.

The first thing to do is check the power voltage at the PTZ. For 24VAC, it should be at least 18VAC while moving, but I would recommend it be at least 20VAC. For 12VDC PTZ's you power should be at least 10VDC while the PTZ is moving.

John, You bring up some excellent points in the article. We are in the process of evaluating IP camera integration within the next 2 years in our casino. We don't expect it to be a major pain to install the necessary infrastructure into new buildings but we also have to consider how to implement it into existing buildings where the present infrastructure is analog, with a combination of coax and twisted-pair using mostly passive-passive on CAT-5. In addition, no consideration was given to ethernet distance limitations and all punch-downs are on 66 blocks. There is also no space in our IT Department's IDF closets for our equipment and we will not likely share network backbones with them due to network security and control concerns. Our present NVR system is highly centralized; with encoders in the same room as the NVR's. Our existing NVR system has severe limits on which IP cameras it can utilize and it is limited to 15fps for many IP and all megapixel cameras. We have regulatory requirements of 20fps for many applications. We are considering other, more open, NVR systems as a partial workaround, but that will require replacing 128 8-channel proprietray encoders and we still would have to locate much of that equipment in our "DVR Room". Other concerns are latency for PTZ control. It makes some sense to replace our analog matrix with a virtual one but many just have latency that makes PTZ control problematic. That is one reason why casinos are hesitant to go fully digital. Another reason is that many IP cameras have serious shortcomings for gaming applications.

It appears to be a software that runs on NVR's. From what they say it is hardware agnostic. We will be inviting them back for additional demonstration(s) in the future and I'll ask them a lot more questions. To be honest, we were so blown away by its GUI that we didn't ask the "hard" questions.

All that plus the ability to handle almost any codec and more!

We've had great performance from Milwaukee. They're a little on the heavy side but very powerful.

Apparently, you already have one. Many cameras have either WDR or BLC or both. They might not all work equally well, though. The polarizing filter idea may work. You could try one. Camera stores sell them, although getting one that would fit on the lens of your camera might be difficult.

Not likely. The best results will probably be from a WDR camera or BLC.

That's your main problem!

You can do 2,000 ft of both data and video, but not power. RS422 and RS485 data for PTZ control has a theoretical limit of 4,000 ft. and you will have to use active transmitters and/or receivers for the video. At 2000 ft. you are beyond the limit for passive baluns and right at the limit for active-passive (active at one end only). You will probably have to use both an active transmitter and an active receiver.

And don't forget that there are a few embedded Windows systems out there.

Where is a moderator or forum admin when you need one?

The current of the power supply is not the problem in your case, the wire gauge is. A good rule of thumb is to size your power supply at least 1-1/2 times the total draw of all cameras attached to it. Since you are only talking one camera to one supply, 1 amp is a good number. For wire gauge versus distance calculations, there are plenty of them on the internet. Here is one: http://www.video-insight.com/Support/Tools/Wire-Length-Calculator.aspx

You are pushing the envelope with 18/2 power cable. I suggest 16 gauge wire, The supply should be rated at least double of the camera requirements, or 1 amp in your case.

Come on, we are only talking about 1-1/2 pounds here. A standard ceiling tile can hold far more weight than that. We regularly install full PTZ cameras weighing 8 pounds or more in ceiling tiles with just a small safety chain. We've never had one fall, even during an earthquake! In fact, for that light a camera, your power and video cables, properly hung, would be enough to support the camera if the tile got wet or otherwise damaged.

There shouldn't be any problem mounting a 1-1/2 pound dome directly to a ceiling tile. If you are concerned about the potential for it falling, you could always attach a safety chain to the camera and attach the other end to the hard ceiling above.

A parabolic microphone would pick up sound that far away. Do a web search for that phrase. Make certain you understand the rules for audio recording of people in your area. They are different from video recording in many places and you could get in trouble recording conversations without the participants' knowledge.

You know, I would have continued the discussion but your statement: tells me that I would just be wasting my time. Adios!

So you are saying that the over 40% losses of sync, luminance and composite video levels and over 90% loss of color burst levels have no impact on the video? By what means of measurement? And the issue then was not to test different cable manufacturers' cables but to compare different manufacturers' baluns. That test still holds since it showed there was effectively no difference between the passive baluns. I don't understand why you took our tests as an indictment of the Video Baluns Unlimited baluns since I showed that they performed equally to baluns which sell for far more. Facts? They are based on your opinions only. Whether you have a problem with West Penn or not, the industry in general recommends against the use of RG-59 for runs longer than 750 ft. without resorting to "cable compensation". And that assumes the use of 20 gauge RG-59. If you want to run longer lengths, that is your perrogative. My guess is that for many applications, your customers would not notice any defect in the video at that length since they would not have any basis for comparison. The same goes for running 1,500 ft. of twisted-pair using passive-passive baluns. I can tell you that we can certainly tell the difference between the picture quality at 1,000 ft. and at 1,500 ft. using exactly the same baluns, cable, cameras and monitors. If you can't, perhaps you need better measuring or monitoring equipment.. By the way, a few sources that specify both 750 ft. and 1000 ft. limitations on RG-59 also state that the 750 ft. limit applies to color and the 1000 ft. limit to monochrome cameras. That makes a lot of sense because the 3.58MHz color burst would have the greatest losses attributable to cable capacitance versus the lower frequency sync and composite signals, which would be more affected by DC resistance.

Actually, the one "DVR per camera" systems are falling by the wayside. This will be especially true as Sanyo discontinues the DSR-Mxx "Casino DVR" systems. That leaves Dallmeier as the only major manufacturer of one-for-one DVR's. And yes, many of us use MPEG2 compression but there is now a distinct shift away from that codec in favor of MPEG4 and h.264; primarily due to the storage savings approaching 50%. Despite the ever-decreasing cost of storage per gigabyte, it is still a substantial part of the cost of any system. In our system, using MPEG2, we have approximately 300TB (one terrabyte = 1024 gigabytes) of storage for 1000 cameras. If the h.264 DVR/NVR manufacturers' claims of 50% storage savings using the newer codec are true, the savings for our system would have been approximately 150TB or more than $150,000 at approximately $1000 per TB. While I know that $1000/TB sounds steep, remember this is in RAID storage and the RAID boxes are not cheap.