survtech

It's possible you encountered incompatibility with your cameras or other equipment or some other problem like cable or termination issues. Many in the casino industry have had excellent results with twisted-pair and passive baluns.

Check out the Honeywell HRD400 here: http://www.honeywellvideo.com/products/mobile/re/52538.html

OOOOOOps. I meant we don't need active until at least 600'. Passive baluns work well at shorter distances. Original post corrected!

Connecting twisted-pair cable to any unbalanced connector is just asking for trouble. First, twisted-pair is 100 ohms impedance; bnc, f and other connectors are 75 ohms, rca is not any stated impedance. Coax is 75 ohms. Second, and perhaps most important, twisted-pair is balanced; meaning it has signal on both wires - one = positive, one = negative. The purpose of this is for noise cancellation. Since both wires tend to pick up the same noise, it cancels out when connected to equipment or a balun (+noise plus -noise = 0). By grounding out the negative wire, as you would by connecting it to an rca or bnc, you can cause a huge increase in noise pickup. Unbalanced wire (ie coax) has a shield. Its purpose is to block noise.

Hardly! We have very high quality (most cameras better than 470 lines) and don't need active transmitters or receivers (usually the latter) until we reach at least 600'. No. You can't just punch down, solder or otherwise connect twisted-pair directly to an unbalanced connector like bnc, f or rca. You have to use either a balun or an active system at both ends.

You get what you pay for. It's available for less than $300 + lens.

1/2" imagers (and, I assume, larger), with proper design, should be better for low light because the larger chip can gather more light. The larger 1/2" optics should be able to focus more light, too.

Try the Genwac GW-902H 1/2"CCD Monochrome Camera: "Introducing the new highly sensitive CCD sensor, visibility is assured in conditions with a minimum illumination of 0.0003 lx. (F1.4). Approx. 2.5 times more sensitive in the visible ray wavelength. * Approx. 3 times more sensitive (940nm) in the near-infrared wavelength. * Smear can be reduced by approx. -10dB. * Using an infrared beam (700nm~950nm) an object can be monitored in darkness. High resolution: 380K(EIA) 440K(CCIR) pixels (570 horizontal TV lines). " It's 1/2" so you can't use a 1/3" lens. But it is tiny.

First, I would have them switch to flood lighting instead of spots. Spots tend to concentrate too much light in one small area where on tables (actually anywhere for camera coverage), you want a more diffuse source. Also, lowering the wattage may help. We typically use 2-3 65 to 75 watt floodlights in cans for each table. As far as the angles, just make certain that the lights are not at an equal and opposite angle to the table(s) as the camera(s). We prefer to put the lights on the same side of the tables as the fixed cameras (approximately over the player opposite the dealer), and the PTZ's on the sides of a group of tables (at the corners of the pit in line with the table centers). That allows us to use the PTZ's on one side of the pit to look at the table surfaces of that side of the pit or to see the players on the opposite side of the pit. Something unrelated to PTZ's - if you do have fixed cameras on each table, turn off AGC. That tends to muddy things immensly.

Is that an older camera? Most cameras use DC-to-DC power supplies to convert from 24VAC. Many older ones have bad filter capacitors in those supplies; which could be causing your problems.

The two main keys to seeing the cards on tables are: * Use diffuse light, as in floods, not spots. * Try to keep the lights on the same side of the table as the cameras to prevent light from reflecting back into the camera. Watch your angles - adjust the angle from light to table so that it is not equal and opposite to the camera-to-table angle. This will help prevent light from reflecting back to the camera. * Light the table evenly, minimize "hot spots". Remember the camera is much more critical of lighting variations than your eyes.

Most CCTV distributors have a good selection of tools available. Also check Labor Saving Devices (http://www.lsdinc.com/content/main) for specialized installation tools and Ideal Industries (http://www.idealindustries.com/) for general CCTV tools.

It's not a question of the parts per se. There are a lot of factors involved that only the manufacturers know. For instance, the life of electrolytic capacitors varies greatly depending on type, temperature rating and voltage ratings. Most parts last longer if they are not run at, or near, their maximum ratings. I doubt if anyone here has the ability or desire to analyze all of the factors that make one camera more reliable than another. Usually we just go by experience and word of mouth. What you are asking is the equivalent of asking what makes Toyotas and Hondas more reliable than Fords and Chevys. They all have the same basic parts - engine, transmission, tires, etc; often from the same subcontract manufacturers.

Are you daisy-chaining the 4 or home running each back to the control points? If each is home runned, the KTD-83 will do the job. We have approximately 140 PTZ's attached to multiple ports on a Pelco CC1. Each port has a single data cable running to a KTD-83 co-located with the camera power supplies at common points in the casino. We split off and daisy-chain up to 3 PTZ's from each data output port on a KTD-83 and it works like a charm. But I would be careful tying multiple controllers to the same data line(s). Dallmeier had a problem with their single-channel-per-blade server DVR because each blade was designed to control one PTZ. This required each PTZ's control line to be home-run back to the blade. Most casinos aren't designed that way. Like us, they use data distribution units and daisy-chaining to limit the number of cables going in and out of the equipment room. I'm not sure how, or even if, they have since solved the problem but I know that at another casino they did wind up home-running each PTZ's control line, at great expense in time and money. If they could have just tied multiple control ports together to control multiple PTZ's on the same data line, I'm sure they would have.

Are you trying to combine control signals from 3 different controllers or control 4 different PTZ'z? For an inexpensive alternative to the Pelco CDU-T for the latter, try the Kalatel KTD-83 by GE. It costs around $130 and can feed 5 independent buffered data lines. They also make a KTD83-16 that has 16 output ports and is much cheaper than the Pelco CDU-T. Also, you can daisy-chain as many PTZ's as you want (up to the maximum number of addresses allowed by the PTZ code) if you turn off the termination on all but the last one in the chain. To daisy-chain PTZ's, you can run up to 3ft. stubs off a main control line or bring the data line into and back out of each PTZ to the next one in line. If you use shielded control cable, make sure to tie the shields together and insulate them at each splice. You should only connect one end of the shield to ground, usually at the control end. Leave the other end disconnected.

Are you certain it is a focus issue? Focus is very non-critical when an iris is closed. It is only critical when the iris is open.

A Really Simple Solution: Go to a welding supply store and get a piece of #5 welding glass. Focus the camera through that in daylight with the iris all the way open.

Does it say anywhere which type your model is, Normal IR LED or Hybrid IR LED? That would determine the power supply. As far as the video, I've seen that often. There should be an adaptor with the camera that has a connector or splices for the yellow and black wires and a female bnc. If not, splice a coax's center conductor to yellow and shield to black.

I assume you work for Pelco. See the " "? That means my statement was a joke. Don't have a cow, man! Oh, and by the way, typing in all caps is considered rude. It's the text equivalent of shouting.

Performance difference - little or none. Be careful that the connectors actually fit on your cable properly, though. 50 ohm cable is typically RG-58, which is smaller in diameter than RG-59 and often has a smaller center conductor. Cable length only makes a difference when over 400-500 feet, assuming you use high-quality copper/copper RG-59 or better. Mini coax and clad RF cable will see performance suffer after 100 feet or less. By the way, nice name. I used to use that handle years ago.

Just as I expected. Just wait until their tech support becomes rude and snobbish, refuses to admit that they speak english, starts expressing a dislike for Americans, then invents a completely different TV system (a la SECAM, which is thought to stand for Something Entirely Contrary to American Methods).

AD Manchester code is another.

I concur. Sennetech is really the only source. Here's the link: http://www.sennetech.net/

Why not just try it and see? As I see it, you can't really hurt anything. The only possible downside would be that it is slightly possible that one's code could confuse the other, but nothing permanent.

Oh, well - better late than never!