survtech

I wouldn't necessarily make that assumption. It really depends on the design of the camera's power supply. In fact, many "24VAC" power supplies actually put out around 30VAC under relatively light loads. If the camera has a rectifier bridge, like so called universal-power cameras (the ones that can accept 12VDC at either polarity) the DC output of the bridge at 30VAC would be 42 volts (1.4*VAC). That voltage might exceed the rating of the camera's internal voltage regulator, though well-designed cameras should be able to handle it. However, unless the camera has a really sophisticated voltage regulator circuit, the excess voltage would be dissipated as heat - not good for component longevity.

Most elevator manufacturers, ie. Otis, Schindler, etc. offer many options for other cables to be incorporated into the traveler cable during construction. It's up to the purchaser to decide whether they want to pay extra for those options or not. Many buyers opt to just get the minimum recommended cable.

1 wire for video+ and 1 wire for video - So you have a spare pair, then? Are the pairs CAT-anything or just 18 gauge wire? That's typically what wire type elevators have and it is not well-suited for video. You might try using different combinations of the four wires, ie. red=(+) and black=(-) or yellow=(+) and black=(-). You could also try grounding the unused pair at one end: typically in the equipment room.

To the OP: are you using two pairs to transport the video or one pair for video and one pair for power?

Wireless in elevator shafts is subject to standing waves as the car travels up or down, which will cause massive headaches.

I assume you mean when testing a standard definition analog camera. All bets are off with 960H, 1200H, IP, AHD, HD-SDI, HDCVI or HD-TVI cameras. While some types may work on a regular TV (assuming it's not one of the newer models that have eliminated composite inputs), most of the ones I just named require encoders and a computer to display.

Brian, I have to wonder why C/CS? I think your company would be better served looking at alternatives, specifically scientific machine vision or ENG lenses. For example, Canon and others make power zoom lenses for ENG that have macro capability down to a MOD of 0.4" (see Canon KT14x44KRS 1/3" HDgc Lens for an example). "The lens features 14x zoom range of 4.4 to 62mm and maintains a constant f-stop of 1.6 throughout the range. It also covers both 16:9 and 4:3 aspect ratios, so you can use it on cameras that shoot in either aspect ratio. The lens features manual or servo control of both zoom and iris functions and macro feature for extreme close up work."

I assume you're pointing at NIGC's definition of "Sufficient Clarity". Keep in mind that regulation was specifically aimed at the use of multiplexers - devices that were basically obsolete many years ago. NIGC MICS Sufficient Clarity Definition: "use of monitoring and recording at a minimum of twenty (20) frames per second. Multiplexer tape recordings are insufficient to satisfy the requirement of sufficient clarity." Of note, the NIGC goes on to use that same term in totally unrelated ways, such as: Card Games: dedicated camera(s) with sufficient clarity must be used to provide: (A) An overview of the activities on each card table surface, including card faces and cash and/or cash equivalents; (B) An overview of card game activities, including patrons and dealers; and © An unobstructed view of all posted progressive pool amounts. Cage and vault: The surveillance system must monitor and record a general overview of activities occurring in each cage and vault area with sufficient clarity to identify individuals within the cage and patrons and staff members at the counter areas and to confirm the amount of each cash transaction. Etc., etc. I once expressed my thoughts on the vagueness of that specific area of the NIGC MICS to the Chairman of the NIGC. My boss was not amused... By the way, MICS is "Minimum Internal Control Standards". "Minimum" is just what it says. In our case, we have decided that every camera must supply both Live and Recorded video at 30fps without exception.

10M shouldn't have that much effect on voltage drop. Sounds more like bad connector(s) or cables. Or very possibly it's eBay - not necessarily known for the high quality of products sold there...

That's a cold attitude!

1-in-4-out Video Distribution Amplifier - $40

Check out GE / Interlogix KTD-83 series. A lot cheaper than the Pelco CDU-T's. I've used them for years and never had one fail. And unless you really need bidirectional communications (like having the PTZ send alarms back to the controller), RS422 works exactly the same as RS485.

If you're handy, you can replace the broken parts, including the camera. Check Time Lapse Supply / TLS Electronics for parts http://www.timelapsesupply.com.

If you really want 180 degree coverage, I would suggest two 90 degree cameras. And at that distance, I would use at least 2 megapixel cameras, though 3MP would be better. 90 degree field of view will not have much fisheye distortion and you wouldn't need to dewarp the images.

I don't think so. First of all, there is no such thing as an "old 480tvl cmos camera". Old cameras were CCD, unless you want to go way back to the days of vidicon and newvicon tube sensors. Second of all, TDN has no effect on a camera's resolution. Third of all, I defy anyone to demonstrate any resolution increase between good quality 480TVL, 500TVL, 540TVL, 600TVL, 700TVL or 960H cameras when fed into a 4CIF/4SIF/D1 DVR or encoder. The limiting factor is the DVR/encoder, not the camera. Even fed directly into an analog monitor, the differences are subtle, at best. An example: we tested 470/480TVL, 540TVL and 600+TVL cameras on casino gaming tables. The vast majority of the cameras were only able to display the suits of around 70% of non-face cards and almost no face cards. The best analog camera we ever tested was the inMotion in11S3N2D and its successor, the in11S4N2D, which allowed us to identify around 90% of non-face cards and maybe 50-60% of face cards suits. 960H is not an option. No one makes a 960H encoder compatible with our VMS.

Sorry, but TVL specs, as most manufacturers state today, are BS. TVL are supposed to be measured by counting the number of alternating vertical black and white lines that can be discerned in a square section of a monitor whose width is equal to the total screen height. The purpose of using less than full monitor width is to eliminate variances caused by different aspect ratios. NTSC's maximum TVL capability is actually around 520-540TVL using that measurement method. PAL is similar but allows a bit better horizontal resolution. At some point, some manufacturers decided to ignore the rules for TVL measurement and started counting lines across the entire screen width. So 540TVL became 720 (rounded off to 700) TVL (540/3*4=720). Eventually most manufacturers followed suit so now we have 600+TVL cameras (basically 450TVL),700TVL cameras (basically 525TVL), etc. Then comes 960H. It is incompatible with standard definition encoders and DVRs and requires both 960H cameras and 960H encoders or DVRs to provide any resolution increase. But then again, so do 600TVL and 700TVL cameras because standard definition devices are limited by their own resolution, no matter what resolution you feed them. So to answer your question, you will not likely see any improvement with 600TVL, 700TVL or even 960H cameras when fed into a 4CIF/4SIF/D1 encoder or DVR.

Channel Plus makes frequency-agile RF Modulators and TV Distribution systems. http://www.linearcorp.com/audio_video_data_solutions.php. Their products are available through a number of distributors, including MCM Electronics http://www.mcmelectronics.com/ and Parts Plus http://www.partsplus.com/.

Hardly likely. If the pixels aren't there, they aren't there. CSI is a fictional show as are all of the media images of digital enhancement bringing out missing details. Under very limited circumstances, like when some detail is lost due to light conditions, images can be enhanced but if the plate numbers are too small for the camera to resolve, no one can fix the images.

Absolutely not! First, like varascope says, 960H requires both compatible cameras and DVRs. Just changing out the DVR will not make the cameras 960H. Then, 960H is not all it's cracked up to be. The only difference between 960H and standard definition is the aspect ratio - 16:9 versus 4:3. Essentially, that means the picture is wider but has no better resolution within a given horizontal area. A 4:3 image is about 3/4 (75%) of the width of a wide screen 16:9 image. 960*.75=720 so a 960H camera gives equivalent horizontal resolution to a 720TVL standard camera. Actually, even 720TVL is a misstatement, since TV Lines are supposed to be measured in a square area of a screen where the width equals the total screen height (3:3 instead of 4:3 or 9:9 instead of 16:9) so 960H and 600+TVL are actually a farce. If you measure the square area as required, you would find the resolution, even if the 960 spec isn't "inflated", would be 960/16*9=540TVL, which interestingly is about the maximum horizontal resolution the NTSC system is capable of providing. Of further interest, 720/4*3 also equals 540.

AD is noted for being "cagey". Their claim that they support "RS-422" protocol is like a TV manufacturer saying their TV supports RG59 signals. There is no such thing as RS-422 protocol - it is a signal transmission spec, not a control protocol spec. And, of course, the Pelco HVR doesn't support AD control protocols. If you really want to keep both pieces of equipment, you could try contacting Sennetech http://www.sennetech.net. They make protocol translators (code convertors) and are also a wealth of information on the subject.

Forget using a Blackberry. Too slow and too limited in the types of media it supports. It's possible that some of the latest tablets that use the 2.2GHz quad-core Snapdragon 800 processor may have the horsepower to handle megapixel streams with relatively low latency but my tests of lower-powered tablets gave disappointing results. Typical latencies were on the order of a second or more, if the tablet was even able to display the camera at all. Laptops, ultrabooks and the like have a distinct advantage here but they can be a pain to handle when you're standing on a ladder trying to aim, zoom and focus a camera. And while power zoom and focus is a boon to installing IP cameras, you still have to be able to control those functions at the camera - something I found isn't always possible with many tablets. Forget the Axis T8414, Razberi IT-5000, Pelco IPCT01 and the like. They are all the same product with firmware differences. The Razberi IT-5000 supports the most cameras but even then, support is limited. It is also abominably slow, has a small screen and doesn't support power zoom and focus, crippling it for most uses. An Axis rep confirmed that their tool was made by the same manufacturer as the Razberi but that Razberi controlled what cameras other versions supported so the Axis T8414 only supports Axis cameras. Likely Pelco and others suffer the same limitations.

Good luck! Although I can't read the model numbers on all of the devices, it appears you have a CM-9760 matrix system, including a matrix bay, some keyboards, MDAs (16-channel video distribution amps with time/date/title), CDU-T's (PTZ control code distribution units), etc. We tried to sell much of that stuff ourselves over the years and found there's no interest since it's all analog.

You can use a Veracity PinPoint adapter, which acts like a splitter, at the camera. That will provide POE to the camera while sending the stream to your monitor. It's easier to use a reasonably fast laptop so that your adjustments become closer to real time but many tablets will also work. There are LAN-to-USB adapters so you can attach to a USB port.

OMG! Those are Zeta Wave Emitters. The only thing that will stop Zeta Waves is tin foil. (Don't want to be accused of partisanship....)

It's all about production economics of scale. Smart phones are consumer products which are manufactured in quantities reaching millions while security cameras are typically manufactured in the hundreds to maybe thousands. The more you build, the cheaper each unit becomes. On top of that, there is little comparison in terms of the capabilities of smart phones versus security cameras. Smart phone cameras have cheap fixed lenses and comparatively poor low light capabilities and don't have to have the camera portion compatible with other phones.