survtech

Three very old adages: 1. You get what you pay for. 2. Caveat Emptor (buyer beware). 3. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is!

You are not going to get much better with an analog camera. Yes, B&W can have slightly better resolution than color, but not substantially better. Again, digital IP Megapixel is the only way to get appreciably better PQ. Good Megapixel cameras typically start at around $700. The 3 Megapixel Arecont AV3100 lists for around $900. Others can exceed $1000.

I'm not sure. It probably depends on the condition of the battery and what else is drawing current. We put a single camera (approx 100-150mA also) in a car and it killed the battery in 2-3 days. Of course, it was a hidden covert camera that was always on.

As far as I know, it is legal if you post a sign saying that audio is being recorded. The following is quoted from Louroe Electronics, a maker of high quality microphone systems: "United States Codes, Title 18, Section 2510 (2) states: Oral communication means any "oral communication" uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation. By definition of the code section, a person cannot have an expectation of privacy, nor can he or she expect that communication will not be intercepted, if there are public signs posted, indicating that the communication is being monitored. The First Amendment of the Constitution provides that any conversation between individuals is private, unless otherwise notified. In simple terms, this means that any overhearing or recording of a conversation is illegal ...unless both parties are aware that it is being done. In order to comply with the law, LOUROE ELECTRONICS provides a disclaimer stating, AUDIO MONITORING ON THE PREMISES. These disclaimers must be affixed, in plain view, to all entrances where the microphones are installed. It is suggested that distributors notify customers, at the time of installation (or sale) of the equipment, that disclaimers must be in plain view at all entrances and exits. In that some state laws may vary, it is further suggested that you consult with your local attorney, and become fully aware of the local laws in this regard. Federal Law References: Federal Regulations, US Code, Title 18. Crime and Criminal Procedure, Sec 2510. "

A unit rated to draw 100mA will not draw more, whether the source is capable of 1A or 1000A. Keep in mind, though, that if you install 7 cameras rated at 100mA plus a quad at 200mA and microphones, you will be drawing approximately 1 ampere-hour (1Ah) of power continuously from the battery. This will discharge a car battery in a relatively short time. Probably shorter than you would think based on the rated draws.

As far as I can tell from the specs, at 530TVL and .0002 Lux, that is about as good as it gets in analog. You will have to go to an megapixel IP camera to get anything that is appreciably better.

Cat-5 would be a stretch at 1200m, even if you run active receivers and transmitters. And there is no way to get low voltage power (12VDC or 24VAC) that far. You will probably have to run the cameras from local power supplies and run at least the video on fiber cable. Even RS-422/485 PTZ control would be at or near its distance limit at 1200m. That would also probably work better with fiber.

No. The capacitance losses are greater with shielded. Also, a lot of STP is not 100 ohms. That impedance is relatively critical for twisted pair to work properly with baluns.

We use the simplest and most secure network of all for our DVR and viewing system - a closed network. We have no connections (other than KVM's) to the casino's domain and only one (firewalled) connection outside of Surveillance for viewstations. As we expand into IP cameras and other remote connections, we intend to keep our system totally independent from any others on the property. This pretty much insures against external attacks. It also prevents data overload on either system.

Pretty soon, there won't be a choice as LCD panel manufacturers concentrate on HD 16:9 for the consumer market.

No, I am in the casino industry, not a vendor to it. I manage Surveillance Technicians at a major casino. I understand what you are saying but you must understand that the casino surveillance business is very close-mouthed. It is difficult, if not impossible to get vendor recommendations, either good or bad, from other casinos. Also, a large percentage of the surveillance tech departments in casinos are not that knowledgeable about IT. Casinos are notorious for not being willing to pay enough to get highly trained technicians. Most are trained on-the-job. IP is not viable for most casino surveillance yet. The costs are too high; the bandwidth requirements are too high; the infrastructure is not there and the incentive is not there. Remember you are talking about thousands of cameras, each sending 2-5Mb/sec. You also need a complete rewiring of the entire casino with Cat-5/6; also requiring distribution points no more than 100m apart in an area not designed to accomodate IDF closets. Primarily because of the nature of both the data and Surveillance itself. We have 250TB of primary storage that would be impossible to back up either on or off-site due to its constantly changing nature. We also have 8TB of RAID61 for long-term evidence storage that could be backed up off-site but once the data leaves the reservation, it can be subpoenad by anyone with an axe to grind. We do back up this data but store the backups locally. Cost, cost, cost! And availability - find me a DVR/NVR manufacturer that builds such equipment. See above. Also, bandwidth. Remember, we are talking about thousands of cameras at say, 2-5Mb/s plus the rest of the data. Nobody manufactures equipment that can handle that efficiently, reliably and especially economically. The casino industry is not "all over these technologies" because they are not yet viable for our purposes: they cost too much, they require too many changes to facilites and they are unproven. Also, where is the ROI? It is difficult enough for most casino surveillance departments to convince higher-ups that it is worth plunking down big bucks on something that does not directly generate income. Casino surveillance is often regarded as a "necessary evil" that gets the minimum investment needed to meet regulatory requirements. In that atmosphere, it is nearly impossible to justify large expenditures.

I am in the casino industry. 1. We don't care much about past customers' network infrastructure since each casino is vastly different and Surveillance rarely, if ever, shares network infrastructure with IT. 2. Casino Surveillance could care less about Qos. 3. Redundancy is good, within limits. Total redundancy is way too expensive when your storage is over 250TB and the total non-redundant system cost is millions. 4. Casino Surveillance could also care less about live disaster recovery sites. Data is rarely, if ever, stored offsite due to sensitivity and its subjection to subpoena when stored off-reservation. 5. What is SANS infastructure? If you mean SAN storage, that depends on the system - we use direct-attached. 6. Virtualization? Of what? The matrix? Too much latency for us. 7. We require at least $1M liability, etc.

It may be under warranty. Check the mfg.

Quite true. MICS requires that malfunctions be repaired within 72 hours. Many casinos may require better than that. Typically, for critical cameras, we fix ours (or provide a temporary workaround) within 24 hours.

Many PTZ's have what is called "zone blanking" where you can program them not to show video when panned/tilted to certain areas. Would that solve your problem? I don't know about the UK, but in the U.S. the streets and sidewalks appear to be fair game. The thinking is that people have no right to expect privacy in a public place. What the police told you seems to be contrary to both that concept and to the fact that many cities in the UK have cameras installed and monitored by the police themselves in the name of crime detection and prevention.

Basically, you would have a megapixel camera in each room that sees the entire room and, with appropriate software, you could zoom in on any area of the room while your recording system still records the whole room. With that type of system you could also zoom in after-the-fact, on playback. There are systems that have very simple file creation and archiving. I'm in the casino field so I'm not familiar with all possibilities in what you want to do but I'm sure there is someone on this board that can help with that.

You'll have a difficult time finding PTZ's with a wide enough field of view lens for 15 feet maximum distance. You might look at megapixel cameras with digital zoom. A huge plus with them is that you can be recording the whole picture even when a user is zooming in. I don't see a problem with computer-based recording, zoom, etc. You will have a far better system. You should be able to find a digital, computer-based system that is simple to use but flexible enough to do what you want. The users don't have to be tech savvy, just the installers.

Any camera will show pixelization if the viewing resolution is increased (blown up) enough. But progressive scan cameras will not show the interlacing jaggies.

Also, if memory serves, PC power supplies sample the +5 volt supply to control the voltage of the rest of the outputs. If there is no load on the +5 volt source, the rest of the supply doesn't work.

The TVL resolution of the camera or the monitor has nothing to do with the "jaggies". They are caused by the time difference between the odd and even lines of an interlaced picture (1/60 second) after de-interlacing. If there is motion during that 1/60 second, either by the object or the camera, you will see jaggies on the image. DVR's that have higher resolution than CIF (320x240) will show jaggies, but will still have better image quality than CIF. Actually, it's not the first number (320) but the second (240) that makes the difference. So 2CIF (640x240) at 30fps will have pretty much as good a picture as possible when fed with analog cameras with motion. Without motion or with digital progressive scan cameras, the sky is the limit. D1 (720x480) or even higher is possible.

It's the nature of digitally recording analog, interlaced cameras. You won't be able to get away from it unless you go to digital, progressive scan on all cameras, too.

A simple resolution to the problem - move!

Seriously, twist-on connectors can be as, or even more, unreliable than 2-piece connectors. Use a good 3-piece BNC or compression fittings. Compression fittings tend to make the strongest connections.

And don't forget to allow for condensation on the inside of the box. Or fill it with nitrogen, etc.

I only wish that was true!