jhonovich

We released a free online course for getting started with IP cameras. It consists of 6 videos and 3 quizzes to help security techs get started with connecting and setting up IP cameras http://ipvm.com/report/ip_video_training_course_101 Let me know if there is anything you would like added to it. Thanks.

You are now being sponsored by distributors of the products you are reviewing? At the very bottom of a glowing post: "This review is sponsored by Ray Cortes of Global Surveillance Systems." - a Brickcom distributor

Cool project. I enjoyed reading it. If you are able to adjust the horizontal angle, I think you could get even better performance. There are quite a few LPC cameras available for less than a $1000. Do a google search for 'license plate capture camera'. I believe most are analog but you could connect to an encoder, etc. Also, there are many IP cameras with built in IR illuminators. You will likely get similar results with them simply by forcing into night mode and setting a very short exposure.

Prairetech, Yes, RTSP allows for both live viewing and recording. That's what we did with Exacq and I am sure you can do that with dozens of other VMS systems that support RTSP. As for focus, the design of the lens makes it tricky to focus, especially since your fingers can cover up the imager/video when focusing. It is easy to get it out of focus. However, if you are patient and slowly adjust the focus, you should get a clean, sharp image. Definitely a usability problem but one that can be overcome with technique. We did a video screencast reviewing that point.

We tested the Ubiquiti bullet a few months ago. It performed fairly well, especially relative to its low cost. Daytime almost as good as similar class Axis M series, night-time notably worse Btw, Ubiquiti cameras supports RTSP for 3rd party integration. We did our tests integrated with Exacq.

I think it's very risky to compare the minimum illumination specs of different manufacturers. There is no standardization and vendors typically choose very different basis for their self assigned ratings. We've tested dozens of cameras and compared them to their own specs. While the ratings generally held amongst a line (i.e., if vendor A makes cameras 1 and 2, the ratings indicate relative performance fairly accurately). However, across vendors, the ratings are not useful for comparison.

Axis told me that the P3367 camera is the only one in that series based on Axis's new chipset/technology. Most importantly, the camera is supposed to have excellent low light performance (at least compared to other Axis cameras in the series). For instance, on the series spec sheet (http://www.axis.com/files/datasheet/ds_p33_43521_en_1111_lo.pdf), the 3367 is rated for twice as low minimum illumination as the 3346 (the 3MP model) and the same minimum illumination as the 3343. Comparing to Avigilon 5MP is tough because the products are so fundamentally diametrically positioned - Axis is expensive, h.264, open and filled with bells and whistles - Avigilon is very affordable but closed and JPEG2000 only for this model. We haven't tested the P3367 but have recently finished testing the other new generation models - the Q1602 and Q1604 - and both were surprisingly impressive in low light.

NLSS has a multi-channel HD decoder that might fit your needs. It's about twice the price of an Axis P7701 but it displays a full matrix of up to 16 cameras (I believe in the latest firmware) including HD cameras (which is rare for decoders). http://www.nlss.com/productsdecoder.html We tested an earlier version in March 2011. It worked OK but at that time it only displayed up to 4 channels. Also it requires/uses a clunky remote control which is fine if you don't need to change the display often but is a pain if operators will be changing views regularly.

Anyone who designs, installs or integrates surveillance systems.

We are doing a survey of security integrators. Each integrator who participates will be paid $30 USD via PayPal. I'd like to get integrators who frequent CCTVForum to participate. What I am trying to figure out if this can be posted on the site in a regular forum? We would include a link for CCTVForum members to register. Is this allowed? Would like me to advertise in exchange? Let me know.

I think the point being made about using the web browser is for configuration rather than monitoring.

Why does one have to take a class to connect an IP camera to a VMS software? Don't you think cameras should connect immediately and reliably to VMSes that support for said cameras?

For firmware go to: http://arecontvision.com/fw-oct.html We had to call support recently because firmware updates are hidden on the main website. There is also another hidden firmware page we found via google - http://www.arecontvision.com/beta/firmwares.php

Getting facial recognition to work reliably in the field is hard, especially if you are trying to set up alerts on people. Typically you are looking at 5 foot wide FoV for SD/analog or up to 10 foot wide for megapixel. These are much narrower FoVs than one normally uses in surveillance. You also need to be concerned about sunlight and shadows. For instance, if there is a window behind the subject or a door is being opened to the outside, this can cause major problems. Details of the face may be sufficient for a human to guess a known person but not enough for a computer. Moreover, angles are an issue. The subject needs to be positioning fairly directly in front of the camera. This means no 12, 13 or 14 foot high cameras (common in the real world) unless you are using a 50mm lens and trying to capture someone 50 feet away (uncommon). You also hit issues with scale. The busier the facility being surveilled, the higher the likelihood of false alerts. Face recognition is very impressive on a single camera controlled demo but has lots of operational issues and restrictions when someone tries to roll it out on the field.

It's supposed to be less expensive and reduce hard drive failures as the drives are cold or powered down when not video is not being written to them. Be careful about: - 3rd party integration. Typically this requires custom development and cannot just work out of the box with any VMS - Time delay to recall video from a drive that is cold. This can be a usability issue for investigators.

Main systems choke on exporting more than a few minutes or hours. You might want to upgrade to the next level (Essential) for $99 or a few hundred this will let you keep the video indefinitely and resolve the issue. I suspect you can find a hack to reload the native files but it might take more time and effort then it's worth.

Daniel, there is a training video on how to export video using Go. See: http://www.milestonesys.com/news/videos/viewVideo?Title=How_to_export_video_from_XProtect_Go&id=4821 Also, there is a dedicated forum for Go users to ask Milestone support questions - http://forum.milestonesys.com/Page/ViewCategory.aspx To the best of my knowledge, Go does not allow for phone support. I am not sure how you got .PIC files because if you exported as shown in the training video, it should default to AVI I assume the video has already been overwritten because of the 5 day limit?

To the my best of my knowledge, Pelco has never claimed that their IP cameras support ONVIF. For instance, they are not listed in the ONVIF official support list - http://www.onvif.org/ConformantProducts/ProductList.aspx

That image is taken from an IP Video Market Shootout on WDR MP cameras. I agree that WDR is needed here and that performance of WDR cameras can vary greatly. That noted, at a 60 feet width FoV, this is going to be hard to get a lot of details, even with a multi-megapixel camera. Consider tightening the field of view if logistically possible.

Quantum, the M12 is not on the list / URL I provided: http://ipvideomarket.info/camera-finder/results?search%5Bfps%5D=5&search%5Bmax_online_price%5D=1000&search%5Bresolutions%5D%5B%5D=5&search%5Bresolutions%5D%5B%5D=6 For Mobotix, only the 24 series matched the specs requested. As for frame rate, we list the fps specified by the manufacturer at the camera's highest resolution. For those looking for low cost multi-megapixel cameras, there are many other options displayed on the list.

Our camera finder shows 32 matches for the following criteria: 3MP or higher resolution, 5fps+ and less than $1,000 online price See: http://ipvideomarket.info/camera-finder/results?search%5Bfps%5D=5&search%5Bmax_online_price%5D=1000&search%5Bresolutions%5D%5B%5D=5&search%5Bresolutions%5D%5B%5D=6 Manufacturers include: Arecont, IQ, Mobotix, Panasonic, Pelco, Sony and Stardot A few are as low as $500 or $600

Searching through the archive, the most common cited selection is CNB. I've also seen a few recommendations for Panasonic WV-CP484. What other cameras would you short list? No IR, just pure low light performance for analog CCTV cameras with no exposure tricks (e.g., SENS UP).

Thanks, Tailbone. Do you have any experience with the Bosch box equivalent - LTC0498 - http://www.boschsecurity.us/en-us/ProductInformation/Cameras/LTC0498/ I checked the specs for the dome and box, Bosch lists the box at slightly superior low light rating Additionally, I see there is a 1/2" Bosch box camera LTC630 - http://www.boschsecurity.us/en-us/ProductInformation/Cameras/LTC0630/ which has even a lower listed low light rating

Matt, It takes time to publish the results in a presentable fashion, especially if they are doing more detailed tests and aim to present it in an objective manner. Also, they will need to decide if they want to spend time answering questions and providing feedback on their test results. All of this takes time, often a significant amount.

Matt, There is a big difference in time and cost between grabbing a few screenshots and doing a full test. Secondly, my point is that publishing tests on an ongoing basis is difficult to justify financially with ads. Let them start a site and see what happens.