Sawbones

Merry Christmas, gentlemen! And here are the pictures I promised... grabbed right off my DVR this cold Christmas morning: This one is a bit washed-out: Here's the "blue shift" I was talking about: Here is a more normal-appearing picture: Watch the camera for about 10 seconds, and all of these color iterations can be witnessed, as it shifts from one to the other.

I use a video-over-cat5 distribution system; it's made by StarTech. I use the four-port model, and it distributes the view from the DVR head-end over UTP to several TVs in the house. I switch the "source" on the TV to the "monitor" input, and I have a tiled view of all the security cameras. Works great... highly recommended

Oh yes. I think anyone who has ever worked in customer service, or any type of job where they interact with the public knows EXACTLY the kind of customer you're talking about. High-maintenence, often manipulative, and never happy with anything you do. Even when you lean forward to do them a favor, or go the extra mile, it's never enough to make them happy. Know the type... know them well.

Fair enough. Give me a few days (Christmas and all...) and I'll try to post some images of the color-shift I'm talking about. You'll be able to see the difference with no prompting.

My 1231 doesn't do it... just the 7411. Aren't they supposed to be the same camera in a different form factor? Maybe I'll try using the 1231's firmware in the 7411. Same firmware I looked, and you're correct. So absent some difference in the programming, it's the camera itself that's doing this? How is that not a defect?

My 1231 doesn't do it... just the 7411. Aren't they supposed to be the same camera in a different form factor? Maybe I'll try using the 1231's firmware in the 7411.

Even with the working firmware, my 7411 has this odd thing it does... it periodically shifts the color balance... from a Smurf-like blue-heavy tint, to a redder hue... to more natural colors... and back again. You can bring it up on the remote client and watch the colors change before your very eyes. Great camera, great resolution... but quirky.

The newest firmware is still not functioning with Luxriot. I just did a rebuild of my DVR, am using the latest version of the software, and attempted to upgrade to the V3.11.13-AC firmware. Kept freezing up, losing picture, then it would come back. Happened over and over. Backed it up to the V3.10.22-AC and it works a treat. The newest Acti firmware for the 7411 megapixel dome is still not ready for prime-time.

Hah... Niiiiiice doggie...

You might have to call tech support. I had to do this with Dedicated Micros, at which point I learned that the images go over port 80... but the PTZ controls go over port 1025 via UDP. In other words, you may have to forward another port.

The CW484S will take either 24V AC, or 12V DC, depending on which type of power source you elect to use. There is a little pigtail on the power wire (there are three leads) that shows you how to wire it. The power wires are brown, blue, and green. For 12V DC, brown is positive (+), and blue is negative (-). Most barrel connectors are center-positive by convention. the 18 gauge 2-conductor is a fine choice, and will carry that DC voltage far better than the thin-sounding stuff you're currently using... and using the old wire to pull the new siamese is a fine idea... just make SURE you've tied/taped them together solidly before you start tugging.

None of that is even close to right. I'm amazed the camera even turns on.

You simply have the polarity reversed. What's the number, irrespective of the positive/negative?

Check your voltage with a multimeter at the end of that long siamese cable. It may be that it's too low to operate the camera.

I will try the new firmware as well. Luxriot likewise had a problem with that buggy firmware version we're discussing, so I rolled it back to the previous firmware.

I don't know why you WOULDN'T want an educated consumer. It's one thing if they're grifters who are trying to chisel you out of your knowledge and not compensate you. On the other hand, if they educated consumers who know what to expect, and understand the capabilities of CCTV (and are realistic about what kind of pictures can be had at a certain price-point), you're more likely to be able to work with them, and get a satisfied customer. Smaller systems are one thing... you're going to have a hard time beating the Sam's Club and Costco system-in-a-box stuff. Higher-end CCTV is a luxury item for most people. At the kind of price-point where good CCTV systems sit, there aren't that many people who can lay out that kind of scratch.. and given that those types of individuals probably run in similar social circles, word-of-mouth can generate referrals that you'd otherwise never see. If Steve the Maxillofacial Surgeon asks Joe the Orthopedic Surgeon where he got his great CCTV system, do you really want him to tell a harrowing tale of the installer that tried to BS him, fix prices with his buddies, and install something that didn't meet his expectations... or would you rather have him hand the Plastic Surgeon your business card with the recommendation that "these guys did a good job, and they'll take care of you?"

You might be buying yourself more trouble than you bargained for... loansharks are not nice people. "Nice building you have there... would be a shame if something were to happen to it."

First two responses nailed it. It's all a matter of bandwidth on the bus.

If you need more pixels, just go megapixel. Why reinvent the analog wheel?

I have a 3000 sq-ft house, and a dozen cameras, including multiple megapixel cameras, PTZ, and covert cameras. You're really thinking small on this one... you're going to want more... trust me. Your budget will cover four high-quality cameras... but that amount won't be enough to cover four cameras AND a good PC-based DVR and software.

I had my first CCTV system (four analog cameras, on an Axis server) professionally installed as part of a larger bid (rewiring my home's coax, running multiple cat5 drops all over the house, doing central home audio, etc). It was a pretty extensive job... and I could have done it all myself, but I was in the process of moving, working full-time, and just didn't have the extra hours in the day to do it. I put out feelers for/to about six different alarm and security companies (that also advertised networking and audio) for bids. A couple of them never returned phone calls, two didn't even bother to show up, and two actually did show up. I went with the lower of the bids, and they did a pretty decent job (he beat the other guy by about 2k). I don't feel like I wasted anybody's time... in fact, a bunch of people wasted MY time, considering I was the guy laying out the big bucks for a multi-thousand-dollar job. To not even show up? That's just rude. For my own part, I deal with people honestly in my profession... and I've have been plenty pissed if somebody gave me bogus model numbers, or colluded with a bunch of their buddies to charge me a higher price. That's called price-fixing; it's illegal under anti-trust laws. You can be sued for triple damages AND attorneys fees.

Put enough megapixel cameras on a single server, and you're going to need multiple NICs, bonded together in software, to provide enough network bandwidth. You're also not going to be able to simply hang a bunch of NICs off a standard PCI bus either... because you'll saturate that too. If you're running a metric ton of megapixel cameras, you're going to need a serious network infrastructure, and real server with real server-grade specs.

Also, it matters how you're testing this. Many ISPs won't allow you to loopback to your home IP address (eg. you're on your LAN at home, and try to connect to your external IP address). You may need to borrow your neighbor's wireless, or try connecting from work to see if the port-forwarding is functioning, otherwise connecting to your own external IP address from inside the LAN may fail.

What I'd do is go into your router, and pick a high, random port number; 45000 or something like that (or pick your month and year of birth if you need something easy to remember... April of 1969 would become port 41969), and forward that port to port 80 at the specific IP address where your camera server resides. What will happen is that you'll open your browser, and enter your IP address, followed by a colon, and that high port number. Your router should then forward that request to port 80 on your video server, and you're in business.

What they're talking about, at least in terms of blocking ports, is blocking INCOMING ports. Residential broadband providers frequently block incoming port 80 requests to prevent home users from running websites off their home cable or DSL connection (a violation of their Terms Of Service). In essence they prevent a remote browser from establishing a connection to any server you'd be running... or in this case, any camera that might be using port 80 for its built-in webserver. There's a three-way handshake that's required to set up a TCP/IP connection to a server. First handshake: the remote client (with the web browser) initiates the connection by sending a SYN-packet to the server... a request to the server to open a connection. Second handshake: the server sends back a SYN-ACK packet to the browser. Third handshake: the browser sends back an ACK packet to the server, and the connection is officially established. The easy solution here is to use a different port, and forward it through your router (you are at least using a router, aren't you?) to the server inside. This way you avoid the port-80 blocking that residential ISPs have in place.