AVCONSULTING 0 Posted February 23, 2004 I don't know about other areas of the world but in the U.S. XP is almost universally used now. Anyone here sophisticated enough to buy a DVR will either have XP or will buy it. There is going to be a whole new set of DVR remote software coming out that won't run on 98 anymore. You should upgrade, it isn't very expensive and having gone from 98 to XP the difference is really much better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted February 23, 2004 could be my system also, like my video card, thoiugh I saw something about operating system not supported. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cctv_down_under 0 Posted February 23, 2004 Only for installing the DVR on not for remote viewing and you can workaround on ME if you really wanted to put the card on an ME machine but who would? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squale 0 Posted February 23, 2004 I don't know about other areas of the world but in the U.S. XP is almost universally used now. Anyone here sophisticated enough to buy a DVR will either have XP or will buy it. There is going to be a whole new set of DVR remote software coming out that won't run on 98 anymore. You should upgrade, it isn't very expensive and having gone from 98 to XP the difference is really much better. Who is coming out with the whole new set of DVR remote software? geovision? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AVCONSULTING 0 Posted February 23, 2004 I'll have to see what comes up at the ISC show. There will be about 100 DVR suppliers at the Las Vegas show next month. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squale 0 Posted February 23, 2004 If I brought the GV-800 4 port card and I ONLY hooked up 1 camera to the card for now, would that 1 camera be caputuring at the full 120 FPS NTSC of the card? Or will the card still only limit the one camera to 30 FPS NTSC since that's what the human eye sees are normal full motion? What would be the advantages/disadvantages of capturing at more than 30 FPS NTSC? And how would this affect remote viewing over the web? Would the file sizes be MUCH larger for viewing over the web IF I was capturing at 120 FPS on 1 camera locally? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squale 0 Posted February 23, 2004 I'll have to see what comes up at the ISC show. There will be about 100 DVR suppliers at the Las Vegas show next month. so are you saying maybe I should wait til next month to see what's out there before buying a Geovision card? cause there might be something better? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squale 0 Posted February 23, 2004 and what do you guys think BETTER quality picture comes out of... a Geovision card or a high end stand alone DVR system? I know different compression methods have different quality video but lets say if you were using MPEG2 or MPEG4 compression on EITHER one. And why would one be better than the other? If I had to guess, I would think the computer using the Geovision card would be a better picture since you have much more processing power, but I am not sure. The reason I ask, is because one DVR resaller was telling me that I shouldn't waste my money on a DVR capture card for a computer because the images will not be as good as as standalone system. So basically by buying a high end good quality camera say at 480 Lines of resolution in color using a Sony SuperHad EXview 1/3" CCD, a standalone DVR would give me a much better picture than the computer would give me using the DVR capture card for the computer. What do you guys thinK? I am sure you have seen both systems and could compare the picture quality between them.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AVCONSULTING 0 Posted February 23, 2004 I think you should just take the plunge, get the GV-250 card and enjoy it. By the time you make up your mind what card to get you'll have the knowledge of a DVR expert, which would be great if this were your profession, but at the same time a hungry pack of bears (do bears run in packs?) will have overrun your neighborhood and made off with anything edible not nailed down. On the serious side though, you will find that 30 fps per camera will eat up your hard drive so fast you probably wouldn't get more than a day or so worth of recorded video. Even 20 fps is so fast that you can't tell the difference between that and 120 fps. I've had years of experience in video recording, both on tape and digital. If you saw 5 fps per camera you would have enough information for almost anything except gambling security and jewelry store security. Try taking anything large in less than 1/5th of a second. There will be tons of DVRs on display at the ISC show, so I'd suggest if you want a really serious look at the latest and greatest in the world of security that you take a mini vacation to Las Vegas and enjoy the show. Here is a link so you can get a free pass. https://www2.compusystems.com/servlet/AttendeeRegLoginServlet?evt_uid=726&vip=CK Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted February 23, 2004 Only for installing the DVR on not for remote viewing and you can workaround on ME if you really wanted to put the card on an ME machine but who would? nah, im sticking to ME, its twice as fast as XP Plus my web server runs on ME, dont like XP version IIS. Id go back to 95 if my hardware would support it, as 95 is still the fastest. (sorry, DOS actually!) No, I wouldnt put it on a ME machine, id use 2000. XP is just a terrible OS, okay for non tech users I guess. 2000 is better though and most business networks use that over XP. I just cant stand XP's features, it tries to do too much for you itself, plus it takes up more CPU and more memory. I havent seen an XP mabcine yet that can match a windows ME machine's speed. I can accept the rare crash once in a blue moon. windows 98, crashes 3 times as much as windows ME, since i upgraded to ME, never touhed 98 again. I have XP on my 2nd partition here, but i havtn used it in a long time, too sloooow an OS. When MS releases its next OS (not 20003 server), XP will more than likely get discontinued, with its 30 odd hot fixes it requires, it just isnt worth it. I just like speed is all MS only came out with Xp because it is easier for regular users and most people dont know how to tweak ME to make it run smooth. They not too soon after releasing XP realised they had another failure of an OS. Sometime soon they will hopefully realse an OS that actually works FAST like 95 did, require less hot fixes, and give less errors, and have the driver support of XP. So far none of their newer OS do this. Ofcourse there is an easy way to tweak XP also, but still doesnt make it as fast as ME is. NT based systems were always slow running the same hardware as win98/ME, but their biggest failure was always windows 98 for upgrading from 95, it just dragged and dragged. I notice though some people dont realize how slow heir computers really are. From windows 98, thats when Defraging bcame a requirment, which in 95 was not needed. My 600Mhz Compact Laptop running ME runs faster and smoother than a new 2.8 Ghz Intel win XP tweaked machine side by side, right here in the same local. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cctv_down_under 0 Posted February 23, 2004 Its true to some extent, if you drive a mini then it will zip around but a big V8 engine wil be faster at the top end and if you load many passengers. I agree DOS is lite but XP working well on a POWERFULL machine will kill ME on any scale and 98 and ME do not support the latest drivers, they do support generic ones but at slower frame rates. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squale 0 Posted February 23, 2004 I just hate hate hate 98 and ME... my machine is overclocked at 3.5 ghz with 1 gig in ram. It's smoking fast with XP... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squale 0 Posted February 23, 2004 and what do you guys think BETTER quality picture comes out of... a Geovision card or a high end stand alone DVR system? I know different compression methods have different quality video but lets say if you were using MPEG2 or MPEG4 compression on EITHER one. And why would one be better than the other? If I had to guess, I would think the computer using the Geovision card would be a better picture since you have much more processing power, but I am not sure. The reason I ask, is because one DVR resaller was telling me that I shouldn't waste my money on a DVR capture card for a computer because the images will not be as good as as standalone system. So basically by buying a high end good quality camera say at 480 Lines of resolution in color using a Sony SuperHad EXview 1/3" CCD, a standalone DVR would give me a much better picture than the computer would give me using the DVR capture card for the computer. What do you guys thinK? I am sure you have seen both systems and could compare the picture quality between them.. Hey you never know, I might be thikning of going intot he security business one day... but do you know the answer to the above questions.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cctv_down_under 0 Posted February 23, 2004 I answered it already Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cctv_down_under 0 Posted February 23, 2004 Poop My post did not go up...... in short the best picture quality is decided by two things RESOLUTION and COMPRESSION. Standalones compress less on average therefore have better picture quality but require many more HDD's therefore are much more expensive... Resolution is limited on PC because of the PCI bus and CPU power however the latest proprietry onboard compression cards do full resolutions, to be honest larger resolutions in Digatal arent really needed and therefore are not as popular because they take up too much space.... In short they are both similar and it depends on the product, most 878 chips will only do 640x480 sized recordings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squale 0 Posted February 23, 2004 yeah I really don't know what this 878 chip terminolgy is.... is there like only 1 chip that is used in ALL DVR capture cards? and what DVR cards on onchip compression? they are probably lots of money huh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squale 0 Posted February 23, 2004 yeah with our cable here, we get the same up and down (actually around 400KB, paying for 512KB basic business account $150 per month), with DSL, its alot less up so we cant use DSL for video here, I tried already and it was so slow. We have to pay $490 a month to get the same speed up as cable has! I'll tell you, that is a pretty good up speed for cable.. I just called my cable provider for internet and they said at most we get: 1250 Kilo-BYTES per second download 125 Kilo-BYTES per second upload But really the fasted download I have ever gotten has been around 700 Kilo-BYTES per second And usually my upload is like 115 Kilo-BYTES per second. So do you think my upload speed is enough to do this live video? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted February 23, 2004 I used DSL here for 0ne month, which had 128 up, and it was very slow video. Rory Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squale 0 Posted February 23, 2004 are you talking 128 Kilo-BYTES or 128 Kilo-BITS per second? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squale 0 Posted February 23, 2004 okay well I am talking Kilo-BYTES not bits, so when I say I get 128 Kilo-BYTES upstream, that is 8 times faster than your 128 Kilo-BITS. Cause there are 8 bits in 1 Byte. see you confused me because you said you got 128KB which is Kilo-BYTES. Usually 128 Kb means Kilo-BITS. Hence the uppercase B = Bytes and the lowercase b = Bits Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted February 23, 2004 okay well I am talking Kilo-BYTES not bits, so when I say I get 128 Kilo-BYTES upstream, that is 8 times faster than your 128 Kilo-BITS. Cause there are 8 bits in 1 Byte. see you confused me because you said you got 128KB which is Kilo-BYTES. Usually 128 Kb means Kilo-BITS. Hence the uppercase B = Bytes and the lowercase b = Bits I dontknow, you lost me! Its whatever the normal terminology is for internet speeds, KB. My ISP sais: 512kbs Rory Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squale 0 Posted February 23, 2004 yeah they are talking Kilo-BITS. if you are talking BITS, then my upstream speed is: 1000 Kilo-BITS per second. You divide that number by 8 to get the Kilo-BYTES. So that gives me 125 Kilo-BYTES.. you see? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted February 23, 2004 ok then you are good to go Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
