100m Video Sender

[updw 0]

Hi everyone,

 

I had a bit of a noob question.

 

I'm operating a wired CCTV system but as this needs to be moved on a very regular basis I was looking into wireless senders.

 

Myself and a colleague tried a 100m sender in his home and it would not travel 5m from one floor to the next.

 

I know that 100m is the 'unobstructed' range, but not reaching 5m seems quite strange to me.

 

Does this sound likely, or is it likely there is some other problem?

 

Thanks in advance,

Dave

[Soundy 1]

Depends on the construction of the floor... if you're in a concrete building, the floors are probably going to be all concrete and steel, which are very effective at killing most kinds of radio signal.

[updw 0]

Depends on the construction of the floor... if you're in a concrete building, the floors are probably going to be all concrete and steel, which are very effective at killing most kinds of radio signal.

 

Hi Soundy,

 

It's a stone cottage, pretty much just floor boards!

 

Is there no chance for getting a video sender that will make it through a few stone walls?

 

Thanks,

Dave

[scorpion 0]

What is the wattage of the sender, and what frequency is it on?

 

I will have to convert 100 m to feet. I think it comes to 328 feet.

 

This device is only good up to 150 feet in normal circumstances.

 

I am willing to bet this is a 100 milliwatt transmitter. This is about the same as child's walkie talkie.

 

You will need more wattage. You will probably need 1000 milliwatts get the signal through.

 

Are you on 2.4 Ghz, or 5.8 Ghz?

 

Remember these devices are only line of site! In other words the antennas HAVE to see each other. If they do not see each other than you have get them closer together to keep the same energy level up.

 

Is it possible that you can move the receiver closer in the same room to pick up the signal, and then run the "video out" back to the recording device?

 

Do you have a cordless phone that is on the same freq as the wireless camera system?

 

Wireless routers in the USA are on 2.4Ghz which is the same as some cordless phones, which is the same as the 2.4Ghz wireless cameras!

 

You also have to worry about your neighbors equipment too!

 

Do not forget that some baby monitors transmit on 2.4Ghz also!.

 

_____________________________________________________________

 

 

L BAND (1240MHz - 1300MHz) 950MHz CAMERAS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_band

 

S BAND (2 - 4 GHz) 2.4GHz CAMERAS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_band

 

C BAND (4 - 8 GHz) 5.8GHz CAMERAS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_band

 

 

Ch1 = 2.413 GHz, Ch2 = 2.432 GHz, CH3 = 2.451 GHz, CH4 = 2.470 GHz

 

 

Wi Spy 2.4 ANALYZER! (This is a great tool).

http://www.metageek.net/products/wi-spy_24x

 

Chanalyzer 3.0 for Wi-Spy 2.4x (This is the software for above).

http://www.metageek.net/products/chanalyzer-3

 

More info here:

http://scorpiontheater.com/wireless.aspx

Edited December 16, 2008 by Guest

[Soundy 1]

Your other option, if you don't mind the expense, is to go with WiFi network cameras and an 802.11n router... I get good strong signals even on an older 11b adapter three floors and half the house away from my DIR-655 11n router.

[updw 0]

What is the wattage of the sender, and what frequency is it on?

 

I will have to convert 100 m to feet. I think it comes to 328 feet.

 

This device is only good up to 150 feet in normal circumstances.

 

I am willing to bet this is a 100 milliwatt transmitter. This is about the same as child's walkie talkie.

 

You will need more wattage. You will probably need 1000 milliwatts get the signal through.

 

Are you on 2.4 Ghz, or 5.8 Ghz?

 

It is 2.4G. Same problem in the UK with interference from most other items.

 

I've had a look round at specs and mW is conspicuous by its absense!

 

Remember these devices are only line of site! In other words the antennas HAVE to see each other. If they do not see each other than you have get them closer together to keep the same energy level up.

 

Is it possible that you can move the receiver closer in the same room to pick up the signal, and then run the "video out" back to the recording device?

 

I see. Yes we're dealing with collections of small rooms, so it'll have to make it through several walls. So a video sender is just not an option then?

 

Thanks for your help,

Dave

[updw 0]

Your other option, if you don't mind the expense, is to go with WiFi network cameras and an 802.11n router... I get good strong signals even on an older 11b adapter three floors and half the house away from my DIR-655 11n router.

 

Sounds like the kind of area that would work!

 

If one has cameras already what would need to be bought to make them work with this system? Apart from a 802.11n router of course?

 

Thanks for your help,

Dave

[Soundy 1]

That's where it gets tricky... unless you can find an all-in-one unit (I'm sure they exist, but I haven't seen one), you'd need a video-to-IP converter, and a wifi adapter to connect to it... and make sure they'll work together.

[updw 0]

That's where it gets tricky... unless you can find an all-in-one unit (I'm sure they exist, but I haven't seen one), you'd need a video-to-IP converter, and a wifi adapter to connect to it... and make sure they'll work together.

 

Thanks Soundy.

 

I've managed to find the said routers and wifi adaptors quite easily, but I'm not turning anything up when it comes to video-to-IP converters. Do they go by different names at all?

 

Thanks again,

Dave

[survtech 0]

What you want is called a "video server" and several companies make them. The most well-known are Bosch, Axis and ACTi. The ACTi's will be the least expensive of the three, but still pretty pricey at $250 and up per input.

 

You could also use IP cameras and do away with the video servers.

[Soundy 1]

Yeah, "video server" is the key... ideally one with WiFi built-in. Problem is, most of those readily-available WiFi adapters you're finding are going be USB connected... the video servers have ethernet ports. You'd need something that's designed to plug into an existing ethernet port to make it wireless.

 

In the end, you may well find it cheaper to just go with new cameras. Certainly would be a lot less complex.

[updw 0]

Thanks for your thoughts, guys. It's looking a bit rich for my budget!

 

Just on an aside: I take it that just using a video sender that has a greater range (of say 1km) would be no good, on the basis that unless its in line of sight it's no good?

 

Thanks,

Dave

[scorpion 0]

You may be transmitting too "loud". You actually may cause interference for other people devices. You need to have a professional install something of that caliper.

 

I would hate to see two pickup up trucks full of ham radio operators who are more than willing to do some "shotgun" antenna "recalibration"!!

 

Yikes!

[survtech 0]

You might want to look at 900MHz systems. Their lower frequency will do better through walls, etc. They are also subject to interference but since modern equipment tends to be either 2.4GHz or 5.8GHz, you may find that they have less problems.

 

Just a thought.

[Soundy 1]

You might want to look at 900MHz systems. Their lower frequency will do better through walls, etc. They are also subject to interference but since modern equipment tends to be either 2.4GHz or 5.8GHz, you may find that they have less problems.

 

Just a thought.

 

That's a good point.

 

I've seen 2.4GHz cordless phones and wireless mice/keyboards cause all sorts of problems with WiFi (which is also in the 2.4GHz band). Interference can be a real *** sometimes. A lot of newer phones are now 5.8Ghz. Getting out of both those bands may help a lot.