camera/lens design software. What do you use?

[sviviani 0]

Or do you use. I have been looking at Video Cad and CCTV Design Tool among others and the pricing ranges from free to $$$$. I am not opposed to spending the money on the right system but the free versions do not have all the options to test out. What do you use and why? Thanks everyone.

[survtech 0]

We don't use any design software at the casino. We do lay out our cameras in AutoCAD, but that's just for use by our observers to know what cameras are looking at what. As far as camera and lens selection, that is decided by me based on the situation and my experience.

[sviviani 0]

I normally lay out the cameras myself based upon experience, then figure out the lens based on distance and field of view, but some of the design software will let you lay in a floor plan and show what the customer will see, kinda nice when trying to sell a system. Just wanted to know what is out there and the most user friendly before I buy a system that may not be as good as one I don't know or haven't heard of.

[robert 0]

Or do you use. I have been looking at Video Cad and CCTV Design Tool among others and the pricing ranges from free to $$$$. I am not opposed to spending the money on the right system but the free versions do not have all the options to test out. What do you use and why? Thanks everyone.

 

http://cctvcad.com/

[ipman 0]

Hi Sviviani,

 

I would say it is a good practice to use such design software just because you see in advance what you going to get from cameras, so you can show pictures to the customer and explain easily why you need so many cameras.

 

I recommend to try CCTV Design Tool

Edited May 16, 2011 by Guest

[Soundy 1]

I'm with survtech, I generally just select based on experience and having a good general idea what lens will provide what views. Using varifocals helps too, because you can fine-tune to the view you need... and carrying a few extra lenses of different zoom ranges helps too, just in case

 

Really, the minimal amount of fiddling required far outweighs the time you'd spend plugging all the relevant info into any software (room sizes and layouts, in particular).

[ajtbone 0]

Generally the designers will layout cameras when designing a new pit area or slot area. but that is just to get a basic idea. they never consider ceiling hight or designs in the ceiling. So a lot of it depends on experience. also , if you go by prints they leave out a lot of details that you have to deal with and area is completed. The true placement of your cameras happens when the area is completed and the tables are on the floor you can't rely on prints or design software because you never know what obstacles you will run into when actually place them. for the most part the design of it can help you figure out your basics. We have da many subs go by print or design when doing an install for us and we always have cameras that have to be moved or lens swapped. Plus if you work in the gaming side of CCTV there is always someone changing layout because they didn't like it when completed.

[Soundy 1]

ajtbone has pretty much nailed it - I find the same thing all the time in fuel services: site blueprints generally have little more than vague locations for the cameras on a plan view, and a rough indication of what they're supposed to view, but there's usually little accounting for the mounting height. Exact position, more often than not, is dictated by other obstacles - HVAC, lighting fixtures, sprinkler pipes and heads, ceiling layout (particularly with T-bar), ceiling supports, etc. With T-bar grid, the locations of the lights and vents are generally fixed, so we have to work around that.

 

The more recent sites we've been doing have open ceilings in the C-stores, right up to the roof's Q-deck, with everything from about 10-12' and up just spray-painted flat black (yay for new designers at Petro Canada... NOT). That limits most of our placements to perimeter walls and bulkheads.

 

On all these sites, it's spec'd that the electricians provide the conduit for us, which in itself can add a whole other challenge (you want me to run *9* cameras through a single 1" EMT? uh... okay... Cat-5-and-balun time... extra cost to the client for THAT little design brilliance).

 

And yes, we always get people wanting things changed - or worse, added - after everything is completed *to the plans*.

 

Fortunately, fuel services (especially inside the stores) don't require the same level of detail as gaming, so most times we can just spec 2.8-12mm lenses and adjust them when the time comes for the coverage they want... more often than not we end up at the wide end of that scale, just giving broad overviews of the product floor.

[Stanislav 0]

VideoCAD is a good tool only and its efficiency depends on designer. Don't demand too much from it.

 

I know, there are supporters and opponents of using VideoCAD. As a rule opponents are skilled specialists relying on their experience only. They spent a lot of time and money to get the experience during field work and doesn't wish to spend additional time and money for studying new product.

All opponents never tried to use VideoCAD seriously. It is important. May be they didn't meet such tasks.

 

As a rule, specialists-practitioners, who has studied VideoCAD and used it successfully, become supporters. Especially professionals who make very complicated CCTV designs with many cameras. VideoCAD is considerable assistance to them irrespective of their previous experience.

During his life, VideoCAD imbibes experience of these specialists. Many thanks to them.

 

Another supporters are beginners in CCTV design, who have not much time and money for getting experienced through practice work. Who needs good result during short time. And they can get the good professional result. See also an article

 

As to CCTV Design Tool (one from ) , the guys try to copy only basic VideoCAD ideas and features.

But they are little cunning when write 'CCTV Design Tool is way more easy to use than VideoCad'. It is 'more easy to use ' as well as MS Paint is 'more easy to use ' than AutoCAD .