Is wireless bad?

[wax 0]

I was thinking about doing a wireless DVR setup so I didn't have to run cables around. Are there any downsides to wireless?

[cglaeser 0]

Are there any downsides to wireless?

 

Wireless is not as reliable as a wired LAN. Sometimes connections are dropped for no apparent reason. Even more problematic, the system may work today but stop working next week because you or your neighbors added more electronic equipment that operate in the same band.

 

Best,

Christopher

[FranciscoNET 0]

two years ago I have my first and LAST dealings with wireless setup. I did a wireless setup to one of my friends after he said that he didn't wanted to rout wires because his walls were based on some materials that looked like marbles, so I manufactured him a 4CH DVR with a 2,400MHz wireless receiver (the only frequency that we are legally able to operate wireless cameras in NYC as of the date I did the install). I hooked up 4 wireless cameras, the images were looking fine, then later on it will get distorted in random basis (as if you were seeing a poor UHF TV picture off an antenna), no matter how I adjusted the receiving antenna, I would only improve the reception, but never perfectionize it.

 

Result: Out of 4 cameras, two of them remained wireless, but the other two of them (most problematic ones) were converted to wired.

 

Now I have started to see stores like BJ's sell wireless cameras that operates on the 900MHz band (I guess that 900MHz is now also legal to use as these stores around NYC is selling them, I havent check the legality of that frequency yet), but I haven't check them out, I fear that I might get the same distortionized results, even though 900MHz suppose to be better than using the highly 2,400MHz one (the higher, the more distortion prone it will be)

 

But for now, it is much easier, and much head ache free to just tell my customer that I dont recommend wireless setups.

 

Of course there will always be exceptions, such as when a mother needs to monitor her nanny for suspicious behavior. Its not the same to have just ONE wireless camera, than to have many of them.

 

If for any reason you decide to go Wireless, make sure to pick a CCD based camera, even if you go WIRED you still should pick CCD cameras because they deliver the best picture quality. The cheapo CMOS cameras will do a horrible job at lower light conditions. Even in a room with a 40watt light bulb CMOS cameras will deliver crappy images with reddish moving background distortions.

[shoreviewsecurity 0]

I have also attempted wireless with extremely poor results. As mentioned, will work today but may not tomorrow. I have turned down jobs where the customer has insisted on wireless. It's just not worth the headache. I can guarantee performance via a cabled system but with wireless, just way too many variables.

[VodeAn 0]

Good wireless equipment costs a premium.

[scorpion 0]

You still have to run wire for power!

 

 

Wireless is a tool, not the end all solution to everything.

 

Here is what you have. Transmitters put out heat. How much heat can you shove into the camera housing before you burn out the ccd chip?

 

Based on this you are stuck with 100 milliwatts, or less. This is the same as your child's walkee talkee. They work great outdoors, but not one inside, and one outside. Why is that?

 

Wireless cameras are line of sight devices. In other words the antennas have to see each other.

 

If you put the camera in one room, and the receiver in another room then you have violated the "terms of agreement". Read the package. It says 300 feet line of sight. That is an outdoor rating.

 

Read the package, and cut that distance in half. Here is why. Draw a horizontal line. Now draw a verticle line. The horizontal line is distance, and the vertical line is power strength. At a short distance you have a lot of power. At the farthest distace the line should go from max to 0 at 300 feet. At 290 feet you have a thin margin of power. It is still reaching 300 feet, but it is just like a flashlight. It throws a distance, but if someone stands there you will not have enough light to make out details. What do you do? You walk closer, and now you have the person in good lighting. If you walk even closer now they are really lit up. Treat your wireless just like this.

 

For "real" wireless setups you use over 1 watts of transmitting power. This requires an FCC license just like a radio station, or a ham operator.

 

2.4Ghz is a license free frequency, and anyone can use it. Your wireless internet uses this freq. Your cordless phone usess this freq, and baby monitors use this freq.

 

That is a lot of interference for your low wattage camera to deal with.

 

Here are some tricks Put the camera right where you need it. Put the receiver near the camera so that you get a rock solid signal, and run wiring from the video out back to the recording device.

 

If your radio station can send a signal over 50 miles, then so can you. You just need to stop using a 100 milliwatt transmitter.

 

Wireless cameras are the first thing that comes to a consumer's mind. I do not know why. I have to tell them that it is not wireless, and that the video is wireless. You still have to run a wire to the camera to power it, or you have to change a 9 volt battery everyday!

 

Oh! I didn't know that!

 

Wireless cameras are great for detached garages, and you have a driveway, or a tennis court, or a swimming pool in the way where you cannot trench for wiring. The garage has power, and you can power the camera from there, but you can send video back to the house to be recorded. With the right placement of the receiver it will work perfect. If you put the receiver in the back room, and try to penetrate four walls then of course it will never work.

 

If you install wireless cameras alot then use this:

 

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

 

http://www.metageek.net/products/chan-lite

 

http://www.metageek.net/products/wi-spy-dbx

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=wi+spy&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&rlz=1I7GGLL_en

 

 

This will work for IP cameras, and analog cameras. You can find microwave ovens that might be interfering.

 

You can change the channel on the router so that it does not interfer with the cameras, and you can take the cordless phone out, and upgrade to a 5.8Ghz phone.

 

Now you just have to make sure your neighbors do not have anything that interferes with your camera.

 

You can make these cameras work, but you have to put a lot of thought in to it.

 

You can alway use a regular camera, and use an external transmitter.

 

If you are doing a boat dock back to a house then you have to use an external transmitter, and you have to use poles to get it above tree top level, and you need to have a directional antenna.

 

http://www.streakwave.com/

 

http://www.streakwave.com/Product-Ubiquiti.asp

 

Oh! A warning. If you have a master bathroom with wrap around mirrors, then it will block the signal because of the silver watch you macall it on the back side of the glass.

 

What do you think?

[kcctv 0]

I was thinking about doing a wireless DVR setup so I didn't have to run cables around. Are there any downsides to wireless?

 

Wireless has been nothing but hassles for me. I've converted over to all wired cameras.

[Soundy 1]

Good wireless equipment costs a premium.

 

That's your key right there.

 

Is wireless bad? No, not in and of itself. There are some very good high-end systems using wireless.

 

There are lots of "wireless sucks" replies here, and I'd lay money that every one of them is using low-end consumer-grade equipment. And as with all consumer-grade wireless equipment (phones, WiFi, mice and keyboards, etc.), it can be adversely affected by other consumer grade equipment - it's common for 2.4GHz cordless phones to cause WiFi connections to drop, for example.

 

As Scorpion says, wireless is just another tool, one with specific uses, and one that you'll pay a lot for if you want to do it *right*. You can use a hatchback to haul a ton of gravel, too, but don't expect it to make that trip more than once... the proper tool for that job is a lot bigger and beefier and more expensive, but it will do the job reliably for a long time.

[WRS_Mark 0]

Good wireless equipment costs a premium.

 

Is wireless bad? No, not in and of itself. There are some very good high-end systems using wireless.

 

Exactly. I have a local customer with a 6 year old Trango transmitter/receiver setup and the only work it has required thus far is some contact cleaning and replacement of the power cable to the receiver which is mounted on an 65ft high tower. Transmission distance is about .5 miles and the things works flawlessly. I never performed the installation but the company that did the job did it right.

[thewireguys 3]

Quailty wireless equipment does not have to be expensive.

 

Look at http://ubnt.com/

 

You can get outdoor 802.1N AP with a 40KM range for well under $100 and yes they work very well.

 

You have to understand the limitations of wireless setups and YOU MUST TO SITE SURVEYS

Edited September 16, 2009 by Guest

[thewireguys 3]

You still have to run wire for power!

 

 

Wireless is a tool, not the end all solution to everything.

 

Here is what you have. Transmitters put out heat. How much heat can you shove into the camera housing before you burn out the ccd chip?

 

Based on this you are stuck with 100 milliwatts, or less. This is the same as your child's walkee talkee. They work great outdoors, but not one inside, and one outside. Why is that?

 

Wireless cameras are line of sight devices. In other words the antennas have to see each other.

 

If you put the camera in one room, and the receiver in another room then you have violated the "terms of agreement". Read the package. It says 300 feet line of sight. That is an outdoor rating.

 

Read the package, and cut that distance in half. Here is why. Draw a horizontal line. Now draw a verticle line. The horizontal line is distance, and the vertical line is power strength. At a short distance you have a lot of power. At the farthest distace the line should go from max to 0 at 300 feet. At 290 feet you have a thin margin of power. It is still reaching 300 feet, but it is just like a flashlight. It throws a distance, but if someone stands there you will not have enough light to make out details. What do you do? You walk closer, and now you have the person in good lighting. If you walk even closer now they are really lit up. Treat your wireless just like this.

 

For "real" wireless setups you use over 1 watts of transmitting power. This requires an FCC license just like a radio station, or a ham operator.

 

2.4Ghz is a license free frequency, and anyone can use it. Your wireless internet uses this freq. Your cordless phone usess this freq, and baby monitors use this freq.

 

That is a lot of interference for your low wattage camera to deal with.

 

Here are some tricks Put the camera right where you need it. Put the receiver near the camera so that you get a rock solid signal, and run wiring from the video out back to the recording device.

 

If your radio station can send a signal over 50 miles, then so can you. You just need to stop using a 100 milliwatt transmitter.

 

Wireless cameras are the first thing that comes to a consumer's mind. I do not know why. I have to tell them that it is not wireless, and that the video is wireless. You still have to run a wire to the camera to power it, or you have to change a 9 volt battery everyday!

 

Oh! I didn't know that!

 

Wireless cameras are great for detached garages, and you have a driveway, or a tennis court, or a swimming pool in the way where you cannot trench for wiring. The garage has power, and you can power the camera from there, but you can send video back to the house to be recorded. With the right placement of the receiver it will work perfect. If you put the receiver in the back room, and try to penetrate four walls then of course it will never work.

 

If you install wireless cameras alot then use this:

 

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

 

http://www.metageek.net/products/chan-lite

 

http://www.metageek.net/products/wi-spy-dbx

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=wi+spy&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&rlz=1I7GGLL_en

 

 

This will work for IP cameras, and analog cameras. You can find microwave ovens that might be interfering.

 

You can change the channel on the router so that it does not interfer with the cameras, and you can take the cordless phone out, and upgrade to a 5.8Ghz phone.

 

Now you just have to make sure your neighbors do not have anything that interferes with your camera.

 

You can make these cameras work, but you have to put a lot of thought in to it.

 

You can alway use a regular camera, and use an external transmitter.

 

If you are doing a boat dock back to a house then you have to use an external transmitter, and you have to use poles to get it above tree top level, and you need to have a directional antenna.

 

http://www.streakwave.com/

 

http://www.streakwave.com/Product-Ubiquiti.asp

 

Oh! A warning. If you have a master bathroom with wrap around mirrors, then it will block the signal because of the silver watch you macall it on the back side of the glass.

 

What do you think?

 

perfect!!!! wireless works when done right

[hardwired 0]

I was thinking about doing a wireless DVR setup so I didn't have to run cables around. Are there any downsides to wireless?

 

Wireless is BAD if you look at it as a cheap and lazy substitute for running a little bit of cabling, expecting to be able to throw things together, and run away.

 

Wireless is GREAT if you put it in it's proper context- an option to make a system come together in a way that would not be feasible with other connectivity options.

 

Wireless has NEVER been my first choice for connectivity. Why? Because I have a lot of other options available that are a better choice in most cases (more labor/cable, twisted pair analog, DSL converters, Etc.)

 

Sometimes, though, there is no other option. I have a 37 camera, two server Milestone install with 14 hardwired IP cameras, 10 cameras on DSL extenders, 10 IP cameras on three wireless 2.4 Ghz links (all Ubiquiti /Mikrotik hardware, by the way) and three IP cams on a long range 900 MHz non-line of sight link (also Ubiquiti /Mikrotik), and a 5.8 Ghz backhaul between the servers and offices. Oh, and we had to avoid interference with two different wireless ISP's running in the area.

 

Planning was a VERY significant part of that job, but that job just could not have happened a few years ago, for sure.

 

Different objective, different results. You do have to look at wireless as just another tool in our toolbox, sometimes you use it, sometimes you don't, but use it appropriately.

 

BTW, I would not touch analog wireless again with a ten meter cattle prod.

 

There is no comparison between the results you can get with IP wireless, and what you get with analog, especially if you plan on more than one camera.

[questioneer 0]

Like others, I refuse to use "wi-fi" cameras.

 

I will use point to point (line of sight directional antennas - not 360 degree antennas) high end for wireless transmission, but it is expensive.