wireless video feed- analog camera

[tomdlgns 0]

are there any wireless radios that can handle 1500ft wireless video transmissions w/o any hickups?

 

i prefer something that is NOT limited to LOS (line of sight).

 

i realize something like this might not exist or might be expensive.

 

right now, i have to 5.8 ghz radios that talk to e/o. they are LOS and are rated up to 2000 ft w/o any external antennas, but around 800 ft we dont get the best picture quality and we are pretty much in LOS range.

 

a second part to my question...if i am limited to LOS for the best wireless transmission, what are a good set of external antennas i can buy that will help boost/absorb the wireless signal?

 

this is a working system, meaning, i dont have it in a test lab and our current radios do work, just not at the distance we would like.

 

thanks.

[hardwired 0]

For true non-line of sight, you pretty much need to be in the 900 MHz band.

 

Analog equipment in that band will be problematic, at best, due to the amount of SCADA and other spread-spectrum gear that is in most areas.

 

You can get better penetration of light foliage in the 2.4 GHz band than 5.8, almost anything in the Fresnel zone will cause some interference.

 

A higher gain set of antennas may improve your results, keep in mind that some transmitter/antenna combinations may exceed FCC or other regulatory limits.

 

Arc wireless, http://www.antennas.com, makes some nice 20Db gain panel antennas with an external "N" connector, you would need a cable to match that to your radios.

 

Having said all that, pretty much all analog wireless equipment I've worked with in the past has been a steaming pile of poop, compared to the results I've been getting with native IP based wireless links with decent Ethernet wireless gear (I've had good results with Ubiquiti gear, and they have 2.4, 3.65, 5.8 gear, with 900MHz gear coming out soon. Even their 2.4 GHz NanoStationM2 has pretty good foliage penetration.

 

I would pick running that equipment, with an encoder/decoder pair (Acti has some decent models) over any analog gear I've worked with.

[tomdlgns 0]

sorry it took me a few days to reply.

 

from what i can tell, we had a system in place about 6 years ago, before i started working here, that was 3 wireless cameras all on custom made mount/bracket/device. i do believe they were using the antennas/gear on the 900 mhz spectrum. interference shouldn't be an issue. this device is out in the field, not in a field, but in the work environment which is more often than not a very, very signal free zone. there shouldnt be anything to interfere with the 900 mhz band. cell phone coverage is rare.

 

at this point, i dont have my mind set on a frequency. i am trying to replicate out old system. the thing is, i am new to all of this and when i read the specs for the current wireless device i purchased, i thought it would work great with 1 analog camera. it was advertised at 2000 ft.

 

the other issue is, we are powering this antenna off of 12 volt, deep cycle, battery. with a fresh battery always on a charger to swap out when needed. this hasnt been an issue.

 

when i first got into this project, it was only for one camera. now that i have been asked to add an additional two cameras, it might get a little more tricky.

 

i am currently working with some hardware that has a sticker on it saying that it is 1.2ghz, but i am not sure what the range on that is. i have it hooked up and working right now, but the two units are about 3 ft from e/o.

 

do you want pictures of the setup?

[tomdlgns 0]

i found this online.

 

it seems that i am going backwards working with 900mhz.

 

What is the difference between various frequencies?

 

Most cameras operate on a 2.4 GHz frequency, as do cordless phones. There are three other frequencies: 2.4 GHz, 1.2 GHz, 900 MHz, 5.8 GHz, each with their own unique specifications.

2.4 GHz

 

A 2.4 GHz Wireless Spy Camera comes equipped with 4 channels. There is no tuning required. We generally recommend 2.4 GHz over 900 MHz because the overall video quality is better. Range varies from 200-700 feet, depending on environmental conditions.

 

Generally, the worst kind of interference a RF radio signal may encounter is another nearby radio signal operating at or close to its own frequency in the RF spectrum. These 2 (or more) signals then "compete" for use of this frequency. If there is any "winner," it will always be the stronger signal present. For example, a microwave oven is essentially an extremely powerful microwave transmitter tuned to the 2.4 GHz frequency range. Many cordless phones also operate on this frequency and may cause interference, if placed in close proximity to a Wireless Video Camera.

1.2 GHz

 

High resolution video transmission and outdoor medium range potential makes 1.2 GHz Wireless Video Systems a good choice for multiple system applications.

 

1.2 GHz makes a huge difference in the range and quality of video image received, especially when going through ceilings, floors and most walls. In an unobstructed site with no other electrical interference, you can expect to clearly transmit up to 300 feet.

900 MHz

 

This is an amateur band. An amateur license is required to operate. 4 channels are available in the 900 band. The signal goes to a dedicated receiver that is tuned from 902-930. 916.5 MHz is the standard transmitter setting; there are 3 other frequencies. Range varies from 200-700 feet or more depending on environmental conditions.

 

900 MHz receivers have a tuning knob that you must adjust to attain a clear, sharp picture. There is no interference between 900 MHz cordless phones and 900 MHz Wireless Surveillance Cameras.

5.8 GHz

 

5.8 GHz is the latest and greatest in CCTV Wireless Security Equipment. Record and view up to 4 channels of video with an operating frequency between 5725 ~ 5825 (4 Channels), with a range of up to 300 ft. with direct line-of-sight.

 

When using the 5.8 GHz frequency, you are not sharing a radio frequency that is considered to be part of the public band, eliminating interference from other 2.4 GHz devices. Plus, a 2.4 GHz Wireless Video Camera may only transmit a wireless signal up to 500 feet line of site, whereas a 5.8 GHz Wireless Video Camera sends a stronger signal up to 2,000 feet line of site.

[tomdlgns 0]

this is what the old antennas looked like...not that exact one, but very similar.

 

http://www.l-com.com/productfamily.aspx?id=6679

[hardwired 0]

The descriptions that you found are (somewhat) accurate, at least for analog video equipment, but the capabilities of IP/wireless Ethernet based video equipment have far outstripped the limitations of analog video.

 

For example, at one customer site, I have six IP cameras running at distances ranging from a few hundred yards to over a mile on a single 2.4GHz channel, another four, and a PC workstation, running almost two miles away, through trees, on a single 900MHz wireless channel, two complete sites with hardwired IP cameras linked with a 5.8GHz bridge for viewing (and adding computer connectivity, too),in a single view from either side or off-site, and several remote buildings up to a few thousand feet away, linked with DSL converters over twisted pair phone wires that were already in place.

 

Depending on the capability of the wireless gear, dozens of cameras, or more, could be linked easily, with wireless gear that is cheaper and more reliable than anything ever offered up for analog video, because now the development of wireless data transmission gear is driven by almost all aspects of the consumer markets, not just the little niche that is CCTV.

[tomdlgns 0]

The descriptions that you found are (somewhat) accurate, at least for analog video equipment, but the capabilities of IP/wireless Ethernet based video equipment have far outstripped the limitations of analog video.

 

For example, at one customer site, I have six IP cameras running at distances ranging from a few hundred yards to over a mile on a single 2.4GHz channel, another four, and a PC workstation, running almost two miles away, through trees, on a single 900MHz wireless channel, two complete sites with hardwired IP cameras linked with a 5.8GHz bridge for viewing (and adding computer connectivity, too),in a single view from either side or off-site, and several remote buildings up to a few thousand feet away, linked with DSL converters over twisted pair phone wires that were already in place.

 

Depending on the capability of the wireless gear, dozens of cameras, or more, could be linked easily, with wireless gear that is cheaper and more reliable than anything ever offered up for analog video, because now the development of wireless data transmission gear is driven by almost all aspects of the consumer markets, not just the little niche that is CCTV.

 

 

ok, well i will give you a more detailed response when i get home, do you check this board during work hours or all the time?

 

thanks again.

[hardwired 0]

The descriptions that you found are (somewhat) accurate, at least for analog video equipment, but the capabilities of IP/wireless Ethernet based video equipment have far outstripped the limitations of analog video.

 

For example, at one customer site, I have six IP cameras running at distances ranging from a few hundred yards to over a mile on a single 2.4GHz channel, another four, and a PC workstation, running almost two miles away, through trees, on a single 900MHz wireless channel, two complete sites with hardwired IP cameras linked with a 5.8GHz bridge for viewing (and adding computer connectivity, too),in a single view from either side or off-site, and several remote buildings up to a few thousand feet away, linked with DSL converters over twisted pair phone wires that were already in place.

 

Depending on the capability of the wireless gear, dozens of cameras, or more, could be linked easily, with wireless gear that is cheaper and more reliable than anything ever offered up for analog video, because now the development of wireless data transmission gear is driven by almost all aspects of the consumer markets, not just the little niche that is CCTV.

 

 

ok, well i will give you a more detailed response when i get home, do you check this board during work hours or all the time?

 

thanks again.

 

Hit and miss, I'll check when I can.

[bpzle 0]

are there any wireless radios that can handle 1500ft wireless video transmissions w/o any hickups?

 

 

The best, simplest answer is NO

[tomdlgns 0]

The descriptions that you found are (somewhat) accurate, at least for analog video equipment, but the capabilities of IP/wireless Ethernet based video equipment have far outstripped the limitations of analog video.

 

For example, at one customer site, I have six IP cameras running at distances ranging from a few hundred yards to over a mile on a single 2.4GHz channel, another four, and a PC workstation, running almost two miles away, through trees, on a single 900MHz wireless channel, two complete sites with hardwired IP cameras linked with a 5.8GHz bridge for viewing (and adding computer connectivity, too),in a single view from either side or off-site, and several remote buildings up to a few thousand feet away, linked with DSL converters over twisted pair phone wires that were already in place.

 

Depending on the capability of the wireless gear, dozens of cameras, or more, could be linked easily, with wireless gear that is cheaper and more reliable than anything ever offered up for analog video, because now the development of wireless data transmission gear is driven by almost all aspects of the consumer markets, not just the little niche that is CCTV.

 

 

ok, well i will give you a more detailed response when i get home, do you check this board during work hours or all the time?

 

thanks again.

 

Hit and miss, I'll check when I can.

 

i will try to lay it out as best i can w/o getting into detail overload.

 

our company has a tug boat. the tug boat pushes barges up and down the river.

 

in the past, the system had 3 wireless cameras that were mounted onto a metal container that our shop fabricated. very, very heavy. the 'rack' held 3 cameras, 3 antennas, a junction box for the 12 volt connections and wireless transmitters. the bottom shelf of this rack unit we had held a low cycle 12 volt battery that powered all of the gear. the boat crew worked in 6 hr shifts and the would swap out the 12 volt battery with a fresh one that was charging on the boat. barges vary in size, but the typical barge size we deal with is 195 ft, we will round that to 200 ft. we typically are never more than 5 barges long which is 1000 ft.

 

i keep talking to people that have seen/used the old system (not tech people just standard users) and they told me that the system did not have to be in direct LOS for the feed to transmit back to the boat. the equipment i bought works, not the greatest, but it works becuase once the barges are being pushed by the boat, a direct LOS connection is made. the problem occurs when they are moving/shifting the tow and the LOS signal breaks/cant be absorbed/transmitted.

 

this is when everyone started telling me that the old system never had this problem.

 

thanks.

[tomdlgns 0]

i would also like to add the following:

 

- our current system is analog and when they first designed this system years ago (7+) IP wasnt around.

- we don't mind keeping the current analog system and going IP Based, but we also dont want to spend 10k for an IP based system.

 

i think with IP we can install 3 cameras on the remote 'rack' unit and connect them to 1 transmitter and then have 1 receiver on the boat with 3 cat5 cables going to the IP DVR. that is one of the main reasons that i want to go to IP based.

 

of course, even with the IP Based system, i would like to have something that isnt 100% LOS only.

[hardwired 0]

The additional information helps a lot in figuring out a solution.

 

As far as costing, if you want to keep the existing analog cameras, you could feed them into a Acti four channel encoder (ACD-2200, MSRP $954), two Ubiquiti BulletM2hp wireless radios (MSRP $79 Each), two low gain omnidirectional antennas (~45 ea), a PoE injector to run the wireless at the barge end ($17 MSRP), assuming you have AC power at the barge (you mentioned a DVR, so I'm assuming you do) and run Acti's free NVR software on a cheap PC ($500 or so) = $1719... Assuming some other accessories, wire, etc., you could still be under 2K or so.

 

With line of sight, this setup would be capable of over three miles, so there is a fairly high amount of fade margin (ability to lose signal strength due to obstructions, interference, etc).

 

2.4 GHz is not true non-line of sight, but at high signal levels, it can bounce/diffract around obstacles somewhat.

 

Hopefully, there could be a mast or other high point on each end, raising even one end should help the performance significantly.

 

Ubiquiti is coming out with 900MHz gear very soon that would give you true NLOS at about the same cost.

[tomdlgns 0]

The additional information helps a lot in figuring out a solution.

 

As far as costing, if you want to keep the existing analog cameras, you could feed them into a Acti four channel encoder (ACD-2200, MSRP $954), two Ubiquiti BulletM2hp wireless radios (MSRP $79 Each), two low gain omnidirectional antennas (~45 ea), a PoE injector to run the wireless at the barge end ($17 MSRP), assuming you have AC power at the barge (you mentioned a DVR, so I'm assuming you do) and run Acti's free NVR software on a cheap PC ($500 or so) = $1719... Assuming some other accessories, wire, etc., you could still be under 2K or so.

 

With line of sight, this setup would be capable of over three miles, so there is a fairly high amount of fade margin (ability to lose signal strength due to obstructions, interference, etc).

 

2.4 GHz is not true non-line of sight, but at high signal levels, it can bounce/diffract around obstacles somewhat.

 

Hopefully, there could be a mast or other high point on each end, raising even one end should help the performance significantly.

 

Ubiquiti is coming out with 900MHz gear very soon that would give you true NLOS at about the same cost.

 

let me clear a few things up.

 

the barge doesnt have anything on it. the rack unit we built is mobile.

 

currently, the mobile rack unit that they put on the head barge has the following on it

 

-12 volt battery

-12 volt camera with IR (weatherproof camera)

-12 volt wireless transmitter

-12 volt pea light (required at night as a captain navigational aid)

 

the 12 volt transmitter sends the feed to the receiver on the boat, which is mounted on the roof of the boat. then it is hard wired to the analog DVR which resides in the pilot house of the boat.

 

i am going to google the stuff you posted above, but if you could also link it, that would be a big help so i can make sure i am looking at the same stuff you are talking about.

 

the remote rack unit we built does not have a DVR on it (that is what we move to the head barge when the final tow is built) here is a random picture.

 

http://www.imaginagrapher.com/transportation/barge_miss.jpg

 

imagine the receiver being on the boat and the remote unit would be on the center barge towards the top of the picture. basically, the barge furthest away from the boat.

 

thanks again, i hope this post helped you, yet again.

 

i am really interested in the NLOS gear. ultimately, that is the best solutions for us. the only reason i really want NLOS....we are not always pushing straight ahead like you see in the picture i posted. sometimes we will 'park the barges' (tie them off on a wall) and drive a few hundred feet away to a loading dock to put people on a boat, take them off, have a maintenance guy jump on...etc a handful of things. it would be great to continue to see the video feed on the head barge (the barge on the front of the tow). apparently the odl system was capable of this, but i imagine that the signal from transmitter and receiver could have been bouncing all over the place to complete video transmission.

 

at the time, that is all i can think of.

 

i think that last post of yours was strictly IP gear.

 

anything similar for analog?

 

just so i can see my options.

 

thanks...

[hardwired 0]

Sorry, when I said barge, I meant the operator's boat with the viewing equipment. The transmitter side is all capable of 12 volt operation.

 

I think you may be confusing non line of sight with directionality. The equipment I mentioned would be capable of operating in a 360 degree angle from each other, if you could see each antenna placement from the other antenna side.

 

Main items would be http://ubnt.com/bulletm, with an omnidirectional antenna, and http://www.acti.com/product/detail/Video_Encoder/ACD-2200 for the video to IP signal conversion. You could also use other IP cameras, if you choose.

[tomdlgns 0]

Sorry, when I said barge, I meant the operator's boat with the viewing equipment. The transmitter side is all capable of 12 volt operation.

 

I think you may be confusing non line of sight with directionality. The equipment I mentioned would be capable of operating in a 360 degree angle from each other, if you could see each antenna placement from the other antenna side.

 

Main items would be http://ubnt.com/bulletm, with an omnidirectional antenna, and http://www.acti.com/product/detail/Video_Encoder/ACD-2200 for the video to IP signal conversion. You could also use other IP cameras, if you choose.

 

i understood what you meant.

 

i was referring to our current setup and the older setup we had.

 

which is why i really wanted to focus on the NLOS gear.

[tomdlgns 0]

Sorry, when I said barge, I meant the operator's boat with the viewing equipment. The transmitter side is all capable of 12 volt operation.

 

I think you may be confusing non line of sight with directionality. The equipment I mentioned would be capable of operating in a 360 degree angle from each other, if you could see each antenna placement from the other antenna side.

 

Main items would be http://ubnt.com/bulletm, with an omnidirectional antenna, and http://www.acti.com/product/detail/Video_Encoder/ACD-2200 for the video to IP signal conversion. You could also use other IP cameras, if you choose.

 

 

interesting, so you are saying i could have and analog camera plugged into this...http://www.acti.com/product/detail/Video_Encoder/ACD-2200

 

then twisted pair to the antenna? and then the same on the other end?

 

sorry if i have it way wrong, just trying to put all the pieces together.

 

lets say i had this setup in place, what would happen if an obstacle got in the way? you said with a 360 degree clear view i would be ok, but that might not always be the case.

[hardwired 0]

For NLOS, something like this could work http://www.vecima.com/products/Wireless/WaveRider/Enterprise%20Backhaul/NCL8000/ncl8000%28wr%29_br_r06.pdf, but it's about $1700 MSRP. The new Ubiquiti product, http://ubnt.com/downloads/datasheets/nanostationm/m900loco_ds.pdf, should offer better performance, at a fraction of the cost. It's in transit from the manufacturing facility, should be at distributors within a few weeks.

[tomdlgns 0]

The additional information helps a lot in figuring out a solution.

 

As far as costing, if you want to keep the existing analog cameras, you could feed them into a Acti four channel encoder (ACD-2200, MSRP $954), two Ubiquiti BulletM2hp wireless radios (MSRP $79 Each), two low gain omnidirectional antennas (~45 ea), a PoE injector to run the wireless at the barge end ($17 MSRP), assuming you have AC power at the barge (you mentioned a DVR, so I'm assuming you do) and run Acti's free NVR software on a cheap PC ($500 or so) = $1719... Assuming some other accessories, wire, etc., you could still be under 2K or so.

 

With line of sight, this setup would be capable of over three miles, so there is a fairly high amount of fade margin (ability to lose signal strength due to obstructions, interference, etc).

 

2.4 GHz is not true non-line of sight, but at high signal levels, it can bounce/diffract around obstacles somewhat.

 

Hopefully, there could be a mast or other high point on each end, raising even one end should help the performance significantly.

 

Ubiquiti is coming out with 900MHz gear very soon that would give you true NLOS at about the same cost.

 

ok, after reading your post with the links, it looks like the links were for the gear in this thread.

 

meaning, i answered my own question about using the existing analog camera.

 

this might be a good solution for now. however, with the antennas you linked, i dont see how i would get 360 degree coverage.

 

thanks.

[tomdlgns 0]

For NLOS, something like this could work http://www.vecima.com/products/Wireless/WaveRider/Enterprise%20Backhaul/NCL8000/ncl8000%28wr%29_br_r06.pdf, but it's about $1700 MSRP. The new Ubiquiti product, http://ubnt.com/downloads/datasheets/nanostationm/m900loco_ds.pdf, should offer better performance, at a fraction of the cost. It's in transit from the manufacturing facility, should be at distributors within a few weeks.

 

ok, i just took a look at those links.

 

i wouldnt mind holding out for something like that, but entertain me and answer my question about the 360 view with those antennas you mentioned above.

 

with the NLOS gear in your last post, price isnt too high if it is true NLOS. i assume i would still purchase the encoder to utilize the existing analog camera(s).

 

right?

[hardwired 0]

Both of those units have about a 45 degree pattern, they are not omnidirectional, but the Ubiquiti unit has an external antenna connector to add an omnidirectional antenna, if you choose to.

 

Typically, omnidirectional antennas are a bad choice for 900MHz gear, due to the amount of noise that is normally present from SCADA and other wireless equipment, but at the distances you are planning to operate, it should work reasonably well.

[tomdlgns 0]

http://ubnt.com/downloads/datasheets/nanostationm/m900loco_ds.pdf

 

i dont see anything about the range in there, unless i missed it.

 

but i did see that it is a 24 volt unit. that wouldn't work for us, we are stuck with 12 v.

 

 

 

http://www.vecima.com/products/Wireless/WaveRider/Enterprise%20Backhaul/NCL8000/ncl8000%28wr%29_br_r06.pdf

 

this one doesnt seem to be 12 v, either, but it does say NLOS range is 5 miles...

[hardwired 0]

Range is going to be totally dependent on a lot of variables, the output power of the Ubiquiti is slightly lower, but it's receive sensitivity is higher, so I would expect them to be ROUGHLY equivalent (excluding a lot of other variables).

 

All other Ubiquiti equipment I have worked with can be powered by 12-24 volts, the voltage listed is the power adapter that is supplied with it.

 

Not sure about the voltage range on the Vecima unit, but there are small, inexpensive power converters available to get up to 48 volts out, from a 12 volt input.

 

And yes, you would still use the encoder if you are going to use your existing cameras.

[tomdlgns 0]

Range is going to be totally dependent on a lot of variables, the output power of the Ubiquiti is slightly lower, but it's receive sensitivity is higher, so I would expect them to be ROUGHLY equivalent (excluding a lot of other variables).

 

All other Ubiquiti equipment I have worked with can be powered by 12-24 volts, the voltage listed is the power adapter that is supplied with it.

 

Not sure about the voltage range on the Vecima unit, but there are small, inexpensive power converters available to get up to 48 volts out, from a 12 volt input.

 

And yes, you would still use the encoder if you are going to use your existing cameras.

 

ok, so one set of either radio will allow me to use the encoder.

 

so far it looks like i need to get

 

-2 encoders 1 for the remote rack on the barge and 1 for the pilot house going back to the DVR computer.

-one of the wireless sets

-2 more analog cameras to give me a total of 3 cameras

 

is that all i would need assuming i have twisted pair cable, connectors, rg59 cable, bnc connectors, etc...

 

how does the encoder connect to the wireless gear? twisted pair? coax?

 

and this is true LOS, obstructions might occur and weaken the signal, but that shouldn't be a problem, right? we would never get close to the 1 mile range, btw.

[tomdlgns 0]

also, if i decided to use ubiquiti radios, who will be selling those first online?

 

i dont want to have to go through a distributor to buy this.

 

thanks.

[hardwired 0]

You would only need one encoder unit, the computer running the software does the decoding.

 

The Wireless units connect to the power injector, and then out from there to the encoder, using CAT5 twisted pair cable, Ubiquiti specifies shielded CAT5 between the radio and power injector.

 

Not sure who sells Ubiquiti retail, I get mine through distribution.