User Comments on the MVL10 2.4 GHz Wireless Video Link

[dynaco 0]

I am looking for comments from those that have first hand experience with the MVL10 2.4 GHz video link. In particular I would like your opinion on the video quality and if it has enough bandwidth to support a high resolution camera (530 lines).

 

I would also like to know if you have run into any RFI problems with 802.11 systems, either a problem with the video signal or a degradation of the 802.11 range and data rate. Thanks.

[thewireguys 3]

I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole.... If you have you go wireless use IP and encoders. I was working with a customer that had that setup and it would not work with any 2.4 Wifi in the area. Just not a reliable product with everything going on it 2.4 or 5.8. If you have use use it do I site survey and pray that on one adds an access point in the future at your location.

[hardwired 0]

I haven't touched analog wireless video in years: the performance you can get with 802.11 based video far exceeds anything I ever saw in analog, plus you are establishing an Ethernet link that can be used for other functions, as well.

 

ANY link, analog or IP based, can be susceptible to interference, but a properly installed Ethernet link will be far more resistant to interference, due to the error correction that is available in an IP link, compared to analog.

 

You also have the ability to run multiple links on a single channel, something you can't do with analog wireless.

 

The proliferation of wireless network hardware also means that equipment for an IP link will be significantly cheaper than analog equipment.

[dynaco 0]

(snip)

The proliferation of wireless network hardware also means that equipment for an IP link will be significantly cheaper than analog equipment.

 

Thanks to both of you for replying. You have convinced me that I should use IP. Do you have any recommendations on link equipment that works well? You say an "IP link will be significantly cheaper than analog" but have not found anything even in the same price range as the MVL10 ($120) let alone cheaper. Thanks.

[hardwired 0]

A pair of the Ubiquiti NanoStation Loco M5's , http://ubnt.com/nanostationm, would run $138.00 MSRP, and would be capable of several Kilometers (carrying several cameras simultaneously), and are already weatherproof for outdoor mounting.

 

They have other models that are capable of 20+ kilometers, for not a whole lot more.

 

Analog equipment to run those kinds of distances effectively run into the thousands of dollars.

[dynaco 0]

A pair of the Ubiquiti NanoStation Loco M5's , http://ubnt.com/nanostationm, would run $138.00 MSRP, and would be capable of several Kilometers (carrying several cameras simultaneously), and are already weatherproof for outdoor mounting.

 

They have other models that are capable of 20+ kilometers, for not a whole lot more.

 

Analog equipment to run those kinds of distances effectively run into the thousands of dollars.

 

I went to the URL and looked at all the data sheets for the various flavors of NanoStations and although I could find pictures that showed a CCTV camera connected to one of their devices, I could not find anything that indicated how the camera actually connected. Since the MVL10 had a composite video connectors at each end, I would have assumed these devices would as well but I cannot find a reference that confirms that. I have a funny feeling these devices are only meant to relay Ethernet TCP/IP data, but hopefully not. If you have information that would confirm this one way or the other you could share it would be appreciated. I don't want to purchase these only to find out I have to purchase additional equipment at each end to do conversions. Thanks.

[hardwired 0]

Yes, those devices are Ethernet (IP) only. For transferring analog video, encoders and decoders would be required, although many DVR's are now supporting at least some IP cameras.

 

What is your exact scenario and hardware you are working with? Or, if this is just in the planning stage, we may be able to help with some solutions.

[dynaco 0]

Yes, those devices are Ethernet (IP) only. For transferring analog video, encoders and decoders would be required, although many DVR's are now supporting at least some IP cameras.

 

What is your exact scenario and hardware you are working with? Or, if this is just in the planning stage, we may be able to help with some solutions.

 

 

This is really for two installations, mine and a friends, and none of the equipment has been purchased as of yet. The installations are very similar in that the camera will cover a driveway where full visibility from the house, particularly where a vehicle would park is not possible. In my case I have 5.8 GHz telephone and 2.4 GHz 802.11b access point while my friend only has a telephone that I believe uses the 900 MHz band but I cannot be sure of the latter. In both cases we have an alarm system at the end of the driveway to announce a vehicle arriving but would like to see the blind spot if we are not quick enough to get to a window before the vehicle parks. Neither one of us have a desire to invest in recording what the camera sees.

 

Based on what I have read here and other places I have decided to go with the CNB B2760NVF.camera since it seems to be of reasonable quality for not too much money. I have looked at a wireless link because that option gives the user the ability to easily change the location of the monitor. In my case a “nice to have” option would be the ability to see it on a computer screen since I am often at my computer located in a finished room of a walk in cellar at the opposite end of the house. The first priority however would have to be a standalone monitor setup on the first floor. In my friends case he currently does not have 802.11 system so that would only appeal to him if was the least expensive way to go.

 

My current thought was to first purchase one camera and one wireless link and try it on the composite input of the TV and see how that worked before purchasing the monitor and any of the equipment for the second installation to cut my losses if my decisions were unsound.