UTP for analog video is rubbish

[Malloot 0]

So that is a blunt statement.

 

But untill the day of today nobody could show me an equal quality video image via UTP compared to the same image sent trough coax.

 

I alway see some wrinkels, lines, shadows, etc. in the images sent trough UTP via active or passive baluns from a lot of different brands. And always on a videoscope the sync isn't as straight as it is when I use coax.

 

And yes I use real certified CAT5E cable. Not those cheap chinese twisted pair cable that they call UTP.

 

I'm I the only one who is so critical? Or are the more CCTV maniacs who have the same experiance?

[rory 0]

i had bad results from a couple different well known big US branded baluns at only 150' (one was push in, one was screw in) or so therefor I stay away from it. Others claim they get great video, though I havent seen the results myself. I would probably spend the money and use NVT active UTP if I needed to use it for a job, so far there has been no need. Time as I add in the cost of the baluns landed here and the cat5 cable its no cheaper than coax, at least here, and personally I had bad results with any kind of power over cat5 for longer than 50' distances, especially high powered IR cameras.

 

I mean on a couple old used cameras here at my appt I use cat 5 spliced into the bullet camera housing as previous owner of cameras cut the cables back so much and I needed some thin cable, its just a couple feet of cat5 without baluns and it works fine then spliced into RG59 coax, but Id never do that for a client, they can buy a new camera.

[shropna 0]

So that is a blunt statement.

 

I alway see some wrinkels, lines, shadows, etc. in the images sent trough UTP via active or passive baluns from a lot of different brands. And always on a videoscope the sync isn't as straight as it is when I use coax.

 

The same experience. Sync signal is always not straight, but who cares

Image via twisted pair is better, when you comparing the same long! (over 200-300 meters) distance. Of course, you should use not only passive - passive baluns. I'm never do that combination. Maybe, few times, when distace is less than 50 meters. At distances up to 600 meters - passive - active, 600 - 1000 meters - active active. And no any cooper over 1000 meters, only optical fiber..Thats all, and no problems

And, of course, NVT, with galvanic inputs separation

[Guest]

So that is a blunt statement.

 

I alway see some wrinkels, lines, shadows, etc. in the images sent trough UTP via active or passive baluns from a lot of different brands. And always on a videoscope the sync isn't as straight as it is when I use coax.

 

The same experience. Sync signal is always not straight, but who cares

Image via twisted pair is better, when you comparing the same long! (over 200-300 meters) distance. Of course, you should use not only passive - passive baluns. I'm never do that combination. Maybe, few times, when distace is less than 50 meters. At distances up to 600 meters - passive - active, 600 - 1000 meters - active active. And no any cooper over 1000 meters, only optical fiber..Thats all, and no problems

And, of course, NVT, with galvanic inputs separation

 

Most UTP transmission kit around today offers a compromise in performance.

 

Most offer no realistic way of adjusting for cable type or changes.

 

What is a greater problem the vast majority of engineers have not been trained in commissioning t/p cable systems to the extent that even trying to puchase the correct test equipment is almost impossible.

 

Anyone know where you can buy a pulse and bar generator?

 

Ilkie

[shropna 0]

 

Anyone know where you can buy a pulse and bar generator?

 

Ilkie

http://www.globalmediapro.com/dp/A012W4/StreamLabs-TPG-8-SDI-Test-Pattern-Generator/

[Guest]

 

Anyone know where you can buy a pulse and bar generator?

 

Ilkie

http://www.globalmediapro.com/dp/A012W4/StreamLabs-TPG-8-SDI-Test-Pattern-Generator/

 

Thanks Shropna,

 

Nice piece of kit.

 

But does not offer a pulse and bar output

 

Regards

 

Ilkie

[bpzle 0]

I'm not suprised you can tell a difference with test equipment. But here's a bold statement: who cares?

 

I have installs with both coax and UTP running to different cameras, of the same make/model. I can't tell a difference, the customer sure as hell can't.

 

UTP is convenient, for both the installer and the customer for future use. Saves time and money. Run it once and be done with it...

 

How much exactly are you gaining in quality? Its analog, its not like your gaining 2x the quality. Maybe just a hair better, depending on the opinion of the eyes looking. If you want to impress somebody, go IP. Now that's something ANYONE can see a difference in.

 

As I said, I don't have expensive test equipment but to my eyeballs it looks good. What else matters?

[bpzle 0]

Oh, and if you're using high power IR... of course you shouldn't use utp for the power. Pull 18/2.

[rory 0]

I'm not suprised you can tell a difference with test equipment. But here's a bold statement: who cares?

 

I have installs with both coax and UTP running to different cameras, of the same make/model. I can't tell a difference, the customer sure as hell can't.

 

UTP is convenient, for both the installer and the customer for future use. Saves time and money. Run it once and be done with it...

 

How much exactly are you gaining in quality? Its analog, its not like your gaining 2x the quality. Maybe just a hair better, depending on the opinion of the eyes looking. If you want to impress somebody, go IP. Now that's something ANYONE can see a difference in.

 

As I said, I don't have expensive test equipment but to my eyeballs it looks good. What else matters?

I agree, may as well just sell them a $30 color IR bullet and be done with it, looks the same as a 600TVL TDN camera right?

[bpzle 0]

Find me a $30 camera that has just a good a picture as a $150 plus camera and I say hell ya.

 

Let me make it clear... I would never cut corners to sacrifice picture quality. But to me, if there is a route that can simplify and future proof an install, the picture looks just as good as alternatives, its around the same cost, then that's a no brainer.

 

My advice is to try different baluns if you've been unhappy with the results.

[ak357 0]

 

What is a greater problem the vast majority of engineers have not been trained in commissioning t/p cable systems to the extent that even trying to puchase the correct test equipment is almost impossible.

 

Anyone know where you can buy a pulse and bar generator?

 

Ilkie

 

I would suggest this

 

Leader 435B NTSC Test Signal Generator just seen on e-bay

I have Leader 396 and I love it

 

http://recycledequipment.com/index.cfm/product/926/leader-lcg-396-ntsc-pattern-generator.cfm

http://cgi.ebay.com/Leader-LCG-396-NTSC-Pattern-Generator-USED-/230551737449

http://cgi.ebay.com/Leader-LCG-396-NTSC-Pattern-Generator-/20054369

[Soundy 1]

I'm not suprised you can tell a difference with test equipment. But here's a bold statement: who cares?

 

I have installs with both coax and UTP running to different cameras, of the same make/model. I can't tell a difference, the customer sure as hell can't.

Well said.

 

I've done a few balun-over-UTP installs that showed noise issues. I've also done some that were crystal-clear. In fact, my very first time using baluns was not over UTP, but over station-Z wire, and it looked better than any of the other existing or new cameras on the site that were using RG59 (and before anyone says it's the camera, note that the cameras using the baluns were the same National domes as we added elsewhere with RG59).

 

In this particular case, we had a customer that wanted four cameras installed over their gas pumps... but all we had available was a pair of 1/2" conduits to get there. We told them they could have two that WOULD work well (the most RG59 that would fit through that pipe) , or four that MIGHT work, but MIGHT also be noisy, using station wire for video and power. The customer opted for four, so we pulled four runs of station (one pair for video, one pair for power)... and had horrible EMI noise.

 

We were about to remove the station and go to two coax/station runs (we normally use doubled-up station for power alongside coax), when I noticed the baluns at our supplier... at $35 each, they were a spendy option for a cheap customer, but we got a pair to try out... and they were just stellar, way clearer than the other coax-connected cameras. So we got three more sets, and the customer was happy.

 

UTP is convenient, for both the installer and the customer for future use. Saves time and money. Run it once and be done with it...

And as in the above example, they give more options where space or available wiring is limited. I've used them in a number of other sites as well, where I had to use existing wire as it would be impossible to pull new wire between floors.

 

As I said, I don't have expensive test equipment but to my eyeballs it looks good. What else matters?

Well the other thing is, unless you compare side-by-side, how do you know if coax won't have problems in a particular instance either? I've inherited a number of sites with really noisy coax - some is aluminum-shielded RG6, some is cheap RG59, some even RG58... some just have bad grounds, bad connectors, any number of other issues... coax surely isn't immune to problems either.

 

We just finished another site where we had limited space available (a single 3/4" PVC conduit) to get two analog cameras and one IP camera out to a car wash. We opted for three Cat5e runs - one to carry the two analog cameras, one for the IP cam, and one spare (because someone ALWAYS wants to add something later - rather be looking at it than looking for it!). And yeah, those runs have a bit of noise in them. Considering where they're running and how the power is set up between the two buildings, I'm frankly not surprised... and fully expect that RG59 could have similar issues as well.

[rory 0]

My advice is to try different baluns if you've been unhappy with the results.

me? I have and twice bitten was enough. Unless it really calls for it like many runs from one building to the next at a long distance, otherwise Ill stick to a method I know will work. In the US and Canada its easy to try different things if one doesnt work, but not down here, ends up costing alot more and taking much longer. $20 a balun + Duty and shipping = $40-50 a balun landed here, thats $350+- just for 8 baluns, plus the cat5 cable probably around $150+- for 1000', while I can get a 1000' role of siamese for around $350 here, $1.50 a BNC connector ... so Coax is cheaper, here at least. Im not saying I NEVER will use baluns and cat5, just saying how it is right now.

[rory 0]

Find me a $30 camera that has just a good a picture as a $150 plus camera and I say hell ya.

 

well that depends ... i have a $33 Color IR Bullet here with a better picture than a Vitek $200 Color IR bullet but yes that is rare though ..

[Guest]

This reminds me of the argument that you can still get an OK picture running RG59 600m and still get a picture. The customer thinks it is OK so that it alright!

 

Here is another bold statement....Well it isn't.

 

Cabling is a key part of the system design, and if you cannot understand the basic principles of design, installation and maintaining the cable infrastructure you are doing yourself and your client a disservice.

 

Swapping out the end kit in the hope that this will solve the problem is the same as you taking your van to the workshop and them saying "we think it is the alternator so we will replace it and if that doesn't work will replace the battery and after that the leads". You wouldn't accept this and just because your client doesn't understand what the implications of poor video is, their acceptance is no criteria for good engineering.

 

Here in the UK, and in particular with larger analogue cabled systems, the hand over will include a fully documented cable scheduled with a circuit trace required showing levels, loss, HF, MF , LF and sync shape. This applies whether the system is radio, fibre or copper.

 

Reading many of the posts on this forum suggest that problem may well result from low HF and/or misshaped sync pulse.

 

With digital systems it is mandatory for the CAT5E or CAT6 cables to be tested to relevant standards.

 

It is matter of formal training. I would suggest that by undertaking this training you will raise standards, reduce system downtime, increase profitability of the job and because you are able to work at higher standards raise your income by taking on projects higher up the 'food chain!'

 

Ilkie

[Guest]

 

What is a greater problem the vast majority of engineers have not been trained in commissioning t/p cable systems to the extent that even trying to puchase the correct test equipment is almost impossible.

 

Anyone know where you can buy a pulse and bar generator?

 

Ilkie

 

I would suggest this

 

Leader 435B NTSC Test Signal Generator just seen on e-bay

I have Leader 396 and I love it

 

Thanks AK,

 

Again nice kit, but here in Europe we are PAL. In addition it does not have the 2T, 10T Pulse and bar output required.

 

But many thanks anyway.

 

Ilkie

 

http://recycledequipment.com/index.cfm/product/926/leader-lcg-396-ntsc-pattern-generator.cfm

http://cgi.ebay.com/Leader-LCG-396-NTSC-Pattern-Generator-USED-/230551737449

http://cgi.ebay.com/Leader-LCG-396-NTSC-Pattern-Generator-/20054369

[Soundy 1]

^And sometimes you just have to do what's necessary.

 

In a perfect world we'd all have unlimited budgets for the best cable and components. In a perfect world we'd all be able to use fiber for those 600m runs. In a perfect world there would be multiple 2" conduits between floors or between buildings, pre-strung and nicely labelled on both ends for easy upgrades.

 

Alas, most of us don't live in that perfect world, so we have to MAKE things work, even if they shouldn't... to coin a phrase, we have to play the hand we're dealt; we can't just sit around wishing for four aces.

[bpzle 0]

This reminds me of the argument that you can still get an OK picture running RG59 600m and still get a picture. The customer thinks it is OK so that it alright!

 

Here is another bold statement....Well it isn't.

 

Cabling is a key part of the system design, and if you cannot understand the basic principles of design, installation and maintaining the cable infrastructure you are doing yourself and your client a disservice.

 

Swapping out the end kit in the hope that this will solve the problem is the same as you taking your van to the workshop and them saying "we think it is the alternator so we will replace it and if that doesn't work will replace the battery and after that the leads". You wouldn't accept this and just because your client doesn't understand what the implications of poor video is, their acceptance is no criteria for good engineering.

 

Here in the UK, and in particular with larger analogue cabled systems, the hand over will include a fully documented cable scheduled with a circuit trace required showing levels, loss, HF, MF , LF and sync shape. This applies whether the system is radio, fibre or copper.

 

Reading many of the posts on this forum suggest that problem may well result from low HF and/or misshaped sync pulse.

 

With digital systems it is mandatory for the CAT5E or CAT6 cables to be tested to relevant standards.

 

It is matter of formal training. I would suggest that by undertaking this training you will raise standards, reduce system downtime, increase profitability of the job and because you are able to work at higher standards raise your income by taking on projects higher up the 'food chain!'

 

Ilkie

 

You're saying that if someone uses utp and baluns they are not properly trained and doing the customer a disservice. Lol! Easy killer, quit talking out your arse. I've been in this biz over 10 years. Needless to say, my eyes are pretty critical of video. I've never had downtime, lost money, or missed out on a job due to using baluns. That's a rediculous statement.

 

And for the 600m copper argument, that's not the same. I would never do that. I can't even begin to imagine the loss...

I'd bet my paycheck anyone could tell a difference in the picture, even without a side by side comparison.

Once again, I would never compromise picture quality.

 

I'd like try an experiement... I'm going to dig up some stills from that client of mine, let's let YOU decide which is baluns.

[tomcctv 190]

 

What is a greater problem the vast majority of engineers have not been trained in commissioning t/p cable systems to the extent that even trying to puchase the correct test equipment is almost impossible.

 

Anyone know where you can buy a pulse and bar generator?

 

Ilkie

 

I would suggest this

 

Leader 435B NTSC Test Signal Generator just seen on e-bay

I have Leader 396 and I love it

 

Thanks AK,

 

Again nice kit, but here in Europe we are PAL. In addition it does not have the 2T, 10T Pulse and bar output required.

 

But many thanks anyway.

 

Ilkie

 

http://recycledequipment.com/index.cfm/product/926/leader-lcg-396-ntsc-pattern-generator.cfm

http://cgi.ebay.com/Leader-LCG-396-NTSC-Pattern-Generator-USED-/230551737449

http://cgi.ebay.com/Leader-LCG-396-NTSC-Pattern-Generator-/20054369

 

 

 

i have 1000s spent in test equipment / test generators / auto focus tools / but at the end of the day there is no better test than pluging the camera in . i have worked on contract with ADT guys with all the test equipment and on all there paperwork and test sheets everything is right ......... plug camera in and picture quality is crap.

 

every engineer has there prefered camera or balun or cable they use as its trusted and tested ... it is down to equipment used at the end of the day.

[bpzle 0]

i have 1000s spent in test equipment / test generators / auto focus tools / but at the end of the day there is no better test than pluging the camera in . i have worked on contract with ADT guys with all the test equipment and on all there paperwork and test sheets everything is right ......... plug camera in and picture quality is crap.

 

every engineer has there prefered camera or balun or cable they use as its trusted and tested ... it is down to equipment used at the end of the day.

 

" title="Applause" />

 

Well said brother

[rory 0]

it is down to equipment used at the end of the day.

not entirely, as if that were true then we wouldnt be needed, the clients could just buy the same products from retailers and install it themselves.

[tomcctv 190]

it is down to equipment used at the end of the day.

not entirely, as if that were true then we wouldnt be needed, the clients could just buy the same products from retailers and install it themselves.

 

 

 

thats not the case rory. say a customer called you out to give a price for a system but the customer wanted you to buy all the equipment from ebay $20 cameras and a $60 dvr. but he wanted to see faces at 60ft and record for 30 days. what would you do buy and install or give the customer the knowledge that you know the system will not do the job but the equipment you sell will.

[rory 0]

it is down to equipment used at the end of the day.

not entirely, as if that were true then we wouldnt be needed, the clients could just buy the same products from retailers and install it themselves.

 

 

 

thats not the case rory. say a customer called you out to give a price for a system but the customer wanted you to buy all the equipment from ebay $20 cameras and a $60 dvr. but he wanted to see faces at 60ft and record for 30 days. what would you do buy and install or give the customer the knowledge that you know the system will not do the job but the equipment you sell will.

 

The point I was making was that if they were to use the same product as you would, same exact thing, same camera, same DVR, same cable, connectors etc, who knows they may have seen you put it in another place, or you might have quoted them product model numbers, whatever, they still need your expertise, in other words it is not just "down to equipment used at the end of the day".

[Guest]

You're saying that if someone uses utp and baluns they are not properly trained and doing the customer a disservice. Lol! Easy killer, quit talking out your arse. I've been in this biz over 10 years. Needless to say, my eyes are pretty critical of video. I've never had downtime, lost money, or missed out on a job due to using baluns. That's a rediculous statement.

 

And for the 600m copper argument, that's not the same. I would never do that. I can't even begin to imagine the loss...

I'd bet my paycheck anyone could tell a difference in the picture, even without a side by side comparison.

Once again, I would never compromise picture quality.

 

I do not think that I stated that anyone using UTP and baluns are not properly trained or is doing the customer a disservice.

 

My point is that professional engineers should be able to provide an objective measure of any major component in the system we are maintaining. This ability represents our value add that we bring to the table and elevate our skills to make us better than the plumber/DIYer/electrician/IT technician that thinks they can install CCTV to a professional level.

 

I am not doubting your experience nor the ability to recognise ‘good’ images from ‘poor’ images, but what does this mean on paper (i.e. how do you quantify this)?

 

The transmission system should neither add nor take anything from the camera output signal, simply deliver exactly what has been fed in at the other end. So how do you prove this and check for changes over time (or in case of a fault)?

 

I have had the same discussion with the engineer who installed 600m of RG59 and was convinced that the image delivered was acceptable. (well it was a picture of sorts). Removing the camera and the monitor followed by measuring the cable performance (with pulse & bar generator and ‘scope) offered an objective measure of the infrastructure and cost the company the removal of the cable and installation of something more suitable.

 

UTP with baluns is OK, but more often or not there is no way of making any adjustments.

This issue is of course becoming increasingly irrelevant due to the use of IP transmission, where it is much more difficult to measure the output of the camera, so here is another thought how do you confirm that colour rendition is accurate?

 

Ilkie

[thewireguys 3]

I am working on a job soon that is using NVT stuff. The have the Active stuff and they are running about 3000-4000 ft with 36+ plus channels.

 

NVT to 110 bock to 100 pair to second building to 110 bock to second 110 bock to 50 pair to 3rd building to 110 block to converters to 59 with 300ft runs to cameras.

 

You would never know looking at the images. To bad we are ripping it all out and upgrading to MP cameras