UTP for analog video is rubbish

[rory 0]

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

I thought networks runs were limited to like 300'?

Or is this wireless?

[Bean00 0]

Rory,

 

thats why he's ripping it all out .

 

wireguys,

 

Why not just use IP over UTP converters and save having to rewire?

 

http://www.vigitron.com/categoryproductdetails.aspx?idcategory=12#

http://www.nitek.net/products/networkextenders/VR124UTP.htm

 

We have one coming too but it won't be ready for a few months yet.

[rory 0]

NVT isnt network transmission though.

[Malloot 0]

Thank you very much for anyone's replies. I wrote it bold but didn't meant it that bold.

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

 

I care, I want the best possible image. People spent a lot of money, so they deserve the best possible image.

 

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 care, I call myself a professional and want to make a differance oppossed to the average CCTV intaller.

 

From a distance the quality is acceptable. But I know it can be better with coax, so I keep using coax.

 

Analog vs. IP is comparing apples with pears. Different chapter of CCTV.

 

^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.

 

I only do perfect systems. I adjust the situation and if that is not possible I don't do the system. My name is on the bill and on the housings, the shopwindow, etc.

 

Until to today the NVT and suprisingly the EverFocus product performs the best.

But if I can make the choise, I still use coax.

[survtech 0]

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

What "adjustments" can you make to coax?

[survtech 0]

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

 

I care, I want the best possible image. People spent a lot of money, so they deserve the best possible image.

Seriously, I defy anyone to demonstrate any difference in picture quality due to (minor) sync signal differences.

[thewireguys 3]

Rory,

 

thats why he's ripping it all out .

 

wireguys,

 

Why not just use IP over UTP converters and save having to rewire?

 

http://www.vigitron.com/categoryproductdetails.aspx?idcategory=12#

http://www.nitek.net/products/networkextenders/VR124UTP.htm

 

We have one coming too but it won't be ready for a few months yet.

 

We are using Fiber to replace the 50 and 100 pairs and coax converters so we don't have to re-cable to the cameras.

[wh_hsn 0]

Hi,

 

Just finished a small installation of 16 cameras some of them are over 100 meters away from the control room using UTP & baluns - passive not even active!

The picture quality is v.good - I demonstrated both (coax & UTP) to the IT manager of the company & we compared the cost of both systems.

We ended up deciding to go with the same type of CAT6 cables used in their IT network.

The cost reduction came from using same technicians & cabling schedule for both IT & CCTV networks.

The project was finished in half the time with almost same man-hour of the IT network installation.

No one can see any problem with the image.

No one ever complained about any type of interference from the escalators or the elevators.

Now they are even ready for the IP upgrade after 2 years expansion plan.

 

The client was very grateful for explaining everything to him & save him time & money.

 

my .02 cents

[Soundy 1]

The client was very grateful for explaining everything to him & save him time & money.

Wow. Better not show him the 'scope tests on the video signal then - wouldn't want him to know that he shouldn't be happy with a non-perfect setup!

[wh_hsn 0]

Hi,

 

Actually we were not doing a research we both wanted a working CCTV system that's functional & within budget (money & time)

 

In my opinion, it's all about functionality in the real world.

 

Why do we use MJPEG in the first place?

Did you compare picture in a computer screen with the image in an analog monitor?

 

In real life we need to compromise to get things done - specially if the effect is not relevant to the function.

 

Peace