Looking for advice on a setup

[Darris 0]

Hey gang, I've got a project coming up that I've been sort of dragged into. I say "dragged" because I was unknowingly drafted by a friend to help on a low-key security camera setup. It's a job that can't really be outsourced as the contractor requested not to else I would have gone to a local installer already.

It's an 8 camera install with the requirements of audio in at least 2 and 1 outdoor camera. I've already decided on IP Power over Ethernet as the expanded functionality and simplicity (remote viewing, 1 wire for each camera) of the setup just seems to make much more sense. It can also be piggy-backed on the existing fiber network there.

 

I've decided to go with a NVR system, the QNAP VS-4016 more specifically as it has features the system owner would want such as expandability and serial operation should more QNAP NVR's be added to the system at a later date. I've picked out the switch, the Netgear FS726TP with 12 port POE (802.3af compliant) and 2 gigabit ports. The real trouble I'm having is picking the right camera. There are literally over 400 cameras to choose from and my past 3 days of research has left banging my head on a wall.

 

For the indoor cameras I'm looking at the ACTi M5711 as I'm digging the low-light sensitivity and 2-way audio (important for 2 cameras). For the outside I'm thinking the ACTi ACM 1231 that has 75' of IR visibility.

With these cameras it looks like I'll be able to keep the costs under 5k for the project.

So, anybody have any other suggestions for cameras/NVRs? Have any suggestions for mounting brackets for drop-down and wall mounting?

 

The help would be so much appreciated!

[Soundy 1]

Sounds like a decent setup given the budget! The only thing I'd suggest, is to check on local laws regarding audio recording - it's actually illegal in some jurisdictions, or may be illegal in certain parts of the building. Some regions allow it only with posted signage, others allow it, but the audio isn't admissible as evidence in court unless there's signage... and so on. In short, the law varies widely on audio recording and you'd be well advised to clarify what it is in your area before proceeding with that portion of the install.

[thewireguys 3]

The Acti 1231 will not give you 75ft of IR more like 25ft max.

 

Also make sure QNAP supports audio recording.

[Darris 0]

Sounds like a decent setup given the budget! The only thing I'd suggest, is to check on local laws regarding audio recording - it's actually illegal in some jurisdictions, or may be illegal in certain parts of the building. Some regions allow it only with posted signage, others allow it, but the audio isn't admissible as evidence in court unless there's signage... and so on. In short, the law varies widely on audio recording and you'd be well advised to clarify what it is in your area before proceeding with that portion of the install.

 

Thanks for the reply and thanks for the heads up on that. I really meant "low-key" as meaning very few people involved. I've checked the local laws and they're generally applicable for cameras that are hidden or have no signs posting their presence. The cameras are going to be placed in areas where they are obvious and the facility itself touts "camera recording on the premise blah blah" and the only cameras that will be actively recording audio are places where speech can be overhead in public. That and the facility is paid for by taxes so you can make assumptions on them having their butts covered.

 

The Acti 1231 will not give you 75ft of IR more like 25ft max.

 

Also make sure QNAP supports audio recording.

 

I was kind of afraid of that. It'll be overlooking a rather small parking lot but the lighting is rather minimal that side of the facility. It may be worth it to setup an LED light on that side of the building. Again, I appreciate the feedback guys. This community is incredible! " title="Applause" />

[thewireguys 3]

What state are you doing this install? Make sure you CYA with the audio recording.

[rory 0]

I've already decided on IP Power over Ethernet as the expanded functionality and simplicity (remote viewing, 1 wire for each camera)

 

Just to clarify for others reading:

This is similar for regular cameras also, using RG59 Siamese (1 cable) and a DVR (remote viewing).

Though not exactly the same.

[Darris 0]

What state are you doing this install? Make sure you CYA with the audio recording.

 

 

Out in California where unfortunately the laws are pretty flippin' strict. As for the audio recordings (And yeah, the QNAP does audio. Dang thing does everything.) I'll have to double check on the legal implications and if it is an issue then we'll just disable the audio all together. You're right in that I don't want this coming back to bite me.

[Soundy 1]

Thanks for the reply and thanks for the heads up on that. I really meant "low-key" as meaning very few people involved. I've checked the local laws and they're generally applicable for cameras that are hidden or have no signs posting their presence. The cameras are going to be placed in areas where they are obvious and the facility itself touts "camera recording on the premise blah blah" and the only cameras that will be actively recording audio are places where speech can be overhead in public. That and the facility is paid for by taxes so you can make assumptions on them having their butts covered.

I wouldn't count on that. Unless it's a law office, it wouldn't surprise me one bit that something like the legality of audio recording is something that, quite simply, nobody thought of when they were planning for this. Most people's expectations of surveillance systems draw largely on what they see on TV and in the movies, so if they think "we want to record audio", they generally assume they can do it and that's all there is to it.

 

Just because it's a government office doesn't mean everyone is up to speed on the law - this is your chance to look super-smart by bringing up the question... and if it turns out to be verboten, you look like the hero for catching it before someone else got in trouble. (Of course, if you don't bring it up, and they go ahead with the audio, and then the $#!t hits the fan over it, guess who the finger gets pointed at? Yup... the guy who installed it!)

" title="Applause" />

[Darris 0]

I've already decided on IP Power over Ethernet as the expanded functionality and simplicity (remote viewing, 1 wire for each camera)

 

Just to clarify for others reading:

This is essentially the same for regular cameras also, using RG59 Siamese (1 cable) and a DVR (remote viewing).

 

 

Oh, I guess you're right! Sorry for spreading misinformation. CCTV is a rather new area for me so I'm still trying to gather all the facts. The IP solution attracted me because the facility is wired with fiber so if they wanted to add cameras to the rest of the grounds (which is pretty large) plugging in some cameras to the existing network with an NVR would be a fairly simple solution. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

[rory 0]

Oh, I guess you're right! Sorry for spreading misinformation. CCTV is a rather new area for me so I'm still trying to gather all the facts. The IP solution attracted me because the facility is wired with fiber so if they wanted to add cameras to the rest of the grounds (which is pretty large) plugging in some cameras to the existing network with an NVR would be a fairly simple solution. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

In your case it is the better solution ... and yep POE is easier.

[Soundy 1]

BTW, Google gave me some useful links about audio recording:

 

Exact wording:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-638

 

Summary:

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/california.html

 

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but my take on this is that such recording would classify as "eavesdropping" in California and would be prohibited, unless it's in an area where you're actually recording public speaking.

 

But again, check with a lawyer to confirm. If the client questions this, the above summary should provide reason enough for them to look into it further.

[Darris 0]

BTW, Google gave me some useful links about audio recording:

 

Exact wording:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-638

 

Summary:

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/california.html

 

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but my take on this is that such recording would classify as "eavesdropping" in California and would be prohibited, unless it's in an area where you're actually recording public speaking.

 

But again, check with a lawyer to confirm. If the client questions this, the above summary should provide reason enough for them to look into it further.

 

Google, is there nothing you can't find? You're not a lawyer but you do make a good argument. From what I saw though, the summary mentioned recordings of hidden cameras or any eavesdropping of conversations that would otherwise remain private. As mentioned, the cameras won't be hidden and the building is a public service building but like someone mentioned before, I need to cover my butt so I'll bring it up in our next meeting to make sure there's no way this can come back on me and my friend.

[Soundy 1]

I was thinking of this part in particular:

Eavesdropping upon or recording a conversation, whether by telephone or face-to-face, when a person would reasonably expect their conversation to be confined to the parties present, carries the same penalty as intercepting telephone or wire communications.

 

If you're standing in an open public area, like a building foyer for example, and talking within a small group, the argument could be made for a "reasonable expectation for the conversation to be confined to the parties present" - ie. you're not speaking to everyone else in the room, and if there's not a crowd nearby, you would probably expect that nobody's going to overhear you.

 

This is what I'm talking about, though, where the actual location might come into play. They use the example of a crowded patio at a public restaurant as being permitted - because of the proximity of other people, and likely the need to speak up over the noise level, a court probably wouldn't consider there to be a "reasonable" expectation that others wouldn't overhear.

 

Anyway... that's my take on that. I'd say if you bring this up with the client, and they DO decide to go ahead with audio recording, that you take a very simple CYA step, and get them to sign something off stating that you've raised the concerns and that they take full responsibility. That way if it DOES hit the fan, they can't come back and say nobody told them.

 

Might be an idea, too, if they do agree to consult a lawyer, that you show the lawyer a plan of where the cameras are going, or better yet, take him/her on a walk-through to check the locations - some locations may be okay, and others not.

 

And you never know, the client may look at your concerns and just decide it's too much trouble and nix the audio altogether - problem solved.

[Darris 0]

I was thinking of this part in particular:

Anyway... that's my take on that. I'd say if you bring this up with the client, and they DO decide to go ahead with audio recording, that you take a very simple CYA step, and get them to sign something off stating that you've raised the concerns and that they take full responsibility. That way if it DOES hit the fan, they can't come back and say nobody told them.

 

Might be an idea, too, if they do agree to consult a lawyer, that you show the lawyer a plan of where the cameras are going, or better yet, take him/her on a walk-through to check the locations - some locations may be okay, and others not.

 

And you never know, the client may look at your concerns and just decide it's too much trouble and nix the audio altogether - problem solved.

 

I appreciate you looking out for me Soundy. It's something I'm going to be bringing up in the next meeting. I doubt they'll make an issue of it and if it's something they really want to do then I'll just have them sign something saying I'm not liable for any audio recordings

 

Like I mentioned before, what an awsome community!

[Soundy 1]

Keep us posted on how it goes!

 

Sorry if I seem a little overbearing on it... I'm on a big car-enthusiasts forum up here that actually has a section for police-related topics and several current and retired officers that participate, and I regularly see these #*@! ricers coming in asking about making all sorts of illegal mods to their cars, and no matter how many times you try to tell them not to do it (and these are things that are WELL KNOWN to be VERY illegal!) they still insist on forging ahead... and to make it worse, for every post spelling out the possible consequences (sometimes into the thousands of dollars), you get some other idiot piping up with, "Well, my buddy's been running with that for years and even went through road checks and never got stopped for it".

 

And then of course, six months later the idiot comes in whining about getting nailed for those very same mods and wondering how to go about disputing the tickets...

 

Anyway, guess I just get in the habit of beating the drum...

[Darris 0]

I'll be sure to keep you guys posted on the project and what we finally decided to do. It looks like I have some more leeway with project budget so I've gone back to shopping for megapixel cameras.

[Darris 0]

Well, the sticker shock of the 5611's made us settle for the ACTi 5711's. They also didn't like the NVR setup (go figure) so we're just building an Athlon Phenom X6 server and using ACTi's software for the time being until we can demo a software solution that we really like. All in all we cut about 1700 from the total project cost. Just gotta make sure the project scope stays within reasonable limits for our budget.

[Bean00 0]

Well, the sticker shock of the 5611's made us settle for the ACTi 5711's. They also didn't like the NVR setup (go figure) so we're just building an Athlon Phenom X6 server and using ACTi's software for the time being until we can demo a software solution that we really like. All in all we cut about 1700 from the total project cost. Just gotta make sure the project scope stays within reasonable limits for our budget.

 

My personal opinion: stay away from ACTi's software. Milestone has a free software for this size of an application:

 

http://www.milestonesys.com/go/product+information

 

8CH software free from one of the largest VMS companies.

[Darris 0]

Yep, the acti software is functional, and that's about it. It's good for previewing the cameras and making sure they're in the right place with the right exposure settings.

[Darris 0]

Thought I'd update this thread as it's been a while.

Installed the 8 cameras and the results were pretty decent. For D1 resolution cameras those ACTi5711's were right on the money. I'll need to replace some of the lenses in the larger rooms as the ones they shipped with are seriously POS. For my next project, a gate project, I actually got together with a professional consultant/engineer and we decided the solution to our current requirements:

Need to see the license plates of most vehicles entering and exiting

Need at least some view of the vehicles entering and exiting

Needs to have decent night vision capabilities

 

For this project he suggested HIKVISION cameras. I haven't seen much mention of them online but their specs seem to be on par with the ACTi cameras.

For the license plates we decided on D! resolution cameras with a 5-50mm lense.

To make sure we'll have visibility in both day and night I'll be putting the cameras into monochrome and using an IR illuminator.

Speaking of the illuminator, it's completely overkill for what we need. Had i known it had a 30m-->150m range I would have gone with something a little more mid-end

It should be lighting those cars up like a flippin' christmas tree.

For the driver capture we're using 1.3mp cameras with a 5-15mm lense.

I'll be mounting those cameras (hopefully) tonight after it cools down so I'll give my feedback in a few days.

 

As for NVR software, I ended up using a demo version of Genetec (Omniview) and I have to say the installation/configuration/administration is NOT for the faint of heart. I'm going to be slapping 4 more cameras onto the system within the next week or so with possibly 4 more soon to come. I tested Milestone Pro, and while it's simple to setup, easy to use and easy to manage, I've found that it's database system can me somewhat unreliable and their playback software can be a little unstable. I need to mention that their pro demo license is the same as milestone go, aka 16 cameras and 5 days of archive footage. This last bit I didn't know until we had to pull archive footage from 2 weeks ago, oops! Sorry! Suffice to say, that turned me off to Milestone as a whole.

I'm giving the new Genetec Security Center a spin. It's very, VERY pricy, still a beast to install/manage, but should be stable as hell. I've been reading through these forums for the past few months and I'm still unsure about which software suite to use. I have a 6 month demo license with Genetec, but should I find something cheaper and almost as stable and robust then I'd swap in a heartbeat.

The server we built this on was an Athlon X6 with 4gigs of ram and 6tb of HD space. I wanted it to be as scaleable as possible as we may be encorporating our entire cameras system on it. (we have 26 more analog cameras currently in use atm) Anyone with other suggestions on software? I know ONSSI and Milestone are the same engine (application, layout, etc) only difference is their licensing and pricing. But like I said, even though it was easy to setup and use their software was a bit unstable with a few bugs that really, REALLY annoyed me, especially using the playback features.

Maybe BlueIris or some Geovision? Anyone have ideas?

[thewireguys 3]

http://www.avigilon.com/

[Nimrod 0]

BlueIris is barely hobbyist level. Thats why it is 50 bucks.