Inexpensive - Real Time 4CH D1 Resolution 30FPS DVR

[nDAlk90 0]

Look what a deal on eBay.

Advertised as real time 30FPS per Channel.

$79.99 with shipping.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/110795629227

Anybody have experience with this unit?

 

[groovyman 0]

This looks somewhat similar to some cheap $99 QSee DVRs I purchased a couple of years ago. The QSee systems I bought can record at D1 30fps and the recorded video isn't bad (pretty good actually) when used with decent cameras. But, it's very light on other features.

 

If this DVR is similar, here are the issues I have with the $99 QSee:

- Can only playback 1 channel at a time, unless the playback software is used. But, all video segments need to be downloaded to a PC - each channel, one by one, segment by segment.

- PC Playback software is very clunky and somewhat difficult to use.

- Playback on the DVR is also very clunky and can playback just 1 channel at a time.

- DVR records in 15, 30, 45 or 60 minute intervals & can sometimes lose a few seconds of video as recording intervals change.

- If recording at 15 minute intervals & you want to view an event that happened from 12:14 - 12:16 you'll need to start watching from 12:00 and save video from 12:00-12:30 for each camera you want to view. It gets worse when recording in 30, 45 or 60 minute intervals.

- Cannot set individual quality or fps per channel - it's global. Quality settings are D1, HD1 and CIF. FPS settings are Best, Fine & Good which translate to 30, 15 and 7 fps.

- Cannot set individual user accounts. Three accounts exist: admin, user and a mobile account. Can change admin & user passwords only via remote software or web browser. Mobile password can only be set on the DVR.

- No email alert settings.

- DVR gains roughly 2 minutes per month, cannot configure sync with time server and cannot change time remotely.

- Manual can be difficult to follow - obvious chineese/english translation issues.

 

For just plain recording, remote real-time viewing and occasional playback these DVRs might be OK, but expect occasional glitches like gaps/stops in recording (a few seconds to a few minutes), no indication of record or hard drive failure and the other issues I mentioned above.

 

Bottom line for me: It records (most of the time) and can be accessed remotely. That's pretty much about it, and that may be all that some people care about.

[Soundy 1]

This looks somewhat similar to some cheap $99 QSee DVRs I purchased a couple of years ago. The QSee systems I bought can record at D1 30fps and the recorded video isn't bad (pretty good actually) when used with decent cameras. But, it's very light on other features.

 

If this DVR is similar, here are the issues I have with the $99 QSee:

- Can only playback 1 channel at a time, unless the playback software is used. But, all video segments need to be downloaded to a PC - each channel, one by one, segment by segment.

- PC Playback software is very clunky and somewhat difficult to use.

- Playback on the DVR is also very clunky and can playback just 1 channel at a time.

- DVR records in 15, 30, 45 or 60 minute intervals & can sometimes lose a few seconds of video as recording intervals change.

- If recording at 15 minute intervals & you want to view an event that happened from 12:14 - 12:16 you'll need to start watching from 12:00 and save video from 12:00-12:30 for each camera you want to view. It gets worse when recording in 30, 45 or 60 minute intervals.

- Cannot set individual quality or fps per channel - it's global. Quality settings are D1, HD1 and CIF. FPS settings are Best, Fine & Good which translate to 30, 15 and 7 fps.

- Cannot set individual user accounts. Three accounts exist: admin, user and a mobile account. Can change admin & user passwords only via remote software or web browser. Mobile password can only be set on the DVR.

- No email alert settings.

- DVR gains roughly 2 minutes per month, cannot configure sync with time server and cannot change time remotely.

- Manual can be difficult to follow - obvious chineese/english translation issues.

 

For just plain recording, remote real-time viewing and occasional playback these DVRs might be OK, but expect occasional glitches like gaps/stops in recording (a few seconds to a few minutes), no indication of record or hard drive failure and the other issues I mentioned above.

 

Bottom line for me: It records (most of the time) and can be accessed remotely. That's pretty much about it, and that may be all that some people care about.

I'm bookmarking this thread to show to people when they ask what's so bad about a cheap DVR. They don't understand when you try to explain how some of them are

"a nightmare to use".

[SEANHAWG 1]

I was once presented with the oppurtunity to sell a 4 CH DVR, my cost was $40 and that was the cost arrived at my location. When I got it in, i was playing around with the GUI and it actually looked decent. I was thinking wow, this thing is a bargain. so I decided to test the most important part, see what the video playback quality looked like. Thats when I wanted to puke. It looked like an Atari trying playback video, it was real blocky and choppy, the worst compression I have ever seen. There is no sense of getting a DVR if it doesnt produce prosecutable video. Dont know if thats the case with this one or not, but thats always the first thing I test, as that really boils down to being the most important thing.

[ak357 0]

There is no sense of getting a DVR if it doesnt produce prosecutable video.Dont know if thats the case with this one or not, but thats always the first thing I test,

 

as that really boils down to being the most important thing.

 

Does Dahua DVR with CIF recording produce prosecutable video ?

[nDAlk90 0]

I was going to answer. But I want to hear Sean's response first. Since question was probably for him anyway.

Then I answer. (Put in my 5 cents)

 

Does Dahua DVR with CIF recording produce prosecutable video ?

[ak357 0]

I was going to answer. But I want to hear Sean's response first. Since question was probably for him anyway.

Then I answer. (Put in my 5 cents)

 

Does Dahua DVR with CIF recording produce prosecutable video ?

 

I would love to hear serious answer from Sean

but, He will try to be comedian as usual

[SEANHAWG 1]

Does Dahua DVR with CIF recording produce prosecutable video ?

 

Why did I have a feeling you were going to say something like that. Very predictable person you are these days. I was actually surprised it took you this long. First off, we dont have any CIF only DVR's. But to answer your question on a serious note as you requested, I always recommend D1 recording and to never record in CIF, even if it means lower frame rate. But to answer your question even more, in some circumstances, I am sure a CIF recording could be prosecutable in court given the right field of view. But my point that I was trying to make, before you did your usual thread hijack, the compression was so bad that it didnt matter what the resolution was.

 

He will try to be comedian as usual

 

I only return with a smart a$$ reply to your equally smart a$$ comments But since you mentioned it, why stop now. I am sure that if this DVR was listed $1500 that it may actually catch your interest since you seem to hold alot of importance on perceived value.

[shockwave199 0]

The dvr being spoke about, and consequently the title of the thread, is Real Time 4CH D1 Resolution 30FPS DVR.

 

Does Dahua DVR with CIF recording produce prosecutable video ?

The only one talking about CIF recorded video...is you. Perhaps you've lost your way again. Here, let me help you-

 

viewforum.php?f=19

[nDAlk90 0]

Thanks Sean. Now I will put in my 5 cents.

 

CIF resolution is 352x288. With a wide lens (3.6mm, 2.8mm, etc) and a object or person sufficiently far away from the camera (15 feet as example), you most likely wont have enough pixel density to make out a face, license plate, etc.

 

However part of question was "with CIF recording produce prosecutable video ?". What is "prosecutable" will most likely vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. With a tight shot (16mm lens and a descent security camera) you can get more pixels per foot then with a 3.6mm lens and the same security camera. Will the pixel density be enough that depends on situation.

[SEANHAWG 1]

Thanks Sean. Now I will put in my 5 cents.

 

CIF resolution is 352x288. With a wide lens (3.6mm, 2.8mm, etc) and a object or person sufficiently far away from the camera (15 feet as example), you most likely wont have enough pixel density to make out a face, license plate, etc.

 

However part of question was "with CIF recording produce prosecutable video ?". What is "prosecutable" will most likely vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. With a tight shot (16mm lens and a descent security camera) you can get more pixels per foot then with a 3.6mm lens and the same security camera. Will the pixel density be enough that depends on situation.

 

Yep, Agree totally. Thats why I said:

in some circumstances, I am sure a CIF recording could be prosecutable in court given the right field of view.

And BTW, CIF is 352x240 in north america, 352x288 is PAL CIF. Not trying to be anal, just wanted to point it out.

[nDAlk90 0]

Oops...

Your right. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

BTW, CIF is 352x240 in north america, 352x288 is PAL CIF. Not trying to be anal, just wanted to point it out.

[nDAlk90 0]

Ouch...

 

The dvr being spoke about, and consequently the title of the thread, is Real Time 4CH D1 Resolution 30FPS DVR.

 

Does Dahua DVR with CIF recording produce prosecutable video ?

The only one talking about CIF recorded video...is you. Perhaps you've lost your way again. Here, let me help you-

 

viewforum.php?f=19

[shockwave199 0]

It just gets tiring when someone never misses an opportunity to put down peoples choices in gear. To me, it works against your credibility to take that childish route, time and time again.

[groovyman 0]

I'm bookmarking this thread to show to people when they ask what's so bad about a cheap DVR. They don't understand when you try to explain how some of them are

"a nightmare to use".

Show them the user manual. Ho...ly...crap!

You can download it from here: http://www.dnt-cctv.com/en/downLoads.aspx?classID=4

Yupp, it's a Word doc.

One thing is going through my mind right now: All your base are belong to us

 

Here are some choice excerpts:

- The key function specification in the front panel and the interface specification in the real panel are in the specification.

- Front panel diagram, please mainly in kind.

- Gently break apart the cover and put the back-end

- Installation of the superstructure, the first front-end alignment

- The back-end, gently break apart, and under the pressure Gehao

- Software Shutdown: Hold down the button and 3 seconds, with the progress demonstrated that the system into the software turned off, the power light eliminate. Software start: You must start before entering the software, clicking on this button that can be opened to the power lights.

- Note: The rear panel of the USB interface, on the one after the mouse, the next one after storage devices. The mouse, such as access to the next USB port, the mouse control will lead to an exception.

- The video signal must be accorded with the state standard, which has the high signal to noise ratio, low aberration and low interference. The image must be clear and has natural color in the appropriate brightness.

- TV is not a credible replacement as a video output. It demands reducing the use time and control the power supply and the interference introduced by the nearby equipments strictly. The creep age of low quality TV can lead to the damage of other equipments.

- Avoid the entrance of high voltage. Make the layout reasonably. Take precaution from the thunder.

 

By the way, the system in the OP is nothing like the QSee. The one in the OP seems to have more features. Good luck to a novice trying to learn how to use the features with this manual.

[nDAlk90 0]

groovyman;

 

you need to learn chinglish! ASAP....

 

QJry9rJ52Mc

[tomcctv 190]

CIF resolution is 352x288. With a wide lens (3.6mm, 2.8mm, etc) and a object or person sufficiently far away from the camera (15 feet as example), you most likely wont have enough pixel density to make out a face, license plate, etc.

 

 

hi. this is not always the case. CCTV has been around for years well before D1 it was CIF and licence plates and face were geting picked up then.

 

we still see big names still making CIF only DM-samsung- bosh for licence plate applications.

 

there is lt more to the Resolution its also how good the codex is (how much data in each pixel)

you can have a DVR with D1 but if it has a crap codex its crap.

 

 

Re: Inexpensive - Real Time 4CH D1 Resolution 30FPS DVR

 

 

the ebay listing. it does not take 5 minutes to find out it is CRAP Google is good at saving money if homework is done.

 

 

there is a phone number on the listing. GOOGLE it you will find the USA seller ..... then look for the ebay listing in his products ..... ill save you some time ITs NOT listed.

 

this tells you it has problems and he needs to sell off quick (bad import choice) if it was good it would be on his site ............. but it looks like they dont want anything to do with them so onto ebay they go and just add the simple words to his listing ....... All the DVR system, cameras, cables are non-refundable

 

which also means no support

[Soundy 1]

CIF resolution is 352x288. With a wide lens (3.6mm, 2.8mm, etc) and a object or person sufficiently far away from the camera (15 feet as example), you most likely wont have enough pixel density to make out a face, license plate, etc.

 

 

hi. this is not always the case. CCTV has been around for years well before D1 it was CIF and licence plates and face were geting picked up then.

Hell, we used to get prosecutions *and convictions* based on video from VHS tapes recording at 96Hr time-lapse on a 16-channel MUX, meaning one shaky 240TVL image every 3-4 seconds. Sure, higher res and detail makes it EASIER... it's not like convictions weren't possible before 16MP Arecont cameras came along, though.

[nDAlk90 0]

it's not like convictions weren't possible before 16MP Arecont cameras came along, though.

 

You maybe right. But think about this. The more judges and jury's are exposed to higher quality video do you think they will be as likely to prosecute on poor quality video?

[SEANHAWG 1]

Up until recently, There were thousands of Walmarts that still use time lapse VCR's, and there are still several that use them today. Talk about prosecuting, I bet collectively they prosecute on a weekly basis. Heck, when we used to sell used time lapse VCR's just a couple months ago, we had very large well known retailers who would purchase from us just to buy them to replace their pooped out time lapse VCR's. And as far as analog goes, I would love to know how many casino's still use analog. I will take a blind guess and estimate that more people are being prosecuted with analog video today than IP equipment. Not because of quality, but because it is still very prevelant in many companies systems. Perhaps, this wont be the case 10-15 years from now when most people have fully upgraded.

 

Speaking of time lapse VCR's, I've seen good quality time lapse VCR's with a quad processor or MUX and you would end up getting better video than a highly compressed DVR. The video management wont be as easy but the video quality may look better. This was the case on the very first DVR I ever played with. It was an old used Avtech, and the video was very blocky.

[groovyman 0]

it's not like convictions weren't possible before 16MP Arecont cameras came along, though.

 

You maybe right. But think about this. The more judges and jury's are exposed to higher quality video do you think they will be as likely to prosecute on poor quality video?

 

Yes. In my opinon video in & of itself is not going to convict anyone. But, it can help when trying to identify someone and see events that took place. Video is not the only evidence used to solve a crime. I really don't think prosecutors are going to present a case to a jury where the only evidence is lousy video. That doesn't make sense.

[Soundy 1]

it's not like convictions weren't possible before 16MP Arecont cameras came along, though.

 

You maybe right. But think about this. The more judges and jury's are exposed to higher quality video do you think they will be as likely to prosecute on poor quality video?

 

Yes. In my opinon video in & of itself is not going to convict anyone. But, it can help when trying to identify someone and see events that took place. Video is not the only evidence used to solve a crime. I really don't think prosecutors are going to present a case to a jury where the only evidence is lousy video. That doesn't make sense.

Bingo!

 

More to the point, it would be highly unlikely that a prosecutor would present a case where the ONLY evidence is video, lousy or otherwise.

[groovyman 0]

Speaking of time lapse VCR's, I've seen good quality time lapse VCR's with a quad processor or MUX and you would end up getting better video than a highly compressed DVR. The video management wont be as easy but the video quality may look better.

I can agree with that. I've stated in a few posts here on cctvforum that I've installed cheap DVRs to replace aging time lapse VCRs. However, when the VCRs were working well the video quality was excellent. Back in the mid 2000's when I first started to get involved in CCTV I would hear comments like "how come my VCR that cost hundreds has better video than this DVR that cost thousands?"

 

The problem with the VCRs was that over time the tapes would get worn out and not replaced, tapes would get damaged and caught up in the VCR, sometimes people would forget to change tapes, heads weren't cleaned or aligned and most often the tapes weren't viewed until an incident happened, so you never really knew how quality might be degrading over time. Then, although tapes would be marked Mon, Tue, Wed, etc. people would use whatever tape on whatever day, like the Sat tape on Tues. Managing this was a pain and trying to find an incident could take hours, especially if they had 2-3 weeks worth of tapes....then some places only had 2 or 3 working tapes, so retention was very short.

[shockwave199 0]

All I know is every...single...night on the news, all you see is horrid cctv footage. If that's any indication, quality footage has a LONG way to go before it becomes the norm. I'm not talking about the stuff homeowners are getting- I mean commercial and public systems capturing crime every day. I have yet to see a piece of footage that impresses me. Even most stills from that footage is terrible. It makes me think- why did they bother when the system has fallen so short for ID'ing. Jewelry stores, banks, you name it. You see this footage come up on the news and it's all complete crap- nearly worthless. Modest gear for residential gives better results. Why then does public and commercial footage look so bad? If that is what's being installed mostly, just to have a system in place, forget about anyone caring for high quality footage. It's just not gonna catch on.

[Soundy 1]

It makes me think- why did they bother when the system has fallen so short for ID'ing.

Just because you look at a video like that and think, "I wouldn't know that guy if he smacked me upside the head", doesn't mean that someone familiar with that person won't recognize him. I've seen some pretty bad pictures and videos of friends and family, even some I haven't seen in person in years, and I can recognize who it is by a number of traits, including movements and mannerisms. Sometimes when there's a crime but no name to put to it, a crappy video is all it takes for the police to get a name from a member of the public... and that may even be enough later for a conviction, if that person is able to convincingly testify that, yes, that person in the video is the person you have in custody.

 

Computer-based identification may be in its infancy, but the human mind is an amazing tool...