I need a 4-8channel DVR to record conferences.

[owelesstax.com 0]

I know this is not a traitional application, but it appears that what we want is most closely covered by this type of system. Our company wants to record consultation meetings. Then give those clients web access to those meetings.

 

Number of participants in addition to consultant: normally 1 or 2, possibly 4, we've had as many as 7.

 

We want to have high enough quality video to slice and dice promo segments, and distribute at TV/DVD quality.

 

Here is the plan. Put multiple cameras in the room, 2 different angles on the speaker and white board. Cover each participant to get comments and reactions. Record it all, then go back and quickly chop any useless feeds and do some quick editing to a final program, that would be converted to a web stream.

 

Go through the footage and archive good clips, dump the rest.

 

I need some help "spec"ing the equipment, and capture software. From my research I think security type equipment is my best platform.

 

The room setup is: 11x16 with custom shaped granite conconference table the table is wider at the front end so that everyone is facing slightly forward can seat 3 people on each side and one on the end. I'd put two cameras at the back of the room (possibly with integrated microphones. Then from the front corners of the room having cameras trained on each of the participants (in groups of 2 or 3) so two cameras on each side of white board, aimed across room at faces of clients. Another Mic up front.

 

So, 6 cams, 2-3 mics, 8ch capture card. Specific lenses for each cam, so that all participants are correctly framed. Then whereever they sit they are in view, and we don't have to take any time to "set up".

 

Using motion detection makes it super easy to start when we walk into the conference room. At first I was thinking the upfront cams would be bullet cams to keep them small and unitimidating. I was even going to cut 4-6inch holds in the sheet rock, put a trim ring arround them and mount the cameras inside the wall. the'd still be seen but would not protrude into the room as much. But, it appears that bullet cams don't have the picture quality, and box cams are pretty small.

 

I don't need night vision, or IR, I don't need variable zoom, I just need the best picture from the most cost effective camera that is small. IAlso need to find the right Video capture card with audio sync. And I need the right software to do the capture.

 

So, is 1/2 inch CCD a "neccesity"? Or under normal room conditions will 1/3 be plenty? For "near broadcast quality"

 

I imagine I have overbuilt, this plan, and could get by with 3 cameras, but we couldn't have as close a pic of the client if we are trying to cover three or 4 people with one cam. And Cameras are cheap.

 

We will go with 30fps per camera.

 

I know I need at least 640x resolution, does 704x make a noticable difference?

 

Since we want to be able to read what is written on the 4x8 white board(it won't be really small writing), I assume that 480 lines is a must, and that 420 lines would be good enough. Correct me if I'm wrong. Is there a bullet cam with changable lenses that would be good enough. Keeping the clients fear factor low.

 

My estimate is that 8mm is the probable lens choice for the front cams.

 

I'd probably go with varifocal lenses in the back.

[VST_Man 1]

I'd use tripods with PTZ's all controlled from a PC based Server. split the video outputs; one to the DVR and the other to the a Digital Recording Deck. DVR would provide the internet link and the recorder will provide you with the quality for editing. Audio is a no brainer as you will just tap into the audio mic feed(s).

 

PTZ's would provide you with the best pic in my opinion and it would allow you the ability to roam, set presets for stage, and reduce camera person daily fee's.

 

Noticable differance? yes, only in the over picture inframe. a smaller resolution reduces the overall width/height of the pic..........the high the resolution size the more you get in pic..but, the additional is nothing to bragg about AND the editing of 640x480 is a standard that all can view without any issues.

 

I did some time behind camera's in a studio and have a "project" of mine to eliminate camera person(s) all together and have a PTZ controlled camera do all the shots, all controlled at the sound booth.

 

I'd like to help if you want. PM me......................

[owelesstax.com 0]

Noticable differance? yes, only in the over picture inframe. a smaller resolution reduces the overall width/height of the pic..........the high the resolution size the more you get in pic..but, the additional is nothing to bragg about AND the editing of 640x480 is a standard that all can view without any issues.

 

Thanks for the explanation of the higher resolution, that was sa I supposed, and if I frame the cameras well enough, I shouldn't need to do much post shoot framing, although, that might be an option in the second generation to have the abiity to adjust for people of different height.

But what I'm looking for is totally unmanned operation. Just passive collection of video footage to be edited after the fact.

[Thomas 0]

You don't want a DVR for this solution. It's going to be a painful choice that isn't going to meet your needs. What you want is some camcorders, a machine with a video editing suite and a copy of Window's Media Server to do the streaming. I get this request twice a week and in the long run, you really will be happier doing it the right way.

[owelesstax.com 0]

You don't want a DVR for this solution. It's going to be a painful choice that isn't going to meet your needs. What you want is some camcorders, a machine with a video editing suite and a copy of Window's Media Server to do the streaming. I get this request twice a week and in the long run, you really will be happier doing it the right way.

 

I thank you for taking the time to respond, and hope you can give me a little more detailed explanation. When you say "won't meet my needs, which needs won't be met"?

 

I don't want to sound ungrateful, and would really like knowledgeable insight, so here is why I was going this way:

 

Avoid having to spend time switching tapes, and then trying to resync those tapes at time of edit.

 

I wanted to not take time to do any setup, and I was thinking, that motion detection was the ideal on switch.

 

I could use camcorders, but only one can be connected via firewire at a time to a computer, I might be able to do 1 through USB 2.0, but that would still be just one. I guess CPUs are cheap, and I could stack a few, then attach them all to a network attached drive, to put all the files on a single source.

 

But that doesn't get us to a simple unmanned recording system.

[Thomas 0]

CCTV systems are compressing at a much more aggressive set of settings then the files used for generating Movie DVDs. So if you are expecting to use the system and get something the quality of a professional DVD...it's not going to happen. DVD's generally have an 60 db S/N rating. Most CCTV gear tops out at 52 db. The differants is signifigant. (And so is the cost.)

 

Motion detection is generally on a per camera basis, so it's going to be even more of a pain to synch up then the camcorder method.

 

And most systems are not going to support a heavy load for streaming. Put more then a few clients on there ad you can overload the DVR.

 

Keep in mind that differant types of systems have differant kinds of focus. CCTV Security Systems have to focus on balancing image quality vs length of storage. So some trade offs to both have to be accepted. Where as pro level broadcasting gear doesn't really care.

 

But why do a direct conection to the PC for all of the cameras? Why not have them record to the media they use and pull the video off of that when needed.

[owelesstax.com 0]

I beleive that I could be starry eyed and naive in my plans, I may be thinking that CCTV security is the perfect solution to my problems, and it may not deliver what I expect.

CCTV systems are compressing at a much more aggressive set of settings then the files used for generating Movie DVDs. So if you are expecting to use the system and get something the quality of a professional DVD...it's not going to happen. DVD's generally have an 60 db S/N rating. Most CCTV gear tops out at 52 db. The differants is signifigant. (And so is the cost.).

My Primary goal is to have good enough quality to stream, but not directly from my CCTV video capture system. I would edit (camera switching) and I'd offload the footage to a to a seperate streaming server, for the client to access privately for possibly a year or more. Then I'd go back to the original footage, cut and archive any footage that we think has general value, and dump the rest. Next day we do it all again. The picture quality for the client private viewing would not be that high anyway. Probably viewed in a 320x240 frame , possibly (depending on their connection speed) at less than 30fps. Would the Security based DVR video be good enough for that? Some clients might have the bandwidth to view at 640x480 30fps, that is why we want to start there.

Then we were hoping to use the cut and archived footage mentioned to create promo pieces, possibly on DVD. Not that I expect a hollywood quality image of a conference room discussion. But I'd like it to be viewable, and have enough picture detail to recognize the people and read the notes on the board.

Motion detection is generally on a per camera basis, so it's going to be even more of a pain to synch up then the camcorder method. .

This also may be okay, since we don't need angles on empty parts of the room. But if someone sits in a chair, we'd like a camera on them, if they speak we'd like to record their input. If through motion detection we only have three recorded tracks, then I don't have to manually cut the empty tracks.

And most systems are not going to support a heavy load for streaming. Put more then a few clients on there ad you can overload the DVR. .

That is why we would use a dedicated streaming server or service for the broadcast portion.

 

Keep in mind that differant types of systems have differant kinds of focus. CCTV Security Systems have to focus on balancing image quality vs length of storage. So some trade offs to both have to be accepted. Where as pro level broadcasting gear doesn't really care..

 

I understand the focus of time and space efficiency for the Security Sector, but you still want video picture quality that allows identification of individuals at longer distances then we need. You won't offend me by correcting my thoughts. AS I understand compression in the area of Video, MPeg compression allows for an original frame, simply cataloging changes to that frame keeping the total amount of info relatively low. this type of compression works well on a fram that does not change much, thus a static picture of a wall, with a picture of a face, with a little lip movement a head turn and a blink won't take too much space on the drive. Whereas a closeup of a rock concert performer running across stage doesn't squeeze down so tite. I thought h.264 created a better than mpeg picture at near mpeg-4 size. Although it doesn't work well for frame by frame viewing (not a real problem for us) it does allow for a fairly small yet detailed stream.

But why do a direct conection to the PC for all of the cameras? Why not have them record to the media they use and pull the video off of that when needed.

A meeting can be from 2 to 6 hours. Standard DV tapes only record 1 hr. that means stopping, changing tapes, athen starting again, or hiring someone, to sit there, and every hour, switch tapes on maybe 3 cameras. then sit there again.

 

OR is there a storage medium that I can attach a camera to, that has a 6-20 hr record time?