first build

[kabukiUkie 0]

Hello all, I've been lurking around these forums for a bit... great information. I put together a dvr with a geovision 1480 card. The dvr has a p 4 3.0 ghz with 1 gb of ram, radeon x550 256mb, and 1 tb hd. So far I have 5 cameras hooked up recording at 30 fps each with h.264 compression at 720x480 resolution. I plan on having all 16 cams recording at that resolution, but I'm not sure that the specs on the dvr will handle it, since the cpu is around 80%-100% usage with the 5 cams. What can you guys tell me based on your experience?

 

Is it more favorable to set a resolution with de-interlace? Does it take up more hd space?

 

Finally, are there any other capture cards that record 480 fps at 720x480 or 640x480? All that I found are 480 fps at 320x240 or 240 fps at 640x480.

[ak357 0]

you probably have to use hik cards (HW compression)

so far what i know and use is 8 ch D1 Card

I just use 4 of them to get 480 to view and 480 to record

at D1 res

[photys 0]

but I'm not sure that the specs on the dvr will handle it, since the cpu is around 80%-100% usage with the 5 cams.

Just put a similar speced system in.

4 cams recording at 720x480, 8 cams recording at 360x240

I am using the GeoMPEG codec as it appears to be better quality.

CPU usage 20%

Drop to GeoMPEG and compare image quality and CPU usage.

 

Is it more favorable to set a resolution with de-interlace?

Im still not decided on this.

Recording with No de-interlace is a really smooth image with slight tearing on movement.

Recording De-Interalace shows jaggys all over the image.

Not checked filesize yet.

 

Finally, are there any other capture cards......

GV-2004 a four cam card

GV-2008 an eight cam card

[rory 0]

Core 2 Duo 2.67, or the Quad Core (much more $$) for closest you will get to 16 channels at D1 recording, using h.264. Or you could try the hardware compression cards, GV2008x2.

[rory 0]

Im still not decided on this.

Recording with No de-interlace is a really smooth image with slight tearing on movement.

Recording De-Interalace shows jaggys all over the image.

Not checked filesize yet.

 

De-interlace recording should be smooth, what Video card are you using?

Without it, there will be lines on moving objects.

[photys 0]

GV-1240

 

Still or recorded image shows the same:

De-interlace - slightly pixelated image, especially on any object at 45 degrees.

No de-interlace - no pixelation.

 

I think the de-interlace on my graphics card is bad.

Waiting for a new one.

 

 

This image recorded using 640x480 no de-interlace:

[501 0]

I've never found the de-interlaced as good as the 640X480 normal with deinterlace Rendering enabled. As mentioned above, there are always "jaggies" on angled items.

 

There are 2 types of video sources, 640X480 and 640X480 de-interlaced, but in plain 640x480 there is a de-interlaced option. I always use 640x480 as a source, and enable de-interlace rendering.

[rory 0]

Yep something is wrong with that second image ...

[501 0]

The second image is with a source of 640X480 Deinterlaced, while the first is with a source of 640X480 with de-interlace rendering enabled. These are the same results I have gotten.

[kabukiUkie 0]

Just put a similar speced system in.

4 cams recording at 720x480, 8 cams recording at 360x240

I am using the GeoMPEG codec as it appears to be better quality.

CPU usage 20%

Drop to GeoMPEG and compare image quality and CPU usage.

 

I tried the GeoMPEG but it takes up considerably much more hd space.

 

GV-2004 a four cam card

GV-2008 an eight cam card

 

these are very expensive cards, and they do not compress in h.264

 

does anyone know of any other cards that are not necessarily hw compression but are comparable to the geo 1480 in terms of recording resolution and fps?

[cctv_down_under 0]

In Geovision you can test your live viewing with what is being recorded and compare the file size I think from memory it is under the advanced section of video source... Interlace rendering is done by the video card and your card must support it...if not it is a waste of time, the interlace occurs becasue the chips are manufactured to support both PAL and NTSC and they are diuffernt shapes, so interlacing effect happens ... get a good quality video card that handles hardware overlay and rendering adn then anabel the interlace

[rory 0]

The second image is with a source of 640X480 Deinterlaced, while the first is with a source of 640X480 with de-interlace rendering enabled. These are the same results I have gotten.

 

Which codec were you using?

Was the dsp feature enabled?

What type of video card was it?

 

that second image looks like direct draw overlay is not working or enabled.

With the Geo Combo cards, if using the DSP feature, you loose Direct Draw Overlay feature (on the live video only I thought?). Just leave the DSP feature disabled, and you can still use the DSP video out as a clone of the live video view.

[501 0]

I have always found similar results when comparing the 640x480 deinterlaced and the 640x480 with deinterlace rendering enabled. I've found most of the newer on board video support it and it works great. I've tested with many different cards and codecs but didn't find they made much difference.

 

These are the same quality comparrissions I have found over the past few years which is why i always use the 640 with deinterlace rendering. Many on this board post they use the 640 Deinterlace (aka 640x480 SW), and I have always been dissappointed with the results. I actually had my personal DVR set to this yesterday and an incident occured and i was definitley not impressed with the quality, it 's impossible to recognize the people. I have some sample shots somewhere showing the differences.

[rory 0]

I have always found similar results when comparing the 640x480 deinterlaced and the 640x480 with deinterlace rendering enabled. I've found most of the newer on board video support it and it works great. I've tested with many different cards and codecs but didn't find they made much difference.

 

These are the same quality comparrissions I have found over the past few years which is why i always use the 640 with deinterlace rendering. Many on this board post they use the 640 Deinterlace (aka 640x480 SW), and I have always been dissappointed with the results. I actually had my personal DVR set to this yesterday and an incident occured and i was definitley not impressed with the quality, it 's impossible to recognize the people. I have some sample shots somewhere showing the differences.

 

Which Video Cards are you using? Quality shouldnt be much of a difference at all actually, only real difference should be the lines in the moving objects.

[501 0]

I have always found the difference to be huge. I don't think the video card makes abig difference. I have tried probably 15 different video cards over the years and have always found the same results whether it be ATI or Nvidia. The de-interlce render is the only thing I have found that required a decent video card or upper end on board.

 

Also, if you export the video, and play it back on another machine, the 640x480 will be better leading me to think the video card isn't responsible for the lower quality.

 

Also with deinterlace rendering enabled, I find the lines are missing anyways.

[rory 0]

I cant put in a DVR without enabling Deinterlace Rendering, as there are lines, and the client doesnt want to see that ..

[501 0]

There won't be any lines if you choose a source of 640x480 de-interlaced (formerly known as 640x480 S/W), only if it is true 640x480 do you need the de-interlace rendering enabled. What source do you use Rory?

[rory 0]

Well there is 640x480, and 640x480 deinterlaced, i use the 640x480 deinterlaced to get rid of the lines on moving objects. Which other deinterlaced option are we talking about?

[501 0]

Have you tried just choosing the source of 640X480 and then enabling the de-interlace rendering option in the System Configure? That is what the deinterlace rendering is for and it makes for a much clearer video imho. You need decent video for this option.