How do you guys get over the 300' Cat5 restriction?

[Soundy 1]

Just to verify peeps, not a question about POE, just the restriction in general, in fact it had nothing to do with video really, was just a router and access point issue I was having which ended up just being a bad connection. Thanks though.

 

Just as a point of interest, this particular length restriction is specific to *ethernet*. I've seen token-ring networks operating over Cat-3 shared with a phone line, pushing 500' without issue.

 

One site that I worked on many years ago, we were switching all their T-R systems over to 10/100 as part of a new system rollout. All the existing lines were Cat-5 and routed through BIX-blocks in the server room before terminating at the patch panel. The client ends (mostly at user desks) typically had two or four runs into boxes with interchangeable jacks, which made things SO easy - want a phone there, punch down the appropriate jumpers on the BIX block, and drop in the appropriate jack at the desk. Want to switch from T-R to ethernet, just change one set of jumpers at the BIX, change the patch from the T-R hub to the new ethernet hub (switches weren't very common then), and drop in the appropriate jack at the desk.

 

We did this in the building super's office at the far end of the building from the server room... and it worked... at first. Connection kept dropping out... so we pulled the jack sockets out of the wall to find... Cat-3. Then we traced it up the wall and out the top where it went up to the ceiling of a service bay... and into a splice point. Then it zig-zagged across the ceiling to another splice point... right beside an open 220V three-phase junction box. Then it zipped off into the ceiling of the office space.

 

We estimated the actual length to be somewhere near 360'... Cat-3 all the way... at least two open splices (and we're talking, ends twisted together and taped up), one of them by an electrical junction... no wonder the new 10/100 connection didn't work! And yet the T-R handled it all without so much as a whimper. We actually put that one station back on T-R (the sites were using routers - REAL enterprise-level routers - and hubs, rather than switches, so it was possible to leave the T-R hub connected to the router and keep the guy online) and called someone else in to make new Cat-5 runs to the office... without the zig-zagging!

[CCTV_Suppliers 0]

Just to verify peeps, not a question about POE, just the restriction in general, in fact it had nothing to do with video really, was just a router and access point issue I was having which ended up just being a bad connection. Thanks though.

 

All these questions and you fixed it? Rory, you are not giving us a chance man...

 

My 2 cents on this topic... We do not use CAT5e cable for a long time now. Instead using CAT6e cable, which takes much higher bandwidth and better shielded overall... In the installations it makes sense to use this cable, as long as you have a "forwarding looking" approach... so that in the next 5 or 10 years when newer gadgets come around that will require more bandwidth, you do not have to redo the cable at least..

 

I found a very well written write up about Cat5e vs. Cat6e comparisons, advantages and disadvantages... and you may have seen it before, but here it goes: http://www.broadbandutopia.com/caandcaco.html

 

Anything higher than Cat6e, you are looking at fiber...

[woodyads 0]

Yeah but its still all just data .. analog, digital, still data, granted different technology .. though look at what they do with DSL on smaller telco lines ..

 

Ethernet you are looking at 10, 100, 1000 mb/s ADSL is 8mb/s and 24mb/s no where near as quick, and I have my doubts that you will ever get it. If you want to get to a camera further than 300m away on Ethernet, turn the network speed down for that link. If you set it to 10mb/s half duplex you will get the longest distance. However 10 full will probably suffice. CAT 6 cable could possibly deliver longer distances. 10mb/s should be fine for 1 camera and possibly 2.

 

Big difference between Analogue and Digital signals is Digital (if it gets through will guarantee integrity.) Analogue will not. The digital signal carries parity checking. TCP/IP can guarantee packet delivery, UDP/IP doesn't. With live video viewing you only want UDP because if you miss a packet, too late, forget it grab the next. However if your tight you can set your recording stream to TCP so when you review you pick up everything.

 

Short answer is if you go over 300m you do need to chose another medium. You can use Ethernet over copper which is designed for low quality cables (phone cables). But in reality fibre is best.

 

While this limitation may seem retarded for this industry, The real question is what other devices in the area could use IP and therefore justify a switch in the initial design. One area you guys in the security industry could look at is Power on IP (not PoE). For about $500 you can

get power boards that can be controlled remotely with IP. Find an excuse for a power board and you have an excuse for a switch.

 

There are many other devices that can utilise IP control and monitoring. I am looking at water pumps, two way radio's, RAP's (remote area power systems) and more traditional process control serial devices are being moved to IP. So we are using any excuse to put IP switches in as many remote areas as possible.

[chad_cooper 0]

try to go to these guys....extend the IP and POE !

 

Veracity http://www.veracityusa.com

[metafizx 0]

Down here though, cat5 is about the same price as RG59 coax .. and Switches are $50 each, not to mention the extra weatherproof housing or location for them

 

I guess with short runs it would be worth it though.

Seems that Wifi is where the IP technology really shines.

 

I can't see where WiFi is good for IP cameras. at 54 Mbps, even with a half decent connection, it isn't anywhere as reliable as a wire.

 

I have a wireless install that has made me pull out lots of hair. For the life of me I can't get the frame rates solid. Interference on the 802.11G band, I don't know, but it is just crappy.

 

also most IP cameras use only WEP.

 

maybe you mean some other kind of WiFi ???

[rory 0]

I can't see where WiFi is good for IP cameras. at 54 Mbps, even with a half decent connection, it isn't anywhere as reliable as a wire.

 

I have a wireless install that has made me pull out lots of hair. For the life of me I can't get the frame rates solid. Interference on the 802.11G band, I don't know, but it is just crappy.

 

also most IP cameras use only WEP.

 

maybe you mean some other kind of WiFi ???

 

Theoretically. First off Im not talking about Megapixel cameras. Also I imagine the equipment used makes a difference, once it is not off the shelf gear like Linksys etc. The products I have looked at in the past cost in the 10s of thousands of dollars. BUT, ofcourse wired is always better

 

When it comes to a choice of IP or Regular, thats the original distinction I was making - same quality picture if not better with non IP, and RG59 cable in my case is cheaper. When doing wireless though, with analog you are limited to the number of cameras you can use, with IP you can use as many as you can handle - you can use one switch to cover several cameras, whereas with analog you need a single TX and RX for each single camera.

 

Now if you want MegaPixel then thats a whole different story.

 

What IP cameras and wireless equipment were you using?

Also, I was not talking about IP cameras with built in wireless.

[metafizx 0]

What IP cameras and wireless equipment were you using?

Also, I was not talking about IP cameras with built in wireless.

 

I have only played with 802.11G for IP cameras. I haven't gotten too serious with wireless, because of initial problems. I know there are other proprietary wireless systems out there. Everything I bought is plain old stuff for 802.11G networking.

 

While it seems simple to setup and make it work, if there is a signal problem, it can be very difficult to solve. Also you cannot be guaranteed that a signal problem won't pop up in the future, intermittent or permanent. many things emit in the 2.4 GHz band (microwave ovens, wireless security systems, cordless phones, bluetooth devices), people put in wireless routers like they're eating candy. and construction changes/obstacles may cause a signal drop.

 

The only self contained wireless camera that I have used that worked decent was the Axis 207w..your fav! I used it primarily because it a). works, and b). has a good image for the money.

 

I also have experimented with a wireless bridge, using a regular wired IP camera which worked but due to signal problems I went back to direct wire. I would say this is a very good way to go, if you have the budget and room for wireless bridge, camera, power, battery backup etc...if the camera install is outdoors, it can be hard to implement this way. otherwise you need the self contained wireless IP cam. also getting uninterruptable power to it is something to deal with...(no POE with wireless!)

 

I'd love to know a better wireless camera. I haven't tried Vivotek's stuff yet. Can you recommend one ?

 

When I was looking at wireless cameras, it seemed that most manufacturers were creating a low end product, and were really more toys than anything else. Now it seems there are more products coming out that could be better.

 

Meanwhile I still struggle with poor throughput problems on a wireless install.

[rory 0]

Yep when I was looking at it for a quote a couple years back, I was using some wireless products in the 10s of thousands of dollars (cant remember the name off hand), Multiple Access Points, switches etc. , so that may differ from the off the shelf products .... and also it was using analog cameras connected to IP servers, as if I was to use regular wireless like VideoComm or Trango it would be a separate TX and RX for each camera, 30+ cameras would not work well in that scenerio.

 

I was thinking last night of looking to see what they have available now though in the area of Wireless cameras, especially maybe Wimax or some other repeater type wireless for even just the basic analog cameras using wireless servers.

 

Also, my biggest issue has been with the IP software that is available, looking at it in the past there was not much out there for the regular consumer, now I just looked at Exaq technologies video demos and it looks really good .. any ideas or comments on that or other software for IP cameras?

 

Thanks, BTW, im far from an expert on wireless

 

Rory

[chad_cooper 0]

IP Cameras using WEP ??? Most true ip cameras dont have built in Wireless functions. The access points would be using WEP or WAP or some other form of encryption format. Ip cameras being ethernet wont have care what you use as long as the link is good and stable, meaning you might want to change channels on your AP and wireless router and see if that helps. There is just a lot of 802.11 2.4 ghz stuff out there conflicting with each other. Using WImax or a mess will greatly improve your usage, or moving to a 4.9 mhz type.

 

As for 12vdc up the coax with video too, I havent seen a product to do that. I believe that the lower voltage would interfere with the hz sweep for the 1.0 volt PP analog video signal.

 

Hope this helps.

[metafizx 0]

IP Cameras using WEP ??? Most true ip cameras dont have built in Wireless functions. The access points would be using WEP or WAP or some other form of encryption format. Ip cameras being ethernet wont have care what you use as long as the link is good and stable, meaning you might want to change channels on your AP and wireless router and see if that helps. There is just a lot of 802.11 2.4 ghz stuff out there conflicting with each other. Using WImax or a mess will greatly improve your usage, or moving to a 4.9 mhz type.

 

As for 12vdc up the coax with video too, I havent seen a product to do that. I believe that the lower voltage would interfere with the hz sweep for the 1.0 volt PP analog video signal.

 

Hope this helps.

 

yes wireless IP cameras have WEP...Axis 207W, 207MW for example.

 

For lower cost systems, the self contained wireless IP cameras would desired.

[normicgander 0]

I have started using WLAN radios to connect customer buliding with ethernet for general use and allow remote view of DVRs. Can be fun stuff.

 

I think digital cameras of some sort will be the future. Like the idea of using progressive scan sensors, even at D1 res. It's just too bad all the OEMs used a small data rate platform such as Ethernet. Why not use a channelized RF digital system which could use RG6 CATV coax? You could have extension amps if needed. The rx could decode and record the camera channel signals. The receiver could provide the Ethernet interface like DVRs do now. Power over coax like the sat stuff? May sound crazy.