http://www.intellicamusa.com/g44000dvr.htm

That looks like the Nadatel DVR, they only make a 4 channel DVR, and the company is new, so its up to you. It has some good specs. We were waiting for it to come over this side of the world to test it out :-)

I think DVR australia has tested it over there ..

http://www.nadatel.com/en/prod/s2_m01_01.html?product_no=16

l have looked everywhere at dvrs,this is one l have not seen before,l am thinking of this one or the 8 channel with remote and cdrw from the same compny.l am using their 4 channelw,remote that was the dvr l was trying to get the software for in another post (bar/niteclub)for you to see my bar.Myonly reservation would be the record speed for 8 channels? would that be enough or it would give me a choppy playback picture?

Well this 4 channel has much better features and specs than the other cheap DVRs they sell on that site. This will actually, well after some tests for stability, MAY be competition for the Kalatel StoreSafe, also depends on the remote software, and whether they provide an SDK or ActiveX to change the look of the remote software to a more american GUI.. :-)

I dont think this DVR though, can be compared to the other cheap ones they have on their site, it is in a different class, same goes for Kalatel DVRs, DM, etc.

But they are good for low end installs or ones that dont need much DVR features such as small retails or home users.

I do like the IR Remote Controls on those cheaper brands though, dont know why the expensive DVRs cant add those to them...

Rory

l knw it was better but l didnt know how much better,l would get a better recorded quality wouldnt you think?

Better quality, better playback, more stable, better Remote Software and Remote Playback Features. All of the cheap DVRs i have tested, tend to lock up on Playback remotely over the internet, inlcuding the Everfocus, Hisharp and Provideo. Kalatel has never done this to me ever but it uses a different RTOS. Thats why I never even mention remote playback anymore for cheap DVRs, just that they can view it live over the internet and thats all :-)

But, like I said I have not tested this 4 channel DVR, DVR australia has and has also Tested the Kalatel so he would be better at this. Otherwise get one and let us know :-) Thanks ....

Rory

thanks for the info,much appreciated.this looks like the one for me!!!

you may want to PM DVR australia though first as he has tested it, out, he is in australia so when he comes on here we may be alseep ...

Network is 10BaseT.......not fast enough for me.

Yep tested it and its good, in my opinion it is the best budget priced dvr on the market for 4ch, only draw back is the way the log program works, hay it is no Kalatel, but it has some really cool features some even are better than Geo and Kalatel and for the price it is well worth it, I nearly fell over at the price.

Only drama is same as kalatel, fussy on CDRW drives so if your dies make sure you keep a spare

Yep tested it and its good, in my opinion it is the best budget priced dvr on the market for 4ch, only draw back is the way the log program works, hay it is no Kalatel, but it has some really cool features some even are better than Geo and Kalatel and for the price it is well worth it, I nearly fell over at the price.

Only drama is same as kalatel, fussy on CDRW drives so if your dies make sure you keep a spare

I'm looking at the DVMR/16 unit:

http://www.intellicamusa.com/dvr-series.htm

Their marketing literature is a bit on the "hard sell" side, but I can't find fault with the specs or their prices.

Does anyone have experience with this version?

Not too good.

While testing, after about 3 weeks , it started freezing, and they got really bad tech support, so I instead went with the ameba version, made by YOKOTEC, who makes DVR'S for many big name US manufacturers, like for example PROVIDEO, plus it is an 120FPS, twice as many frames as the YOKOTEC one.



[/url]

Thanks herminshs,

Can you provide a URL where I can get specs and prices?

Take a look here, PM me and I'll provide prices:

http://www.amebacctv.com/DVR-R216.htm

The DVR-R216 is spec'ed at "480 FPS display and up to 30 FPS record"

The DVMR/16 is spec'ed at "MAX 60 FIELDS/SEC" for both record and play.

I suspect the "display" speed is irrelevant, unless they mean "playback." Based on the record numbers, isn't the DVMR/16 superior?

The nadatel unit is good. We have tested it here in L.A about eight months ago. Mpeg 2 is good, kind of slow remotely but resolution is good. Web based browser is has bugs. Client software works good. Solid linix based reliability.

"nadatel "? Please elaborate.

its the topic of this thread, that DVR intellicam has on their site is the Nadatel 4 Channel DVR.

herminshs,

Regarding the record FPS, after more research, I stumbed on this site, which appears to show the Yoko unit you're talking about:

http://www.amexsecurity.com/store/shopexd.asp?id=75

Contrary to the other sites that show this unit (Yoko's included), the record rate is 60 FPS. I don't know which site to believe, but 60 FPS would be a big plus if it were true.

I've also learned that the 480 FPS display means "realtime" display, which would the equivalent of using a GeoVision DSP card in a PC-based system. This also appears to be a big feature that appears to place it ahead of both the Intellicam unit and PC-based system I'm considering.

Can you verify the specs from the Amex site?

A DVR unit is not "superior" just because it "claims" a faster recording speed. There are many other things to take into consideration.

Rory

by the way, real time display is not that important a feature for a security system. Multiplexers (i have used) always show real time display up to 9 camera view, after that it becomes slightly slower display. Alot of security system users do not view 16 way anyway, as it is way to small. 9 way is the most common. Matrix systems can use multiple monitors assigned to any different view, such as having 1 21" monitor in 9 way view, 3 9" Monitors of Single Cameras in 1 way view, and 1 9/14/15" monitor in quad view.

Another example would be a multiplexer with 16 cameras, which does not do 16 way in real time display - you set it to 9 way, then set sequence on, and it will see all 9 windows in real time, the last window will sequence the remainder of the cameras, and in real time.

Stability is the most important feature in a Security System, coupled along with good recording quality, in CCTV.

Understood that stability is the most important quality, but there's no way to extract that from a spec sheet. Most of the users on this forum appear to be most comfortable with higher-end DVRs that are way out of my price range. I've seen a few posts from others in this forum who have (or had) the same needs and budget as me, but they appear to have dropped out since getting the information they were after. I guess that's a good sign because, if they were having problems with their systems, I'm sure they'd be back for troubleshooting advice and/or to whine about their misfortune.

It appears that best I can do is research the specs, narrow down the choices, and then ask the members of this forum if they've had any experiences with unit such-and-such. So far, there doesn't seem to be a consensus. It seems that everyone here has had some sort of "trouble" with the "cheap units." What isn't clear in most cases is whether that trouble was an inconvenience or a downright disaster.

I actually have a multiplexer (ProVideo DV-9) that's pretty decent and might use it in conjuction with the DVR. My only complaint with that unit is that you can't get a true quad screen. But, if I can locate an acceptable DVR within my budget that doesn't have a realtime display feature, I'll probably do all of the monitoring through the ProVideo.

By the way, I'd like to thank you all for the information I've gleaned so far. CCTV technology is far from a mainstream interest and it's great to see so many people sharing their valuable knowledge. I wish there were more active low-budget members like me, but maybe more will join in as the price of this technology continues to fall.

no problem .. we all use the cheap DVRs also ..different clients have different needs and budgets.

My issues with the cheap DVRs that I have used so far, are that they lock up alot when connected on the network, in playback. Maybe this is just a linux thing? Kalatel uses Nucleous RTOS, not linux, and never had 1 lock up yet. Their network software is also very limited, and the DVR menu programming also limited, but you get what you pay for.

I also have the 9 channel Provideo Mux at an installation, what do you mean when you say not a true quad? Do you mean real time display in quad? You may be right there ..havent used it that much other than 9 way which yes, is not real time on that mux - BUT, the price is 1/3rd that of say the Kalatel Mux. The provideo mux does what I need it to do. By the way that job, Im using a 16 channel Kalatel Mux, the 9 channel provideo mux, and a Kalatel Single channel DVR with a Channel Vision RF modulator. 8 cameras that loop from the Kalatel mux are covert on the kalatel mux, and the provideo mux is used on the Monitor's B input. The single channel DVR records off the kalatel mux.

Rory

by the way, this is a cheap DVR from Korea I am going to test out, will see how it adds up. They are currently working on the 8 and 16 channel versions to be released soon, and a version with a CDR. Korean DVRs look to be better than the other asian brands, dont quote me yet though.

MPEG4:
http://www.uriel.net/htm/product/tm4_001.htm

this is the same one (different address in korea though)
http://www.active-tek.com/jun/HtmlPro/product1-1eng.htm

build your own..
http://www.active-tek.com/jun/HtmlPro/product_avr400beng.htm

the above may be the same, especially as neither know how to make a web site !! LOL

Also, the other is this one, also Korean:
http://www.nadatel.com/
Also they are working on an 8 and 16 channel version.

(same manufacturer i wonder .. perhaps a marketing strategy)

Well, yes, it is exactly as it says on their website, and regarding what rory is saying, this particular DVR, which I have used plenty of times, will give you realtime display on all 16 channels at one time, while the recording is a full 60fps, which it distributes depending how many cameras have actual motion at that particular moment.

As for the price, it is the same price that we have it for, with the exception of that we sell directly from the manufacturer, while they go thru a 3rd party distributor. Imagine the hastle if you ever need to get warranty server on the unit.

Rory,

By "not real quad," I mean that you can't configure four equally sized views on the screen, My wife is currently watching the TV it's hooked up to and would get upset if I were to switch the view to check this out, but I recall the four camera view as having one large view and three *very* small views, or something like that. There's decent two-camera view, but it has a lot of blank space on the top and bottom; so much so that they could have moved the two cameras up and inserted another two cameras at the bottom for a true quad view. But noooo.... :roll:

My mux is a few years old, so maybe they've improved the newer units. The one good thing I can say about it though is that it outlasted my Lorex VCR. :cry:

Yep, warranty is the key word on any purchase - crap, i bought a $35,000 jeep here in the bahamas thinking that id get a nice local warranty, all i got was 3 months and a 1 year limited - in the US the same purchase gets you 10 years (or a certain miliage)

Service (tech support) is also very very important.

If you get that, with a cheap DVR, or an expensive one, then you will be okay.

Rory

that must have been the older version or maybe the 9 channel "Multi viewer"? This one I have is around 1 1/2 years old. It has 1 way, 4 way (Quad), and 9 way views.
http://www.specotech.com/cart/products/productDetails.asp?prodID=429

If it is the MV-9 that is not a true multiplexer.
http://www.specotech.com/cart/products/productDetails.asp?prodID=362
I actually ordered that as all I needed it for was viewing, not recording, but the distributor sent me the Mux instead, same price basically.

One thing I like about the Kalatel Muxes and DVRs are that you dont have to restart the hardware to recognise newly installed cameras.


Rory

Except that a 16 way multiview is pretty much useless unless you have a 30"+ screen :D

Yes, I ended up with the "multiviewer" (if only I had known the difference).

I have a 50" DLP downstairs, so I'm hoping that will be big enough for 16 views. :D