hardwired

Orion makes monitors for outdoor/sunlight readable (Transreflective design), and also fan cooled outdoor enclosures for them- I have seen monitors that are overheating do the same thing. http://www.orionimages.com/product/17RTCSR.asp http://www.orionimages.com/product/ENCLA24.asp

Keep in mind that in this type of application, if you do ever get to the point where you need full gigabit ports on individual cameras, you will then need 10Gb ports going to the NVR, and on the NVR itself, and you'll be far beyond current disk capability. So, when you need gigabit at the camera, you will still need a better switch, and a better NVR....

Here's an Acti knowledge base article on URL commands- http://www.acti.com/getfile/KnowledgeBase_UploadFile/ACTi_Camera_URL_Commands_20120327_002.pdf Javascript would work, you just need to link those URL commands to a button on your site.

Yes, converting to HDMI first gives you more options. HDMI/SDI units are more common, but usually more oriented to the broadcast industry, and not cheap- here's one option, http://www.mars-cam.com/IVS/Cameras/server_VS-102HDI-HDSDI.html

You do realize those are components designed for OEM integration into finished products, not complete camera systems, right? Even if you were able to find an encoder that does what you are looking for, it will not be likely to have data outputs of the type necessary (TTL level RS232, Sony VISCA protocol) to control the lens, and other camera functions. You will also need to be able to provide a breakout connector for the fine pitch flex ribbon cable that connects to the camera for power and signals.

Most, if not all, will require 802.3af negotiation, the cameras by Ubiquiti being a rare exception. The reason Ubiquiti (and many other wireless equipment vendors) use that type of output is that at least some of it predates the 802.3af standard, and they've simply continued with their design (voltages between 12-48 volts, usually 12-24 volts, no load sensing before applying full voltage). It's also cheaper than having fully compliant hardware in both the Power Sourcing Equipment (PSE), and the Powered Device (PD), and is hacker-friendly for throwing together alternative power supplies (batteries, solar, etc.)

Hope it helps, sometimes that stuff gets a little more complicated than necessary. Good luck.

Had you found this- http://rflogicsinc.com/partners/Hardware_Manuals/RFK101%28English-081103%29.pdf? It seems to indicate that the output is 26 bit Wiegand, if the jumpers are set for that mode. Otherwise, I've used other products from Cypress, and I know they make this unit for special situations -http://www.cypresscomputer.com/product_details.htm?product=CVX-1300

Do you have more than one card to scan? that would help figure out what part is the facility code (or whatever similar it uses), and what part is individual card data.

Use the good stuff. Or better yet, use the Arecont cameras for doorstops. That's what I use them for, now. The combination of arrogant and pushy support, low reliability, and now, having to pay for a camera you send in for service, even if you have them throw it away, have combined to ensure that I'll never use them again.

I've been building my larger systems with direct attached storage (using Areca 1882ix series controllers), but typically using 7200rpm SATA drives for storage. I usually try to keep my total bandwidth a little lower than what you are doing, though. A system I just finished used the Areca controller, four 15K Hitachi 600GB Ultrastar's in RAID 10 for the OS, and 32X WD 3TB 7200 RPM SAS drives, RAID 6 in two 16 bay enclosures. That one I'm comfortable pushing a little harder. One plus for Avigilon, the outbound viewing traffic is usually quite a bit lower than what I was used to seeing with Milestone, unless you turn the resolution down quite a bit in the Milestone smart client (default is full resolution in Milestone, which tortures video cards and networks unnecessarily).

The Cisco SF302-08P (Rather than -MP) gives you a 62 watt power budget, and goes for ~$250. It is fanless, and 8 Acti cameras should be fine on it. Not knocking the Zyxel, I have heard good things about them, but I have used a lot of the Cisco's, with good results, and they are silent. The better switches check actual power consumption per port, rather than the PoE class presented (most Acti cameras present as PoE class 2 or 3, yet usually only draw a fraction of that). Acti has a selection tool on their design page here http://www.acti.com/switchselector that will show the actual usage for each camera model.

That number of cameras is hugely overkill. A smaller number of cameras with varifocal lenses for tighter coverage, a pair on each wall, placed about a third of the way in from each side with the views crossing, will give you much the same coverage using about seven cameras. Or, since you are in the design phase anyway, placing a few megapixel cameras on structures at the edges of the yard (fences, mailboxes, etc), looking in towards the house, would allow you to get full perimeter coverage with four cameras or less.

What RAID cards are you using or recommend? Started out with HighPoint a few years back, wouldn't even recommend them to an enemy now (arrays and volumes disappearing, and unrecoverable, without any logging messages at all, etc). Been using Areca 1882ix series cards for a while now, and they have been working well. Heard reasonably good things about Adaptec, too, but I haven't tried them yet.

Running a system that close to it's limits is asking for problems. One thing I've run into is that when a RAID array is in a rebuild situation, disk throughput drops significantly. Being at a point where doing something like adding one more client (especially mobile with transcoding), or other minor changes (frame rate, etc.) can take your whole system down is not a position you should be in.

You could use the same Ubiquiti wireless bridge equipment (at those distances, i would use a pair of Nanostation Loco M5's), but instead of using all IP cameras, install a encoder at the barn and use analog cameras there. Then, you could use NVR software on a (dedicated, preferably) PC at the home for control/viewing. Avigilon four channel encoders only require one channel of software licensing (you could use the Core version), and it's a very user friendly application. There are other similar hardware/software packages that could work, also. It's going to be tough to keep the project under $1000, though, unless you source some REALLY cheap offshore PTZ's..... I regularly sell Pelco PTZ's for $2000+ each.

You may want to try another connector, I've never seen a CCTV camera with a 50 Ohm output. Even with the differences in connector design between 50 and 75 Ohm connectors, they can still interconnect. Copper clad steel cable will doom your project, both for signal loss and interference. It is only designed for use with modulated high frequency signals, not baseband video like CCTV signals. At those distances, you may want to consider using baluns, the cost of the cable will be much less (if you are powering the cameras locally, one CAT5 cable can carry four signals), and will have less likelihood of interference.

The smart client default setting is to display cameras at full resolution, which is unnecessary, and often causes problems. Go into the settings in the smart client and try changing each camera down to a lower display resolution (it doesn't affect the recordings, just how it displays).

Condensation in a camera inside a cooler usually means that the cable penetration through the cooler was not sealed properly, and warm, damp outside air reaches the dome interior, and condenses there.

Perhaps this- http://www.startech.com/Cards-Adapters/Slot-Extension/PCI-Express-to-PCI-Adapter-Card~PEX1PCI1, but you would have to figure out if you could fit the extra height it adds into your case,

The router itself is probably using port 80 (which is the default web page port) for it's management: either change it's management port, or the port settings in the NVR to something else.

Keep in mind that there are different types of RG6, the one most commonly found is designed for cable TV/Satellite use, (often marked as Quad shield, or CATV/SAT, etc), and has a foil shield with a copper covered steel center conductor. This cable is unsuitable for CCTV use. It will pick up interference very easily, and the signal loss is very high. RG6 (or RG59, for that matter) that is suitable for CCTV has a solid copper core and a copper braid shield with at least 95% coverage. It's harder to find, and much more expensive, due to the amount of copper in the wire. This problem also exists with RG59, but suitable CCTV RG59 is easier to find than the correct RG6.

If your NVR is not set for getting a DHCP address, it may not show up in the router's information, even though it's connected. Try programming it with a static IP address that matches the router's subnet, but outside it's DHCP range (eg. if the DHCP addresses are in the 192.168.1.1-100 range, assign it 192.168.1.101, or something like that). Then, create the correct port forwarding rules to that address in the router, and retry the remote access.

Try Time Lapse Supply, http://www.timelapsesupply.com/pelcospectraii.html#plasticparts

If nothing is connected to the Ethernet port on the DVR, the only other rational explanation I can think of is that one of the monitor outputs from the DVR is connected to some other device that is encoding the video into a IP format. To test that theory, you could disconnect the monitor output from the DVR. If you lose the video at that point, you need to chase down what's at the other end of that cable.