hardwired

Depending on the Dahua NVR and framerate you are trying to get, the slowdown you are describing is probably happening in the NVR itself due to processing load, not because of the network. Going with a gigabit network is always preferable to reduce congestion on the backbone of the network, even if devices only have 10/100 ports. There really aren't any cameras on the market that are capable of putting out more than 100Mbps (actually, I know of a few, but nothing that would be used in any average setup), so a gigabit port on the camera isn't necessary. At the NVR is a different story, because you are aggregating the bandwidth from multiple cameras, so your traffic can often exceed 100Mbps (as an example, one manufacturer recommends a maximum of 256Mbps per server, which requires gigabit ports and switches to reach).

The 802.15.4 protocol really isn't meant for video. Even at the 2.4GHz band, the sync rate is only 250Kbps, which means a real-world throughput of about half that, 125Kbps, which is inadequate for any decent resolution and frame rate. The easiest way to push video is using individual JPEG images, but that's also an inefficient method.

You might want to give TLS Electronics a try, http://www.timelapsesupply.com/. I've gotten quite a few Pelco PTZ parts from them, and they've always been helpful.

It is a tradeoff, I don't like IE much either, but in this case, the ActiveX plugin that runs allows it to almost perfectly replicate the thick client experience. It's better than anything else I've seen in that regard.

You can do what ak357 mentions, or if you can temporarily stop whatever other service is using port 80, then restart the gateway service, you should be able to log into it's web page and edit the port that it uses there.

Just keep in mind that Core only has 2 client connections to server Ah. That could be a bit of a problem but I doubt I would spring for the enterprise version so I will give core a try. Normally I have a tablet up and displaying the cams 24/7 and then randomly access via client, web browser or another mobile device. Milestone gives five client connections with the essentials version. In the previous version, mobile client connections did not count against the concurrent connection limit, not sure in 5.0, though. There is also the "Standard" version, which allows 5 concurrent connections.

Probably the biggest difference in Avigilon is that it dynamically re-samples the image resolution to the client to minimize bandwidth, and get the best framerate possible. You can adjust the resolution in Milestone (and should, in Milestone's remote software), it comes set at trying to send full resolution images, an most connections and video cards choke on that. Setting the resolution a little lower in the client improves things dramatically).

http://avigilon.com/support-and-downloads/for-software/software-updates-and-downloads/, you need Server 5.0, and Gateway 5.0, to start (the server installer also puts the client on the machine you are installing it on, you'll need the Client 5.0 on other machines, or use the Web client (which is the best web client I have seen, BTW, although you need IE with plugins for it). Depends on how many cameras, and how many clients at a time (especially mobile clients, the server app is as light as Exacq, but it loads down a lot when transcoding for the mobile client). A small number of cameras should be fine with your setup. As far as iSCSI, on the server side, you just need an iSCSI initiator, which has been supported since XP, you just need the storage to be supported as a target.

As I recall, I checked that field, and then ended up putting the LAN IP in that field (WAN address) as well, and that worked. I'll check again when I have access to one of those systems. There is also a higher camera count in Express, (48, instead of 26), and third-party integration, but that's not usually part of a smaller system, anyway. For more storage, if you can setup your NAS as a iSCSI target, you can expand storage that way (looks like local storage to Windows). That's sort of a personal decision, but if you go with Essentials, it is pretty cheap (I have had a couple of customers that didn't get the PMA re-purchase the newer version to get new features). If you have the time, you might try a demo of Avigilon, they do list the non-IR SNV-5080 as supported, you might get lucky. I place it's useability and features a bit above Milestone.

On the Milestone systems, I've had better luck with WAN access when leaving the remote address set to the same internal (LAN) IP- I think that setting has more to do with routing in a dual NIC machine where one NIC is LAN, and the other WAN connected (not sure though, but I had similar problems as you when I put in the WAN address). As far as Exacq, I'd stick with Milestone... I have had far more inexplicable problems in Exacq than Milestone, and trying to do playback in Exacq with megapixel cameras over a slower WAN connection is like watching paint dry. Exacq originally had somewhat of an advantage with a web client that did not need plugins, but now Milestone has that feature, as well.

The cameras in the Avigilon LPR units are still the JPEG2000 models, 1MP for single lane, 2MP for dual lane. I'm not sure discontinuing the regular JPEG2000 models was a bad idea, though. As nice as the picture is, the bandwidth and storage requirements are horrendous compared to the H.264 models, I have seen at least a 4 to 1 ratio. For that difference, you can install several cameras covering a smaller footprint area.

And, if you don't need PoE (a lot of IP cameras have 12VDC power inputs, along with PoE option), there are a lot of small, inexpensive 4 or 5 port switches on the market that run on 12VDC power. Also, how did you come up with the 70 Watt power estimate? that seems high for two cameras, a switch, and a wireless link (most IP cameras are under 10 Watts each, wireless links 5-10 Watts or so, and an audio amp would be less than a few watts at idle, and hardly ever in use).

Just noticed that you need just two Ethernet ports, the Ubiquiti NanoStation "M" series radios have two separate Ethernet ports, I often run two cameras without a switch on a single link that way.

I would shop for a switch that can run off of 12 or 24 Volts, you will lose a lot of efficiency running an inverter to supply 120VAC to components. Even at 50 Watts continuous load, you are looking at a pretty large and expensive system, here is one example by Tycon- http://tyconpower.com/products/remotepro_systems/rpst2424-100-240.html Keep in mind that even in Arizona, you only have an average of 5.5 hours of full sun a day, dividing that into a 24 hour day means that you need a panel approximately 5 times your load, so 70 Watts times 5 equals a 350 Watt panel output to provide enough charging capability. Plus you will need a battery (or bank of batteries) large enough to be discharged at 70 Watts for 18.5 hours a day without running it so low to damage it, which means about 200 Amp-hours of battery capacity. Everything you can do to reduce the amount of power necessary for your system will be worth it when running on solar.

Can't think of any 360 degree outdoor sensors offhand, but you might consider using 2 or 3 standard outdoor motion sensors with a 90-120 degree coverage ( http://www.dsc.com/index.php?n=products&o=view&id=1346, or similar), all connected to a single 12 Volt timer/relay module (http://www.altronix.com/products/product.php?name=6062#, or similar), to control the power to your 12 Volt lights.

That should work, as long as you can make sure it's disconnected from the service entrance, and just a single run cable, with no other branches splitting off to other locations (unterminated branches can cause ghosting in the images).

You've gotten the right idea, when using baluns, there is no digital conversion taking place. Each pair in the cable carries a single analog signal, which is not compatible with digital (IP based) communication. You would need to use an encoder to convert the analog signals to digital, then a decoder back to analog, to allow it to travel over wireless in your scenario.

Handbrake http://sourceforge.net/projects/handbrake/?source=dlp converted it to an mp4 that plays fine in VLC, etc.

For full NLOS, you are going to need 900MHz gear. In some cases, I've been able to use 2.4GHz equipment, depending on what the obstruction is (2.4GHz can burn through a reasonable amount of trees at a short distance like what you are describing). I haven't tested any 900MHz analog transmitters, but based on my experiences with other analog wireless gear, I would tend towards using a wireless data link (Ubiquiti NanoStation LocoM9 for 900MHz, or NanoStation M2 for 2.4GHz operation), along with a encoder/decoder pair. I have several similar setups running using Ubiquiti wireless gear, and Acti encoder/decoder pairs. Keep in mind that the 900MHz band is far more prone to interference, especially in urban areas with lots of SCADA / AMR equipment (municipalities are one of the biggest offenders, they commonly take radios designed for use with 3Dbi gain antennas, and put huge, high gain Yagi antennas on them. This severely violates FCC regulations, but no one seems to care). However, at the distances you are considering, that may not present a big issue. One of the advantages with IP based radios is the option to be able to use smaller channel widths to work around interference (the 900MHz band only has four non-overlapping channels at 10 MHz channel width, but the throughput you will need for one camera can fit in a 5MHz channel, giving more options to avoid interference).

Possibly Sentech STC-MC36USB-L2.3 ? Finding it for around $99 USD.

Take a look at Point Grey, http://www.ptgrey.com/products/index.asp. Wide range of cameras with USB 2.0/3.0, Firewire, etc. with a full SDK.

Realistically, you are only looking at under 10 kilometers, at most. You will be limited by the need to use a low gain omnidirectional antenna on the ship due to it's motion, and a moderate gain antenna at the land side to provide a wide enough beamwidth to cover the ship's path. There are also odd diffraction effects due to the radio signal bouncing off the water and wave surfaces.

It's made by BlackHawk Labs, http://www.bhlpower.com/. Nicely made, I just ordered one for a job where a customer told me they were ready for install, and had a server rack ready. I got there, and it was a two post relay rack about 16 inches off the wall....

Great to hear it's working well. My interactions with Sennetech have been similar, that's why I don't hesitate to recommend them.

Another possible fault may be associated with a defective camera power supply, or ground fault current on the coaxial cable. Some DVR's of that type use a switchmode brick type power supply that doesn't pass ground through to the DVR, so a fault current on the coax shield would find a ground through the monitor cable (which does typically provide a ground). In any case, some further testing is warranted, for the safety of the people using the equipment, as well as the devices. Whatever is passing enough current to melt a cable is also probably at a voltage high enough to kill someone coming in contact with it under the right (wrong?) circumstances.