Soundy

True, too... most cameras don't really require a lot of power. PoE spec states the source should be able to supply up to 15.4W per channel; some switches will do up to 15.4W on half their channels, or 7.5W on all of them. Without IR, most IP cameras you'll find probably run 5W or less.

It doesn't include IR. It's a true day/night with excellent low-light response - in most cases, it doesn't NEED IR.

What you mean by "true"? If you're talking about "true" color, you won't get it from a TDN camera, because *by definition* these switch to B&W mode in low light. Here are a couple shots from one of my jobs. Lights visible on the patio are 60W bulbs in hurricane shells: In this one, the patio lights are off - there's a little filtered light coming through the dining room blinds to the right, and from a street light a couple hundred feet away to the left:

Depends on the lens it does come with. The DFL-20S includes a 3.8mm lens, which may or may not be wide enough for your needs. The DBM-20VDL has a 3.8-9.5mm lens, which will let you zoom in tighter but no wider.

Can you post some pictures of the switcher, particularly of its connections?

Have you ever used the CNB DBM-24VF? Do you think IR is needed for interior hallways of a hotel? The DBM-24VF is the same camera as the VCM/VBM-24VF, just in a non-vandal-resistant plastic housing. It should work fine. IR should NOT be needed in a hotel's public areas - keep in mind these areas will need to be well-lit 24/7 anyway.

Yeah, there's no real "requirement" other than the switch being capable of handing the traffic. A basic $50 gigabit switch should be fine for 3-4 cameras (depending on resolution and codec used). Look at the rated *actual* throughput of the cameras, and the rated backplane capacity of the switch, and make sure the former don't total up to more than the latter. Beyond that, it all comes down to the requirements of the job itself - PoE, management, etc.

Never noticed that. Maybe they've had issues with people powering them using one pair over a long distance and calling in complaining that the cameras were dropping out, and figured it was just easier to say "don't do it at all"? In any case, I have 26 of them on one recent site running 12V over UTP... no problems.

I don't think OP is looking to run both inside the same conduit... however, running the parallel is also not a great idea, although as long as one of them (video or power) is in metal, you're probably okay for short distances. I've strapped coax and station wire (for camera power) along EMT electrical conduit for a couple dozen feet with no problems - it's mostly a matter of how much current is running through the electrical, as the more current, the stronger the field it produces. If you do have to run parallel, best idea is to separate the two by at least six inches (the more separation, the better).

These are VCM-24VFs outside in direct weather (mounted to a brick wall face) with only the parking lot lighting:

All the freakin' time. It's some kind of compulsion.

That's a ridiculous over-generalization. Not all domes are designed or built the same. A dome that has the wire going in through a sealed grommet is no more or less weatherproof in that location than a bullet that has the wire entering the same way.

Most times, it's a cheap hack workaround for a camera that has lousy low-light performance. And an external illuminator will generally be more powerful than any camera with IR built-in. This isn't really a "benefit" of the casing style, it's a simple factor of how many more cheap IR LEDs you can cram into the housing. A stick or a rock can knock a bullet out of position without needing to be in view of the camera or even close to the camera. Even if the camera is still transmitting a clear image, it's still "disabled" if it's looking at the sky or a blank wall or somewhere else that does no good.

Built-in IR, as a general rule, is a gimmick and a poor idea. Use external illuminators if you must. Better yet, use cameras that don't need it, and/or add white light. Unless you have to open one up to adjust zoom/focus... then you've probably reduced the weatherproofing. 3-Easier to hide/protect the wiring Bullet con: easily knocked out of position with a rock or stick - you don't need to damage a camera to disable it.

And especially in a facility that size.

Wow... that's a pretty open requirement, and as such there are probably too many different ways to achieve it to list in one post If all you want to do is turn on some kind of indicator, that's easy enough... feeding one signal to all the TVs in the house is pretty straightforward as well, if you want to do it via a cable channel or have some sort of signal distribution method in place. One tricky part though, with the little red light idea, would be actually wiring that to every location you want to have it... With running into the TVs, the other thing to keep in mind is that if the TV is off, you'd have to have the system turn it on, then change input/channel as needed. Not a lot of TVs will support this natively - most will be able to do it using an IR blaster, but again, that's something you'd have to wire into every location you want it to work.

It has nothing to do with the resolution, it has to do with how they're connected. DVRs use some form of capture device to take in the analog video and digitize it, then record it to disk. With IP cameras, the video is digitized in the camera and then transmitted via the network. In concept, it's not much different from viewing your DVR over the internet. In an all-IP system, you would use what's typically known as an NVR - Network Video Recorder. There are also units that have both analog capture hardware, and can record IP video streams - these are usually called "hybrid DVRs".

One thing to keep in mind is that IP and MP are two different thing: IP stands for "Internet Protocol" (more properly, the full term is "TCP/IP") and is just a transmission method; some IP cameras are standard low resolutions as well. MP stands for megapixel and refers to resolutions over one megapixel (typically 1280x960 or higher). Analog video at 704x480 is barely 0.34MP. The one major limitation of analog video, is the analog video standards themselves - NTSC simply doesn't allow more than 525 lines of vertical resolution (625 for PAL). You can't transmit a higher resolution without abandoning those standards, which would pretty much void any compatibility or interoperability between cameras and recorders. The primary way to get around this limitation, is simply to digitize the high-res video inside the camera, and transmit it over a network connection... functionally, not much different from streaming a movie or a YouTube video - data is data is data. So IP video largely came about as a way to achieve higher resolutions than analog would allow. Initial cost of megapixel cameras is generally higher, especially when you compare to the kind of cheap cameras available online... but an IP video *system* is not necessarily more expensive once everything is factored in. For example: what is the cost of a *good* DVR card? If you're using all-IP, you don't need that; you only need software that can receive and record the video stream from the network. What is the cost of cable? If you have a lot of long runs to deal with, you could potentially save a lot with the ability to run numerous cameras over a single link. Say, for example, coax and Cat5e both run 25c/ft (for the sake of easy calculation). If you have half a dozen cameras in an area 200' away from your recorder... that would be 6 x 200 x .25, or $300 worth of cable to run one coax from each camera to the DVR. With a network setup, you run each camera into a nearby switch, then one run back to the DVR. If you figure the cameras are no more than an average of 30' from the switch location, that's 6 x 30 x .25 or $45 for that wiring, $50 for a run from the switch to the DVR, and maybe $50 for the switch itself (eight-port gigabit will do nicely), for a total of <$150. There you've just cut that part of the cost in half, and that doesn't even take the labour into account - pulling six loooooong coax lines means either having six boxes of cable to pull them all at once, or pulling them one or two at a time, or staging them all out into big coils on the floor before pulling them into place... none of those are very pleasant options.

System design flexibly, scalability and image quality/resolution are the main reasons I am seeing. I find that people just are not happy with there current analog systems and they want a better image qualty. Second all of this. The one major limitation of analog video, is the analog video standards themselves - NTSC simply doesn't allow more than 525 lines of vertical resolution (625 for PAL). You can't transmit a higher resolution without abandoning those standards, which would pretty much void any compatibility or interoperability between cameras and recorders. The primary way to get around this limitation, is simply to digitize the high-res video inside the camera, and transmit it over a network connection... functionally, not much different from streaming a movie or a YouTube video - data is data is data. So IP video largely came about as a way to achieve higher resolutions than analog would allow. Beyond that, as thewireguys says, using a network gives you a LOT more options for laying out, wiring, controlling, and routing your video. If you have six cameras in an area, 300' away from your DVR... would you rather run six video and power feeds that distance, or just put a switch near the cameras and run a single uplink cable back to the DVR? Sometimes, this ability can save an install, or at least a hulluva lot of time.

I think he was referring to the less expensive of the two balun/power boxes we were talking about But yes, the less expensive one will be fine - I just used two of them on a job and they work perfectly. And yes, as long as you're using the dual-voltage CNBs, they'll be fine with that. More importantly, ask the customer whether they want discreet, visible-but-not-gaudy, or downright-in-your-face. Some want the visual deterrent. Some are concerned about cameras fitting in with decor. One customer, we've been doing mostly black cameras in public areas regardless of the wall/ceiling colors, because all the other fixtures (speakers, lights, etc.) are black.

"SDHC" refers only to a spec for high-capacity SD cards; it means nothing to USB flash drives. He may need to format as plain FAT (rather than FAT32), which for best compatibility means a flash drive <2GB.

Simplified: plug a cable tester into it to confirm all wires connect through and to the right pins on both ends. Ideally: using an actual network cable certification tool that will check for proper function up to 10/100/1000Mbps.

Search Amazon or eBay for "Haier", they have a number of portable LCD TVs and DVD players that will do the trick. Or find a cheap or used portable DVD player that has an A/V input (you have to look for this feature specifically, not all of them have it).