Soundy

Easy, with the right camera and/or DVR... I have my home Vigil DVR set to record one frame of an IQ 511 camera every hour, which makes a nice time-lapse playback (I can set intervals of up to 4 hours). The IQ camera itself can send a frame via FTP or email on just about any interval you can specify - one per day, one per week, whatever. Most cameras with built-in flash memory support can record similarly to an SD or CF card.

Masonry bits and hammer drill for punching through (a standard cordless 18-24V hammer drill should suffice, you probably don't need a full-blown SDS drive like the big Bosch and Hilti drills for smaller holes). Tapcons are great, just don't over-tighten (as jerome says), and don't use an impact driver to put them in - a standard cordless drill (or your hammer drill on drill/driver mode) on low-speed setting is best. Make sure if you get Tapcons though, to get the packages that include the proper bit.

You could run them into a couple of IP converters and then use a DSL adapter or something similar to send that over the single pair...

" title="Applause" />

WTF?

Just make sure both cameras and DVR(s) support Pelco D or P protocols... most *good* cameras can accept a wide range of protocols, but almost all of them will take Pelco D and/or P, and the majority of even older DVRs should support it as well. Keep in mind that you'll have to get signal to them somehow... if you're planning to use existing wiring (power and coax) you may have to look for something that supports "Coaxitron" or another up-the-coax control method. Also, existing power supplies may not be beefy enough for better PTZs, especially if they have built-in heater/blower.

Hard to say without a drawing of the layout, but generally, yes, three PTZs should be able to cover all that, although you'd probably want to make sure you use high-quality models with good optics and a high optical zoom factor (ignore digital zoom ratings, it's a useless function on analog cameras). The downside is, they can still only see one area at a time - you could program a tour or pattern for each one to scan, but it will still only be looking in one direction at any given time. If there's a guard on-duty who can watch an overview camera and then then manually steer the PTZs for a closer look, that may not be s Never seen a CCTV camera for *rent*, but an integrator or supplier may be willing to loan one for testing, or install one on a temporary "demo" basis.

Whichever way you do it - CATV splitter or BNC T-connector (or RCA Y-cable, for that matter) - you're dropping the signal to each device substantially. With a two-way split, each downstream device gets only half the original signal. With a three-way split, each gets only 1/3 of the signal. Using a CATV splitter has no benefit in this case; the only thing it does besides dividing the signal, is add a couple caps and coils to properly load the lines for 50 ohms impedance. In fact, since CCTV systems normally require 75-ohm loading, there's a chance you're adversely affecting the signal MORE than you would by simply using a BNC T-splitter. Factor in the cost of the CATV splitter and assorted connectors required to make everything mate up (and BTW, multiple stacked connectors will have almost nil effect on the signal compared to what the splitter is doing to it), and you're probably spending ten times what you would by simply using a T-connector (like maybe, $5 vs. 50 cents). If you're splitting any more than into two, you'll want to look into an active splitter anyway...

First reason is, it costs extra, and a lot of standalone DVR manufacturers have been going for "cheap" for years. People who would have no use for this feature (there are more than you think) wouldn't want to pay the extra cost for something they'll never use. Secondly, in order to put a different camera on a different channel, you'd need either multiple modulators, or one multi-channel modulator... both of which would cost SUBSTANTIALLY more. Third, in order to do that, you'd need available channels. Most cable companies leave ONE "blank" channel designated for security cameras... most of the others will have signal on them. Fourth, if you want to send the DVR signal to all the TVs in a multi-TV house, you have to insert it before the main splitter, where the cable comes in... and you can't just splice the wires together; you need a signal combiner of some sort. Most modulators include this function - cable in on one side, cable+A/V signal out the other side. Most of these modulators are intended to be mounted near the first splitter... not necessarily the most convenient place to put your DVR.

And the downside of that very concept is one of analog's limitations as well: one wire, one camera. Not a deal-breaker in smaller installations or somewhere you already have existing wire everywhere you want a camera, but a significant limitation nonetheless, especially if you have plans to expand and add cameras. Of course, that benefit also assumes the technology will work properly with your existing cable... which by all real-world accounts, it still has serious issues with low-grade RG-59.

Just curious though, how much extra one pays for this "patented DualBrite" function? I'd be willing to bet it consists of nothing more than a diode to feed half-wave AC past the relay...

There is only one hard disk for all cameras.

It means it hasn't detected a hard disk. If there was one, or is supposed to be one, then it's probably failed.

If you don't have Microsoft Office, you might need another office suite to open that file; Wordpad (comes with Windows) recognizes .DOC files but won't view any but the most basic ones. Try www.openoffice.org

Nowhere near as cheap as analog. Not when you can get 320TVL IR bullets on fleaBay for $15... but then, that's not really a valid comparison.

That is one option, yes. Even if the cables are long enough, it may be preferable to go through the box just to allow you to seal up the hole in the wall better. Sometimes you may not be able to run a wire directly through a wall (for example, if a camera is up on a parapet), so you might put one box down low, another up high by the camera, and a piece of conduit (tubing) in between to feed the wires through. We did this recently when we had cameras mounting to the underside of a concrete "patio canopy", and had to bring the wire in from above:

Personally, I'd say the CNBs (at least the Mona Lisas) are better that the SDIIIs *in some circumstances*, particularly in very low light. The regular image is easily on par, for about 1/3 the price. Where the Panny still shines though, is with severe backlighting - I have yet to see anything that really compares to the Super Dynamic function (although the CNB "SBLC" setting does an admirable job). Image quality aside, the Pannys still have a really annoying gimbal design and can be a PITA to aim and adjust. CNB's is still one of the most installer-friendly designs I've ever worked with.

I like motion lights as well, for the fact that, if someone is lurking around in the dark and a bright light suddenly comes on, the most natural reaction will be to look for the source of the light... and if you have a camera mounted beside or near that light, that means looking right at the camera as well. I like the idea of two-stage fixtures, though - never seen that, but it's a great idea.

I can't agree with this statement. If your doing IP MP system over 8 cameras you have to know what your bandwidth is. I didn't say it didn't matter, I said it's overemphasized.

Yes.

Greetings, from about three hours north Good to see more Cascadians here!

Cel, WiFi and GPS jammers are easy to find, and pretty dang cheap too: http://s.dealextreme.com/search/jammer

You mean like this? http://www.fastenal.com/web/products/detail.ex?sku=0724255&ucst=t

As tom says, probably just a junction box... in his picture, the wire probably comes straight through the wall into the box, so it gives a way to weather-seal the opening through the wall.