Soundy

There's no specific brand or model that's inherently "better suited" to CCTV systems. There are some features you can look for that may be useful, such as: Port-range forwarding. Most can forward one port per entry, but if you need to forward two, three, or more ports to the same destination, you might want one that will let you specify a series or range of ports in a single entry. Functionally, there's no difference, it's just convenience in setting it up. UPnP support. If your DVR supports UPnP for its port forwarding, a router that supports it as well will allow the DVR to configure the port forwarding on the router itself. Customizable DDNS support. Most routers have DDNS client support, but most of those only have one or two DDNS services pre-configured (like dyndns.com) and if you're not using one of those services, it doesn't do you any good. Many better models let you specify any DDNS service you want (provided you have the proper URL information), or have a wider range of supported providers. QoS (Quality of Service) support. With computers, cameras and/or DVRs that support this, it allows you to allocate bandwidth to specific devices or specific types of data, which could be useful to ensure your video gets the bandwidth it needs if someone is using the router/internet connection for other data-intensive transfers... or to ensure that your video data doesn't interfere with other types of data by throttling it back when others want more bandwidth. VPN Server. This will let you tunnel into your router from outside, and set up a VPN between your remote system and the network the DVR is on. This is a rare feature on most stock routers unless you get small-business models. If you're a little more technical, look for routers that support flashing with DD-WRT, a very powerful third-party firmware. That will give you all of the above features, and many more. Check www.dd-wrt.com for a list of supported brands and models. I have two D-Link DIR-615s I've flashed with DD-WRT (among others, like a couple older Linksys units); they're a nice, solid, small-form-factor 802.11n router that can be found relatively cheap. With multiple units, you can set up a wireless bridge, and with multiple units that use the same chipset, you can set up a WDS bridge or MESH network.

How is this different from any other industry? In fact, many others are FAR worse in this regard. Still no point in ranting against the entire industry for the sake of the few proverbial bad apples.

Are you trying to record over the LAN, or via an internet connection? With one of our clients, we've been outfitting all their sites with multi-terabyte, network-attached RAID arrays, and setting that as the primary storage destination (via gigabit LAN), designating the internal DVR drive(s) as backup only that the DVR will use automatically if the RAID is offline. This gives the added benefit, too, that if the DVR goes down, we can swap in a loaner, map the array drive(s) to it, and they still have all their footage on-site. On the most recent site, we tucked the array away in the ceiling space of the office - out of sight, out of mind.

"Video analytics" as a fairly broad term means software that can analyze the video for specific things and respond accordingly. Whereas basic motion detection simply picks up changes in the image, analytics can usually be programmed to do things like determining the difference between a car, a person or an animal... determining the direction of motion or whether an object enters or leaves a defined area... detecting if an object is left behind in, or removed from an area... things like that. More advanced versions can detect colors as well. So with these sorts of cameras, you could maybe have it record internally, then anytime it detects a person in the scene, send that video to remote storage... but only if it's a person, not a car or animal.

Ah yes, good point - your switch or router has to support multicasting for the packets to make it beyond the DVR's port. Not all switches do.

Hmmm.... I dunno then, the only thing I got left is that one of the units is faulty... or one is just mis-configured.

I've never used it, no... the exact implementation would depend on the specific DVR and how its manufacturer uses it, but I would expect the idea is for it to operate similar to a UPnP media source... like Home Sharing with iTunes, where the server just "broadcasts" that it has the content available, and any suitable receiving device can receive and stream it.

Well, we have yet to see if the stock cutting/sanding tools will be useful, but it is a very nice, fast, powerful impact driver that's already been handy for getting into tight areas (ie. between studs on a wall to mount a gang box). My co-worker has a ton of Ryobi One+ tools, including a palm sander that he uses from time to time when fabricating custom mounts and fittings, so I expect the sander head will see some use occasionally as well.

SHOULD work.

Only other thing I can think of is that the two devices aren't using the same pins for the same camera lines and thus aren't compatible, since there is no standard for running analog video over UTP... are they the same brand?

Cable looks fine to me...

If my theory is correct, this would make sense, because the problem isn't in the individual camera connections, but the interconnect that's carrying all four cameras. For example, pair 1 would probably be carrying camera 1 between VPS and receiver; pair 2 would have camera 2, and so on. If pairs 1, 2 and 4 are wired incorrectly, and only pair three is correct, that would explain why only 3 is clear no matter which wire you plug into that channel on the other side of the VPS.

Would depend on the browser... looking at Safari on my iPhone 3G, it doesn't appear to have the option (without jailbreaking). Actually, don't see the option in Opera Mini either. On my HTC phone running WM6, Opera Mini gives me a "Mobile View" toggle in the Settings. Internet Explorer also has the option under Options -> Other: "Browse websites as: Mobile Device; Desktop Computer". Most of these sites that have mobile versions, when you load them, the browser will report its make, model and version, and the site will generate the appropriate display. In this case, mobile browsers usually tell the site that they're mobile browsers so it can format things appropriately. That's probably what's happening here. In the case of Facebook, if a mobile browser is detected, it kicks you to the m.facebook.com URL. You can actually view the mobile site in a regular desktop browser by going straight to that URL, too (they also have a version that's more optimized for larger-screen devices at touch.facebook.com).

That picture looks to me like what happens if you connect one balun "backward" - ie. if you connect the "+" terminal at one end to the "-" terminal at the other, and vice-versa. That's why I'm thinking it's an issue in the interconnect between the passive receiver and the VPS. Ethernet cabling doesn't just connect pins in a row - pair 1 is pins 4 and 5; pair 2 is pins 3 and 6; pair 3 is pins 1 and 2; and pair 4 is pins 7 and 8. Like so: If you're wiring pairs straight through (pin 1/2, pin 3/4, pin 5/6, pin 7/8) you could end up with crosstalk between cameras (since the negative from one camera will be intertwined with the positive of another, and so on). If you're putting your own ends on this run, you also want to be sure not to switch pins on a pair (ie. white/color on one end, color/white on the other).

In theory, sure... in reality, the term has been so abused by offshore manufacturers it rarely has any sort of direct relation to actual output. Plus, as has been noted here many times, there are so many other factors that come into play in determining a CCTV camera's actual output quality - post-processing, component quality, design quality, build quality... optics are especially critical (cheap single-element plastic lenses vs. well-built coated multi-element all-glass lenses, for example). And there are times when higher TVL can mean lower performance elsewhere - the higher the resolution, typically the poorer low-light performance you see... and LUX specs on CCTV cameras are just as fudged and meaningless most of the time. I only listed that as one possibility as to why marketers may include it... and yes, it is a very real possibility.

You should be able to tell your browser to report itself as a desktop browser rather than mobile... that should prevent most sites from defaulting to a mobile version (unless it's a mobile-specific URL, like "m.facebook.com").

Define "scrambled". Screenshots would help. I would hazard a guess that the Cat5 is not terminated properly. Are you using pre-made cable or using proper T-568A or B wiring?

Normally you'd use a computer running a VMS (video management system), but that normally relies on all three DVRs being the same make (and possibly model). Really though... a 19" widescreen VGA monitor is CHEAP these days - we get them for about $80. It may be more for you, but relative to the cost of three DVRs and 48 cameras, two extra monitors should be nothing.

You could run both DVRs into a quad, but I suspect you wouldn't be happy with the quality. A monitor with two switchable inputs would work better, but you wouldn't be able to view both DVR simultaneously. Two monitors side-by-side would be a better idea. If you have the same brand second DVR, you could use a computer to run a VMS to access and view both. At the extreme end, you could switch to a system that allows up to 64 channels, like Exacq.

Posting pictures of it here may help, if someone recognizes it... buying something with a name in the first place is preferable.

Well, left the little Makita screwgun on the roof of the van the other day... drove off... felt it hit my shoulder on the way down, before it bounced into the street. Was gone by the time I circled back Picked one of these up, though - Home Depot has a killer deal on right now: http://www.homedepot.ca/product/jobmax-multi-tool-starter-kit-12-volt/917642 They had it on sale for $99 for the "starter kit", with one additional attachment head free (regular price $49) - I went for the impact driver. Picked up an extra battery as well. Ridgid has a lifetime warranty on the batteries, too, which is something I've never seen before.

I just use "beanie" crimps to splice Cat5e for analog. It doesn't have to maintain perfect twists all the way through. First, keep in mind that PoE means "Power over Ethernet"... with an analog camera, you're not using ethernet. Cat5e does not equal ethernet. The baluns you can get with RJ-45 jacks usually use the brown pair for video, and the other pairs for power, separating them out into a pair of red and black "tails" for easy connection. With straight passive baluns, you can just split out the pairs you want for power and video and connect them whatever way is most convenient - run them into the power can and then extend the video with RG59 patch cables, or run them to the DVR and then extend the power with some 18/2 or station wire, or separate out long sections of the Cat5 and run each pair straight to where it needs to go... or whatever. We've recently been running the cables past the back of the DVR on their way to power can, then slitting the jacket close to the DVR, extracting the blue wire (our own standard for video), connecting it to the balun there, and then strapping the balun right to the outside of the wire to keep everything tidy. Done this on the last three sites and it keeps things really clean. With IP cameras, you either want to use PoE, or run separate power. You don't generally want to be separating out pairs for power yourself (it CAN be done, but it's not recommended).

Best place on earth. Check out what I grew up with: