Soundy

Hmmm, well, it SHOULD work if you set the Cisco's WAN port to use DHCP (if it's not already), and let it pull an IP from the 2-Wire... then set that IP as a DMZ in the 2-Wire. It would probably be a good idea to set one or the other to a different class-C subnet (ie. the Cisco's LAN side is 192.168.1.*; change the 2-Wire's LAN side to use 192.168.2.*, so the Cisco's WAN port would be a 192.168.2.* address), but it SHOULD work the way it is. When I get on my main computer, I'll do up a little diagram of what I'm talking about...

I could see sports broadcasters being all over this... some big-buck stadiums might implement one or two for in-house and replays and the like as well. Just thinking about this, they'd probably do really well to market this to sports broadcasters, actually - your ESPNs, NBCs, etc. Imagine you just roll a couple of these in and put one on either side of a stadium/arena/rink... capture everything in retardedly high resolution, then you can pick out what you want for replays, highlight reels, etc., without having to worry about a cameraman missing the action.

I could see sports broadcasters being all over this... some big-buck stadiums might implement one or two for in-house and replays and the like as well.

We have ONE customer using FLIR cameras feeding a standalone video analytics system to monitor a two-square-block industrial yard from a central tower. The analytics system alerts a monitoring station who can then remote into a DVR and control a Pelco Esprit PTZ on the same tower, to check on activity in the yard. It's a pricey solution, though - if memory serves, the cameras alone ran nearly $60,000 *our cost*... and that's before the cost of putting up a 50' tower, the Esprit, and the analytics. Was still cheaper than a competitor's suggestion to have something like 26 cameras along the perimeter of the fence itself...

Adobe Premiere Apple Final Cut pro Sony Vegas Windows Movie Maker iMovie ... on and on.

Yeah, make and model of the DVR would really help...

I didn't even notice anything about a release or availability date... is this thing actually available, or was it just a prototype being shown off?

Rather than trying to set the gateway up the way your router was before, I would have left the router and existing network exactly the way it was... then plug the router's WAN port into one of the gateway/modem's LAN ports, give your existing router a LAN IP on the gateway's LAN, and set that IP as a DMZ in the gateway's setup. That way, *all* incoming connections to the 2-Wire are simply passed straight through to the existing router, and everything there is handled as it was before. The gateway itself should display the outside IP it's using, or just go to http://www.ipchicken.com on a PC on the same LAN... no need for DynDNS or any sort of DDNS service. I have actually done this exact kind of setup, when one of our customers had their basic DSL modem die, and the only thing readily available to replace it was one of these all-in-one modem/router gateway units.

Patterns are generally stored in the cameras themselves, so rebuilding/restoring the DVR should have no effect, unless it's sending different programming on its own. A quick way to test this is to simply disable the PTZ options for a couple of the more troublesome cameras, and see if the behavior continues (if it wasn't using coaxitron, I'd say just unplug the PTZ wires). You could also go into the cameras' menus (or even just pick one of the worst ones to test it on first) and perform a factory reset on it, to remove any existing programming... then reprogram the pattern, and disable its PTZ options in the DVR (so the DVR thinks it's just another fixed camera). In theory, the camera should continue running its pattern on its own, even after a power cycle. There's a very slight chance, after all this, that the camera is still getting extraneous data from the DVR.... the only sure way to test that would be to disconnect it from the DVR completely, and just plug it into a monitor, then leave it for a while and see if it starts freaking out. This SHOULD ultimately confirm or disprove that the DVR has anything to do with the issue. Again, best place to start is with one or two cameras that are the worst, so you don't have to wait too long to see the results of the tweaking...

With UTP (Cat5e, Cat3, Cat6, whatever), you can run video and power over a single cable using baluns. With coax, you need a separate pair for power. "Acceptable" depends on your exact needs, but in general, these cards tend to be crap. What is your budget? What are your requirements? Indoor/outdoor? Existing light? Areas needed to be covered? Do you need to see only general activity, or get identifiable facial shots?

What sort of video are you broadcasting? Unless you're using multiple sources and need viewers to be able to control them remotely, there are probably more efficient/effective ways to do it. I used to "broadcast" hockey games to my buddy using my TV tuner card and Windows Media Encoder.

Shouldn't matter what router you get, your broadband provider won't care. I'm generally a fan of D-Link, but Netgear and Belkin are solid too. Ultimately, you shouldn't require ANY setup to get online, beyond possibly telling the router what sort of broadband connection you have (something that's usually done during the initial setup wizard).

"Night vision" is a misnomer, a term mis-applied by marketers Switching to monochome does not give a camera "night vision"; neither does adding IR LEDs. An IR corrected lens is intended to MINIMIZE issues for ICR cameras in MONOCHROME mode. This can also be aided by cameras with auto-backfocus that readjust the focus when switching modes... but again, that's a step to minimize an optics issue.

We're still doing about 75-80% analog... one or two sites a year all-IP, several all-analog... the majority are hybrid, or are built analog but designed for future addition of IP. We've seen no interest in HDcctv...

Dallmeier's website doesn't give a lot of info, but given the size of the whole unit (looks like the camera(s) are built into the front end of a pretty deep 6U rack unit), I'd guess that it's really a camera matrix and recorder in one package, recording everything internally. Given the claims of realtime zoom at full 25/30fps, I'd guess the VMS is internal as well, and you're just accessing/controlling it via external network client. And in answer to the next question: no, I don't think you classify this as IP or HD or HDcctv, or put it under any other sort of standard definitions of camera technology... since it doesn't appear to be just a camera, but an integrated camera/recorder SYSTEM. Obviously, this obsoletes everything else...

I think you missed something, he wasn't talking about wiring a wireless camera...

Strange... the way he pushes them, these cameras should require NO technical ability at all - just plug into the network and then view and record on their site. Or so he claims. Maybe it's not as simple as the advertising would have us believe? In any case, I have no experience with these particular cameras, but I'll see what I can figure out for you... what sort of problem are you having with them?

Get a camera with 950nm LEDs. Regular 840nm versions are just on the verge of human sight, spilling slightly into the red... the longer wavelength takes it outside that range, so they're not visible to the naked eye. The catch is, you will probably need a different camera as well, and they're not as cheap as the more common models.

It's also using a non-megapixel 2.8mm lens (since that's all I had available at the time).

Problem is there are alot of areas that arent covered as its only from one viewpoint. True, but that's a whole different issue (and yes, there are several other analog cams at various points around the store, giving pretty near 100% coverage of all aisles). Campbell's point is that you'd need AT LEAST two analog cameras to get this *same view* with the same level of detail.

"Jaberfribbitz" is my new word of the day (or month!)

So... ten pages of thread that was instantly derailed from this original post, has now been split out on its own. Hopefully some of the more thoughtful posters can come back here and give poor lely09 some useful responses (you'll note the OP has not made a single reply in this thread; it was completely usurped by someone else, who shall remain unnamed). So, to the original question: First, let's differentiate between "IP" and "megapixel". You seem to be mainly referring to megapixel, which by definition is anything of 1,024,000 pixels or higher (side note: 720p video *is not* megapixel, by definition): As has been noted elsewhere, this may be a good recommendation when you need to capture more detail in a given area, or cover a larger area with a similar level of detail. I like to use a couple of different shots as an example: in both cases, there was an existing analog camera, and a 1.3MP camera was later added in about the same position to improve the view. Case one: existing analog camera at D1: And the 1.3MP cam that was added to provide more detail over the same area (note: click the image to load a full-size version): Case two: existing analog camera at CIF: And 1.3MP camera mounted a few inches above it (analog cam is visible in the bottom-left of the frame) that gives similar *or better* detail, over a MUCH wider angle of view (again, click the image to load a full-size version): In this instance, BTW, the MP cameras pretty much sold themselves - I was talking to the site owner and just showed him some stills from the cameras we were installing at another site... he took one look and said, "I WANT THAT!" Easiest sale I ever had, and I wasn't even trying to sell him anything --------------------------------- IP itself, however, can also include lower-resolution cameras (VGA - 640x480 - is more common than 4CIF or D1). If MP is not required, there are still circumstances where IP may be a selling point. To use the example I posted previously: And just to reiterate (because some people appear to suffer from a selective reading disorder): NO I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THIS MEANS IP IS PREFERABLE TO ANALOG IN ALL CASES. The selling point, IN THIS INSTANCE, *could* be that I would be able to bring the total job in at a lower cost by using IP rather than analog... actually, in this case, the customer wanted the megapixel cameras anyway, so there wasn't really any other option, but you (hopefully) get the point. --------------------- All posts that are a response to the OP's question will be welcomed here... those that are not will be sent to the ether without warning or comment.

I was being facetious, actually... or tongue in cheek... or just silly. That's why the You and me both... but feeling much better today after the people's response to last night's madness - the TRUE fans stepped up and did the right thing.

Sure, although it will usually depend on the two sensors being the same type (normally open or normally closed). If both are normally open, you'd wire them in parallel, so either one closing will make the circuit. If both are normally closed, you'd wire them in series, so either one opening will break the circuit.