Soundy

There will usually be a "ground" connection - that would be your common.

The first thing you should be looking for is software that fulfills your needs... THEN consider the hardware (most "better" software will work only with its own capture cards) and OS (most will work on WinXP, some with Linux, a few with both). Hardware requirements should not be extreme - I have systems in the field running on embedded XP on a basic P4/2GHz/1GB RAM that have been happily chugging away for 5+ years, some of them with up to 16 cameras. You can build something really wigged out, but it's really not necessary.

The first major network install I did (several hundred Cat5e runs for a digital-arts school, totally some 30,000m of wire... before I got into CCTV), the IT guy just arbitrarily declared T568B... so that's how we did it, and that's how I've done it ever since, just because it's familiar now

Sure it does, for one reason: you can make it exactly to the length you need. Standard lengths tend to be 3', 6', 10', 12' etc. If I need a cable 3'2", I either need to use a 6'... or just make my own to the right length. That said, IF a patch cable is required, I do like to use pre-made... however, if I'm wiring a camera, I still prefer to go direct, rather than futz about with a keystone and a patch cable. I'm so practiced at crimping on RJ-45s now, keystone jacks are simply more time and effort... and expense. Wire direct to camera, the only cost is the RJ-45 plug.

This sounds like a good idea... the AWID fobs we've been using run about $12-$15, if memory serves, not all that pricey. Or just add $3-4 to everyone's membership fees, should more than make up the difference for the few that don't come back, and be easily passed off as a basic price increase.

How does the OS have anything to do with the FPS?

I used to use keystone jacks and patch cables all the time... then I learned how to crimp the plugs properly and learned it was faster, easier (especially when on a ladder - just try using a punch tool with the jack braced against your hand), and actually, more reliable. It's also less hassle when working with dome housings, as you don't have find somewhere for the jack to fit, and it's a lot easier to feed the end of a Cat5 wire through a tight space if it doesn't have a molded jack attached to it. And of course, as we saw in another thread, one of the "knocks" on IP installations (vs. HDcctv) is that "there are more points of possible failure with all those jacks and punchdowns and patch cables and stuff" - well, that's easy enough to avoid, isn't it? We've traditionally used T568B as well... no particular reason, though. About the only exception is when we're using MuxLab VGA baluns, which I've found seem to work better with T568A wiring. Maybe I'll put together a little video on how to do it properly sometime Meantime, another option are the pass-through plugs, where you don't have to cut the wires to length - there are just holes right out the front end so you push the wires through, and the crimper has a blade that cuts them off.

You can always try looking back at the video to see exactly what happened when things stopped working right. It's pretty easy to tell if the ICR is stuck, for example, because you won't see it move across the frame when the camera switches modes between color and B&W. Or you may find a day scene where it suddenly goes bright that could indicate the iris snapped open and got stuck, or discover that it was fine one day as it got dark, then gradually went white as the sun came up the next day.

If the iris itself is stuck, you'd need to replace the lens. It's possible the iris drive on the camera has failed, as rory suggests, although in my experience they just stop supplying signal altogether and the iris simply shuts down. But you can always test that by unplugging the iris wire.

Doesn't even sound like v1.0 is beyond the beta stage, nevermind delivering everything originally promised for it... and now he's talking v3.0? What happened to v2.0? Or is he following Microsoft/Symantec naming schemes now? "Real Soon Now". I think Todd's intentionally trying to turn into a parody of himself...

If it's got an auto-iris lens, the iris may be stuck wide-open.

Thanks Birdman Adam...that was not too much to ask is it. I have been reading about the CNB, but of lately, people distance themselves from it, therefore I have second thought about using them. I guess am looking for confirmation that it's good enough for the price as compared to other brands. Thank you. I'll second Adam's statement - CNB's other cameras are "good enough", but the Monalisa models are currently one of the best you can get *for the price*. Something better might come along tomorrow, but right now, the VCM-24VFs are our model of choice for analog cameras, indoor and out. True-day/night, 2.8-10.5mm lens, and dual-voltage support makes them extremely versatile as well.

Bingo! If they make HDcctv work over UTP, they might have a chance, but it's going to be a hard sell to get anyone to use coax for NEW installs of any large scale, and small-scale sales won't be enough to support the market long-term.

Seems to me that currently you cannot even keep the cabling ----- (which was about the only potential value proposition i have ever seen in this) I don't get the point in your statement that the existing dvr won't work with analog --- seems kind of obvious - don't know if i created the perception that i thought it would?? Nope, was just reinforcing your statement. My mind boggles at the idea of sending Ghz signals from multiple sources through a 100mbps switch onto a 1.5Ghz/s tunnel - I can see why the HDcctv alliance touts the value of standards such as SMPTE? Not sure what you're talking about here... HDcctv through a switch?? The point here is, if you want (or need) to reuse existing coax, you can not only do so with IP, but do so with multiple cameras. The cable+adapters just look to the network like any other cable capable of 10/100. I guess that's valid from a convenience perspective. There is a break even point beyond which co-ax remains the best cost wise, and utp above that --- despite the cost of baluns etc having reduced Not really. Around here at least, retail prices for all-copper RG-59 coax, and Cat5e are exactly the same (at our wholesale costs, I think Cat5e is even a little cheaper). With coax, however, you still need to run power (we use 22/4 station-Z, it's cheaper and more versatile overall than 18/2); if cost is a concern, Siamese RG-59+18/2 is a good 50% premium on straight RG-59. When baluns were $30 each, coax was still cost-effective... when I can get them at $8/pair, there's no way.

At last the thread takes on a meaningful direction - actual views and opinions about the actual claims being made! - to be honest my interest in HDcctv had always been centered around the "upgrade an existing analog install scenario" . The potential for those who had already significantly invested in analog, to get a degree of HD without completely dumping their investment. A kind of transitory condition. Ah, but the ONLY thing you'd be keeping from an analog installation would be the cabling - your existing DVR isn't going to work with the HD cameras, and you'd need a hybrid DVR to keep some of the analog cameras and replace others with HD cameras. That is, assuming HDcctv was actually viable with most existing cabling installs. And frankly, you can reuse existing analog cabling with IP as well, using Highwire-type devices. These range widely in price - I think actual Veracity Highwires go on the order of $300 per unit (two required per camera), but I've used others that are <$100 for a set, and they work just fine. Naturally, you also retain some of the other benefits of IP this way... such as the ability to run several cameras into a switch and feed all of them over a single existing coax. All of these devices I've seen are capable of 10/100Mbps, meaning you can easily run several MP cameras through them. Well that's the other thing: HDcctv for a new install means actually pulling new coax... cable that's good for basically a couple of things. Since UTP can be used for network, phone, video, audio, alarm, controls, low voltage, and any number of other things, it only makes sense on a new install to just pull a bundle of UTP, rather than mixing-and-matching in limited-purpose legacy cabling (keeping in mind too, for every coax run, you have to pull something for power too...) Frankly, I love the shift away from coax... using UTP for video and power means I only have to carry one kind of cable in my work van (although I do usually keep ONE box of station-Z on board, mainly for utility purposes... it's small and light anyway), rather than three or four different types.

You asked if it could be used as a spy camera at home... you're not going to be "spying" very effectively with it, as it's rather big and noticeable.

If you apply mind to the areas of delivering HD video in which standardization would matter - it wouldn't be so broad! Ah, but you didn't specify "delivering HD video" initially - you asked, "what key issues are considered important for optimizing an HDip solution." That was the whole point of my questions - trying to narrow down what part of the ENTIRE "solution" you were looking to optimize. I could have gone on at length about optimizing the physical installation process itself, or optimizing the network design for less traffic, or optimizing the aesthetics of the installation... and it wouldn't have been what you were looking for. That's actually not what an "IR lens" is. The proper term is "IR-corrected", also known as a "day/night lens". The idea is that IR light normally focuses slightly "shorter" than visible light (ie. will focus in front of the sensor, rather than ON it), which will cause a day/night camera to appear out-of-focus when it switches to night mode... so the lens is designed, via optics and/or coatings, to "correct" the IR and cause it to focus on the same plane as the visible light. The rest of it, I'll address later, as I have to go out again now...

What model cameras are these? I've seen problems with backbox failures in some older Specta IIs...

As for "standardization" - that too, is a very broad topic. Most cameras support one of the same three standards, for example: M12, M13, and C/CS. So are we talking about standardization in form factor? Physical interface? Electrical interface? Data interface? Video format? Stream format? Communication format? Communication language? And so on and on and on...

From all reports, "Commissioned cost per video channel" should be "Highest"... The ">2MP video" line is just silly - "Planned" is meaningless; "Compressed" for IP is misleading, as the proper answer is, "Yes, a long time ago." "Comprehensive global interface standard" is ridiculously vague - IP cameras have a comprehensive global interface standard: TCP/IP. Ethernet. IEEE 802.x. Or if you're talking about physical interface: RJ-45.

The parts that gave you problems in the past! That always varies depending on the site and the job... although in general, the single biggest headache is actually running the cables. There is no particular site That's the point: "optimizing" an installation depends on the specific installation and its needs. There is no one generic one-size-fits-all answer to this question. The only things that have really "bitten" me (and they were almost universally someone else's decisions, against my advice) are little things, like... using a non-MP lens on an MP camera, or a non-IR lens on a TDN camera... using "green" drives in a RAID array... not really "optimization" factors. I think by "standardization" he's more referring to the concept that camera and NVR manufacturers need to HAVE a standard that everyone can abide by, so that you don't have to even think about compatibility. Analog video, for example, has two: PAL and NTSC. As long as you get all your components with the right one for your area (usually easy enough unless you're buying from offshore fleaBay seller), you're guaranteed that the parts will work together. But that's not really "optimization" either. That's more of a "pitfalls" question, not an "optimization" one. Compatibility actually falls more under "proper planning"... fortunately the DVR/NVR we use has excellent compatibility with just about every mainstream IP camera out there, so a cursory check of the compatibility list usually suffices there.

A "spy" camera, by definition, is covert or at least inconspicuous... this thing is neither.

Kind of a vague question... what part of it are you trying to optimize? What are the requirements (activity, ID, fast movement, etc.)? What are the potential problems with that particular site (site size, layout, lighting, potential for EMI, power stability, etc.)? It's kind of like asking how to optimize a road... who are you optimizing for? Commuters, racers, truckers? What sort of road is it - multilane, single lane? Paved or gravel? Too many variables, not enough specifics.

Well, that's what I'm wondering... I figure I'll maintain some color where there IS room light, and just fill in the dark areas with some minimal IR. At least, that's what I'm hoping will work...