Soundy

What DVR? What software? Is there supposed to be something connected to the serial port? Is it the DVR software trying to access it, or something else? Is this just a non-critical error message, or is it actually preventing the system from working?

Basically you are looking for "shopping list" done by somebody else No wonder North America has trouble I think he was being rhetorical... or sarcastic... or some combination thereof.

How would they know? WHY would they know? There are two ways you'd even NOTICE latency: one, controlling a PTZ and having the movements lag behind your actions; two, sitting and watching the same scene you have on camera and seeing a visible delay. The former is (outside of a few specialized areas, like casinos) generally considered to not be a serious issue below a couple hundred milliseconds, and little more than an annoyance up to one second... the latter is just silly. In active surveillance, "latency" in the actual response time of the observer (ie. the time it takes for the guard to realize there's something going on, get off his ass, pick up his radio, and call in a response) is going to be probably dozens of times that of the delivery system, making even a second or two delay in the video itself irrelevant. In passive surveillance, probably 90% of the time, you're playing back recorded video, equating to a "latency" of minutes to months... again, even a second or two delay in the video transmission becomes wholly irrelevant.

Question: why does it matter? What's going to happen in that time?

Right type... but I maintain a video amp SHOULD not be necessary.

Ugh, no thanks - seen too many with bent pins, and on the whole, it's proven to be far more of a hassle. We've been using these gems (pun intended): http://bit.ly/jzxBih These fit wonderfully inside the back-box of a CNB VCM-series dome, along with the power connectors. Haven't had a problem with one yet, even in outdoor installations. It's not all THAT bad, especially using 24VAC. Pair with a good dual-voltage camera that will accept DC or AC input between 10 and 30V, and there should never be an issue. We've just been using the blue pair for video, orange pair together for power "hot", green pair for "neutral", and brown left as a spare... working great on dozens of cameras. I did some quick-and-dirty testing a while back, comparing a variety of GEM, MuxLab, NVT, and GVi baluns on my bench, recording a CNB camera to a Vigil DVR over about 800' of Cat5e, still coiled inside its box... I found practically no noticeable difference between any of them, from the cheapest $8/pair GEMs to the most expensive $45/each NVTs, and no visible difference vs. the 20' RG59 run on my test bench either. This is a great little calculator, BTW: http://www.netkrom.com/voltage_loss_over_cat5_calculator.html - even at a full 1A draw (most non-IR cameras are a fraction of that), you see less than 4V drop using 24V over two pairs. The CNB cams we use are under 300mA normally, which equals a loss of barely 1V.

Why is that doubtful? One pair video, two for power, one for serial? Granted, you won't be able to provide the power needs of most PTZs at that range, but in itself, the claim is valid. Now if they're claiming to do it with, say, a Spectra IV at that distance, I'd be really skeptical - with heater/blower going, I believe these things are rated at over 75VA, and even 16/2 at 28V at the supply would be sketchy at 100m, nevermind using ALL the pairs of a single Cat5e.

"We are all Canucks!" Only 9 hours to game time, woot!

Yeah, us Canadians are all related!

Not true, actually. In one LinkedIn thread, an HDcctv manufacturer has chimed in recently with a lot of REAL facts, and one of them he makes a strong point of, is the fact that the cameras are NOT any cheaper to produce. They don't do the compression in-camera, but they do require other processing that evens out the price. Keep in mind that you DO still have to compress the video before recording it, so if you're not doing it in the camera, you have to do it in the DVR. That's the promise. The reality is, according to people who are starting to implement it, as well as some manufacturers, this promise is a ways off. Seems it will work effectively with most existing coax, FOR VERY SHORT RUNS. For even mid-length runs, high-quality (and thus expensive) coax is needed, which in many cases will mean running new wire. Neither do IP cameras. PoE is more convenient, as you don't need to run separate power to the camera, but it's not REQUIRED. Most NVR designs do not require a lot of power, either, as they're simply receiving the compressed stream and writing it to disk. The aforementioned manufacturer is saying that they have NO sales of their HDcctv DVRs. Forget "making as much money as possible", I think at this point they'd be happy to break even on their development costs. Well, you got that part right, anyway.

"Compatible with all cameras" is a LOT to ask, since most cameras handle stream outputs differently, and it's really not possible for DVR developers to keep up with EVERY camera's different oddities. The issue will be worse with standalones, as they're not generally as "tweakable" as PC-based systems.

I like to strip a bit off the end of the wire, then fold it back at the strip point so the bare wire lays along the insulation... then insert that into the screw terminal. Having the terminal bite down on the wire provides extra strain relief, and less chance of the wire snapping at the strip point if it gets flexed much. I found that if I didn't strip the wire back far enough, the inner "tube" of the BNC would push under the sheathing, bulging it out and making it impossible to slide the outer boot into place. Then I started using that to my advantage: strip it a little short, put the boot in place, then slide the main piece of the connector into place, forcing it under the sheath, bulging it into the boot, thus making a snug fit BEFORE crimping. After crimping... it ain't goin' no-place. Of course, I'd rather use compression fittings when possible... I use dielectric grease on all my outdoor connections as well, including spade and blade lugs on speakers and screw terminals. I just go to the auto parts store and get the "battery post grease" - same stuff, but a lot cheaper than buying the crap with the fancy name at the electronics store.

There is NO difference between using this or a separate video-only balun and connecting power to the other pairs directly, other than it being "cleaner" (and in my experience, it's really not... and frankly, not substantially more convenient either).

Nothing wrong with doing it this way - we've almost completely stopped using coax for new installations, using basic video-only baluns. Personally, I use blue for video + and blue/white for video -, then use orange pair for power "hot"/+ and green pair for power "neutral"/-, leaving the brown pair as a spare. Also, those "POE baluns" are doing exactly what you're proposing to do with the wires - all they are doing is connecting the power wires to six of the eight wires. They are NOT PoE - there's no "ethernet" involved, and PoE spec is a lot more involved than just putting power on some of the wires (look up "802.3af"). Frankly, there's no reason to use any particular pair of wires for video or power or anything else - I chose blue just because it's the "center" pair and would thus make the the layout compatible with most types of RJ jacks and wires - in a pinch, I could even use a standard two-wire RJ11 phone cord. In some installations, I've used the "spare" brown pair for a second video run... in some, for RS-485 control signal.

Thanks for your explanation. Can I have (2) LAN addresses within the same network? Like 192.168 for existing and configure the cisco wireless router for 172.17 for the mobotix cameras? Again, thanks to all of you, I have learned so much. Yes, you certainly can. But a device with a 192.168.x.x IP address cannot talk to a 172.17.x.x device (even if they are on the same switch) without the aid of a router. You also have the ability to bind multiple IP's to a PC. So the PC could be on both networks and use the 192.168.x.x subnet for Internet access and the 172.17.x.x for camer access. That would be my suggestion as well. In fact, this is exactly how I do it for one customer, using 192.168.2.xxx for my DVR/NAS/camera network and 10.0.xxx.xxx for their corporate network - per the diagram below: DVR is multi-homed here as well: one adapter with multiple different IPs, allowing it to communicate one both networks, without the two networks being able to communicate directly.

With a VGA camera, bandwidth will be negligible, even with constant movement. If there's rarely anyone there, it won't even be a blip - they'll use more bandwidth on their daily emails. Even with an MP camera you won't see much traffic - the HIKvision 2MP cameras I'm using, for example, allow you to set a maximum CBR, and even that doesn't go above 2Mbit. Four people watching at once would be an 8Mbit hit at most. Set it for 512kbit, and it won't be more than a 2Mbit impact at any time. A VBR codec will use even less, as it will change depending on the scene and drop to almost nothing when there's no movement. And of course, you can always cut back the framerate - even 10fps would look smooth and be plenty for just seeing who's at the door. CNB has IP versions of several of their models - http://www.cnbusa.com/en/html/product/product_list.php?maxx=3&midx=298 for example. Edit: Oh yes, and many H.264 cameras will support bi-directional audio as well, meaning it would be possible to implement two-way audio communication.

Okay, like Campbell says, I think the problem here is that when you're connected to the rest of the network, the PC is seeing 172.72.* as an internet-addressable network and is trying to go to that through the router. When you're not connected to anything else, the computer has nowhere TO go other than the cameras. Apparently your router/DHCP server is configured on LAN to use the 172.72.* network, and *this is wrong* for the reasons that Campbell and BRK outlined. Your *entire network* should be using either something in the 192.168.*.* range, or 10.*.*.*, or if you want to use 172, keep the class B octet to within 16-31... otherwise you WILL have problems. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network for more info.

I'm not familiar with DigiNet, but a couple thoughts: did it previously record constantly, or only on motion? Are there any warning messages about the disk being full or anything? Can you still search older video (from before it stopped recording)?

Yes: what you're doing would work, but an IP camera would work FAR more efficiently, and substantially cheaper. With this plan, you need not only the video splitter and four composite-to-VGA converters, you also need to get cabling TO every workstation, from the central location of the splitter. Depending on the setup and layout, that could be substantial labor, and of course, cable costs. This also limits you to four specific stations; if you need other stations, you're at least adding MORE new wiring to those desks and then moving the converter, or adding another splitter (or upgrading the existing one) and more VGA converters. If desks get shuffled, that's additional rewiring. And your monitors must all have a separate VGA input - not a problem if all the PCs are using DVI and the existing monitors already, but if the monitors have only a VGA input, or a computer has only VGA out, you're looking at AT LEAST upgrading those monitors, and possibly adding a video card to those computers. With the IP route, you have three steps: install camera, plug camera into LAN, and add shortcuts to the requires users' desktops. Changing or expanding access requires only adding more shortcuts where needed, something most IT departments can do remotely. You could even use a camera with a relay output and tie the door buzzer into that, so the users can just trigger the door from the camera's interface. Why wouldn't you want to use an IP camera? Traffic shouldn't be an issue, unless it's a 10Mbit LAN; use a VGA cam, and traffic will be negligible. If you're worried about other people viewing it, use a camera with per-user access control. If you're absolutely dead-set against an IP camera, and going to run wire to each desk anyway, you might be better off looking at a basic video-intercom system, and just put a call station at each desk. It might cost a little more, but it will be less hassle in the long run, and give the added benefit of two-way voice communication. Some video-intercom setups are network-capable as well, so you could use the existing LAN infrastructure that way too - just plug in a station wherever you want someone to be able to view and open the door..

Of course, if you google most of those phrases, you'll find numerous hits - there's nothing guaranteeing any of them are original to Wikipedia, either. I've seen articles that were obviously largely copied, in part or in full, from much older sources.

A CATV connection wouldn't likely use BNC - most use F-connectors. F connectors thread on and just use the center conductor of the wire poking through for a center pin; BNCs are a twist-lock and have a solid center pin. Cameras typically use BNC connectors: CATV (and cable internet, by extension) will usually use F-connectors: Some cheaper cameras will use RCA connectors - you generally want to avoid those: Like Tom says, the IR LEDs can be quite visible at night, unless you get into a longer-wavelength LED (940nm, vs. the more common 850nm). These tend to cost more, so the cameras tend to cost more, but they will be less noticeable. As I've said before, my own preference, if at all possible, is a nice motion-sensor floodlight mounted near the camera: a bright light snapping on as often as not will scare a prowler away, and at the very least will elicit the reaction of looking toward the source of the light... which means your subject is then looking very near the direction of the camera, for a good, straight-on facial shot, and in full color. Oh, and as for running multiple cameras over a single cable: keep in mind that Cat5 is not necessary. It's often used because it's commonly available and often already in place, but baluns will work over just about any sort of pairs. I've done it over 25-pair multicore phone cables, over station-Z wire (four 22-ga. conductors, non-twisted), shielded audio wire, etc. If you have it, you can use Cat3 or other types of older phone wiring as well. The only catch is, you do need one pair per camera.

Can you paste the response of an 'ipconfig /all' command from the viewing machine, both before and after being connected to the second network? I have a suspicion what may be happening...

Wow, Aggie knows how to copy'n'paste from Wikipedia. Color me impressed. See this face? Look at that color - that's the color of impressed.

Cool story, bro.

http://www.3xlogic.com/prod/599/pro-series-hybrid-video-recorder