Soundy

Not talking about physical equipment failure... As BRK points out, there are numerous problems with built-in IR. Here's an example of the IR attracting bugs... and where bugs gather, so do spider webs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v979Jn1Z6z0&feature=related In most cases, cameras use built-in IR because they have poor low-light performance... good low-light function costs money, but adding a few cheap IR LEDs adds very little to the cost and lets you sell a "night vision" camera for next to nothing. Here's an example, from a local retailer: http://www.rpelectronics.com/electronic-components-parts/opto/led-ir 16mW, 5mm IR LEDs, 10-pack for $11... or about a buck-ten each. And that's retail - a camera manufacturer buying wholesale in bulk is probably paying about 10-20 cents each... so under $5, they can give their cheapest cameras "night vision" and add $30 to the price. This is not to say all cameras with built-in IR are crap... but that does tend to be the case in general. Thus, built-in IR = automatic fail.

Er... what wire size are you using for the power??

You might be able to do it with high-gain directional antennas, but it would still have to be line-of-sight. 200' is just too far for consumer WiFi to work reliably.

First step would be to swap this camera with another one, see if the same fuse blows or if the problem follows the camera. If the same one blows, then there's probably a wiring issue and you should check for damage to the power wire. Are you using 24VAC or 12VDC power? What size is the power wire? 650' is a pretty long run...

Depends on the service provider and the service plan the customer has. Best place to ask would be the ISP.

No, they work fine if you're not using baluns. I understand that; the point is, if you put the DVR at the junction point *as a troubleshooting step*, you should not see the interference. That may be an option as well - you already have the Cat5 in place I was installing for a couple years before we first used baluns, and they were hella expensive then, so they were used pretty rarely. It was another 2-3 years before I first ran into this issue and it took me forever to figure out a work-around... even longer to finally realize what was actually happening to cause the problem.

BTW, here's another handy calculator: http://www.solar-wind.co.uk/cable-sizing-DC-cables.html Plug in the voltage, current, run length, and percentage of acceptable loss, and it will give you the required wire size in both AWG and mm2.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=awg+to+mm2+conversion Your 0.75 wire is effectively 18 AWG.

While the baluns are the root of the problem, they aren't THE problem. Part of the issue is also the fact that the common power supply connects all the power grounds together, which means each camera not only grounds its signal to the DVR through its own ground wire, but through each other camera's ground wire as well. All-coax setups get away with it because the additional differences aren't substantial. When you introduce baluns, though, you add significant length to each ground, as well as significant DC resistance. When you use separate power adapters for each camera, the camera's power grounds are no longer connected together, so one camera doesn't find a video ground path via the other cameras. Just connecting a TV even at the end of the baluns won't show a problem, because you'll only be connecting one camera at a time. The problem arises as you connect multiple cameras. If you put the DVR at the junction point, you should find the images clear as well. Regulated power itself is not the fix: when a camera has a built-in regulator, it means the power and signal DO NOT share a common ground; the power ground is isolated from the signal ground by the regulator itself. For future jobs, spec cameras that support 24VAC or dual-voltage... and if possible, use 24VAC power (less loss over distance, power supplies are cheaper).

Built-in IR is just automatic fail.

What Sean's saying is that if the foil inadvertently makes contact with the center conductor, it can cause problems, that's why he's suggesting pulling it back so the barrel of the connector goes between it and the center dielectric. It's just a precaution. There was obviously some misunderstanding as well, as by far the most common foil-shielded cable we see has JUST the foil, and a single drain wire running the length of the sheath. RG6 more commonly has both braid and foil, but RG59 rarely does (in fact, I don't know that I've ever seen RG59 before that had both). There's nothing wrong with foil shielding as such... the problem is when it's the ONLY shield. A good, tight copper braid (90-95% coverage) is significantly better.

Nothing is "faulty" as such, other than the basic camera design of having a shared power and video ground. If the camera has an internal regulator (which would apply to dual-voltage 12VDC/24VAC designs), then power and video ground are separated, and you eliminate the source of the problem. Obviously, straight 24VAC cameras won't share power and video grounds either, so the problem is avoided. Don't think so. Hard to say for certain without a screenshot, but again, I believe this is the result of compression artifacts, from a color-based codec processing greyscale video. I've used them in car and studio audio... never in CCTV video, although I know they exist, and others say they've worked for eliminating at least some ground-loop issues. Worth a try, I suppose - the idea, at least in audio designs, is to use a transformer to physically break the signal connection and thus delete the extra ground path. Start with better cameras... again, the design of the camera itself is the root of your problem here.

You could always borrow rory's rotties from the motorcycle-theft thread...

Most of us actually use RG59 with braided copper shield... foil shield is bad, mmmkay? I suspect that's a lot of your problem there: without the extra thickness of the braid, there's not enough thickness for the crimp to clamp down on. It's even worse if the center conductor is copper-jacketed steel or aluminum... which seems to often be the case with foil-shielded coax.

I didn't see anything in the manual about enabling audio... I would guess if there's nothing in the menus, then it's enabled by default. Space used will depend on what codec and compression level they're using - nothing about that in there either.

Yes, you have an extraneous line break between "instantly" and "record".

I take it these are all 12VDC power, and the cameras are NOT dual-voltage type? When you say "individual" do you mean separate transformers for each camera? With cheap 12V cameras, the video and power share a common ground internally. What can happen, especially when using baluns and a central power supply, is that you get multiple, different-length ground paths for each camera - for example, camera 1 will not only have its ground straight to the DVR, but will also find a path via its power ground, up the power ground of camera 2, and back to the DVR via the video ground for camera 2. As you add more cameras, the problem gets worse. It's worse with passive baluns because basic balun design puts a matching transformer inline with the signal (on a schematic, each transformer winding looks like a choke), which effectively adds dozens or hundreds of feet to the length of that run, as well as several ohms of DC resistance. If the problem clears up with only one camera connected, and gets worse as you add more cameras, that's proof of a ground loop. If you're trying separate transformers for each camera, and the problem clears up... well, that's another proof of the problem, and also one work-around to clear it up. Another "fix" is to use at least one active balun on each camera. The best solution is to use quality cameras with internal power regulation (usually seen in dual-voltage cameras). I wouldn't consider a 70p (about $150) camera "highly rated". Maybe sort of mid-grade. With a few exceptions, "highly rated" starts at about twice that price.

YAY!! If the DVR gives the option, you may be able to decrease the video quality (higher compression, lower resolution) to get a smoother remote stream. Other than that, higher bandwidth is the only real fix. Is the second DVR on the same LAN as the first (ie. are they behind the same router/firewall)?

You have a couple options... you could use an AverKey device, which is designed to convert a VGA display to BNC. Running full VGA to a VGA monitor will give better results; if you don't want to use a long VGA cable, you can use a set of VGA baluns and run it over a length of Cat5e or Cat6 network cable.

Five years?? Nice... I thought I saw two years on the website. I'll give that a try... can't find a manufacture date on it anywhere, but the store it came out of is barely a year old. Thanks, Chris. As I recall, the previous owner was trying to find warranty support going through his original installer, but got nowhere... I sold him a refurbished Vigil and took this thing away, figured it would be worth at least a try to get going. Rory - yep, unplugged everything including the drive. Blown caps was the first thing I looked for - far as I can see, everything is intact. Pulled the CMOS battery for a good half-hour or so as well (no sign of a reset jumper). It's funny... if it's been unplugged for a while, then when I plug it in, it kind of half-beeps, half-buzzes for a couple seconds while the power LEDs (one on the front panel, two on the board itself) just flicker... then it all goes out. Unplugging and replugging gets just a quick beep and one flicker of the LEDs. Really looks like a power-related issue, but there's no visible physical problems (nothing blown or smoked, no obvious cold solder joints), and I have tried another PSU (stock one is a 12VDC, 5A switching unit).

^Do I even want to know how much that bad boy costs???

VPN can work as well - if you're connecting into your work network via VPN, you should be able to enter the DVR's IP address directly into your remote machine. There is additional overhead on the connection, so if you have a slow connection, it may slow it down even more, but it should work.

Mobotix, maybe... but it will cost substantially more than those Y-cam toys. You have some fairly tight requirements there, that add up to "not cheap". You might want to consider a standard wired camera, and then add wireless via a proper access point (Ubiquiti, etc.). Keep in mind that a "wireless" camera isn't truly wireless - you still have to provide power to it.

Then you need to either talk to your ISP about getting a static address, or sign up with a dynamic-DNS service like DynDNS. Oh... and setting your color depth higher won't help - TeamViewer is still scaling it back, apparently to 4-bit (16 color) mode. Changing the color depth on the machine you're remoting into won't make one whit of difference.

Holy crap, 45-50 cameras is insane, especially for a store that small. We do 6000 square foot restaurants with less than half that. You say budget is not a constraint now, but you do realize that to really do a GOOD job of it, and get the level of coverage you're after, you're looking at probably $10,000+, right? We're talking PROFESSIONAL cameras, mind you, not the $30 junk you get off fleaBay...