Soundy

Camera sensors' sensitivity does fall off as you get farther from the visible spectum, just as it does with human sight... just not as quickly. So yes, you will lose sensitivity the further into the IR range you go. It's generally true of any form of energy that lower frequencies/longer wavelengths will travel farther (depending somewhat on the transmission medium). That's why VLF is used for long-distance (especially underwater) radio communications, and why low sounds carry farther than higher-pitched sounds. In this case, however, we don't know how they're calculating "longer distances"... are they using IR at the same measured output as white light? Are they focusing it more? Are they using the same camera with the same configuration, or are they comparing a basic B&W camera with no IR cut filter for the IR measurements, vs. a color camera WITH the IR cut filter for the white-light measurements? Take that cut filter off and you'll see more out of the color camera as well (although the color will be off). It's a pretty vague statement - I mean, they bounce visible-light lasers off the freakin' moon. Personally, I'm a fan of white-light, *motion activated* illuminators/flood lights as a deterrent. "Light pollution" is thereby limited to when there's actually movement... a bright light snapping on while he's prowling around will often startle a prowler enough to simply scare him off... and think about it, if you're creeping around in the dark and a bright light comes on, what's the first thing you're going to do? Probably look for the source of the light in case it's someone you need to run away from. Have a camera located near that light source, and bingo: nice, clear, well-lit, full-color facial shot.

Welcome aboard!

A still, screenshot, or photo of the screen, might help...

Be prepared to explain to potential customers, as well, that their recorded video quality will be limited by their internet upstream speeds. If they have an ISP that still limits their upstream bandwidth to 128kbit, they're never going to see full-motion megapixel quality.

Can u be plz more specific and explain your point why u find this to be "spectacular marketing claim" is this about "inverse square law" in general or "reversing inverse square law" ? Thx just curios "REVERSING the inverse square law" would essentially require a complete defiance of one of the most basic laws of physics. Thus, claiming to do so IS a rather spectacular feat of marketing. Come on, even Scotty couldn't do it: "Cap'n, I canna change the laws o' physics!"

Assuming these are four different sites, each with its own broadband internet connection... According to dyndns.com, you get two hostnames with a free account. So you'd either need two accounts, or get a 'pro' account for $15/year and get 30 hostnames. Then each site would have a name like "bomberman-site1.dyndns.org", bomberman-site2.dyndns.org", and so on. Note that dyndns and similar services are required only if your IPs change regularly. If your ISP(s) offers static IPs, you can go that route as well.

For those who don't want to bother with downloading the PDF:

I've installed lots of IQs, mostly 511s and A11 domes... have rarely seen problems like you (vaguely) describe. Have you checked for firmware updates?

Everywhere I've found this unit listed uses the same copy, which would lead me to think that's what they get from the manufacturer.

^You forgot, "Not to be taken internally."

I've seen those, Panasonic I think (might even still have one sitting in the basement)... power is fed over the coax along with the signal. The cameras have a special power supply as well.

Or it just means their "cosec2" lens distributes the light differently across the area - tighter focus at the top, wider distribution at the bottom, or whatever. "Reverses the inverse square law" though... what BS.

I would suspect power issues - when the LEDs turn on, the cameras draw more power than the source can supply, and so they either drop out, or the LEDs turn off again... all sorts of funky things can happen. Those are just guesses though; hard to say any more without at least SOME details of your system: camera make and model, power source, distance from cameras to power source... DVR make and model might be useful too. And BTW, it's really only necessary to post a topic once.

Duct tape isn't stretchy enough. PVC tape, aka black tape or electrical tape. Again, though, use the good stuff that stretches well and doesn't get brittle in the cold... not the cheap 80-cents-a-roll stuff.

Keep us posted on how it goes! Sorry if I seem a little overbearing on it... I'm on a big car-enthusiasts forum up here that actually has a section for police-related topics and several current and retired officers that participate, and I regularly see these #*@! ricers coming in asking about making all sorts of illegal mods to their cars, and no matter how many times you try to tell them not to do it (and these are things that are WELL KNOWN to be VERY illegal!) they still insist on forging ahead... and to make it worse, for every post spelling out the possible consequences (sometimes into the thousands of dollars), you get some other idiot piping up with, "Well, my buddy's been running with that for years and even went through road checks and never got stopped for it". And then of course, six months later the idiot comes in whining about getting nailed for those very same mods and wondering how to go about disputing the tickets... Anyway, guess I just get in the habit of beating the drum...

I was thinking of this part in particular: If you're standing in an open public area, like a building foyer for example, and talking within a small group, the argument could be made for a "reasonable expectation for the conversation to be confined to the parties present" - ie. you're not speaking to everyone else in the room, and if there's not a crowd nearby, you would probably expect that nobody's going to overhear you. This is what I'm talking about, though, where the actual location might come into play. They use the example of a crowded patio at a public restaurant as being permitted - because of the proximity of other people, and likely the need to speak up over the noise level, a court probably wouldn't consider there to be a "reasonable" expectation that others wouldn't overhear. Anyway... that's my take on that. I'd say if you bring this up with the client, and they DO decide to go ahead with audio recording, that you take a very simple CYA step, and get them to sign something off stating that you've raised the concerns and that they take full responsibility. That way if it DOES hit the fan, they can't come back and say nobody told them. Might be an idea, too, if they do agree to consult a lawyer, that you show the lawyer a plan of where the cameras are going, or better yet, take him/her on a walk-through to check the locations - some locations may be okay, and others not. And you never know, the client may look at your concerns and just decide it's too much trouble and nix the audio altogether - problem solved.

Depends what you mean by "switches to IR". Some cameras have a "night mode" when they switch from color to B&W. Some have IR LEDs that add extra illumination when they're in night mode. It's easy to tell those from looking at them. "HAD" has nothing to do with the difference.

BTW, Google gave me some useful links about audio recording: Exact wording: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-638 Summary: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/california.html I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but my take on this is that such recording would classify as "eavesdropping" in California and would be prohibited, unless it's in an area where you're actually recording public speaking. But again, check with a lawyer to confirm. If the client questions this, the above summary should provide reason enough for them to look into it further.

I wouldn't count on that. Unless it's a law office, it wouldn't surprise me one bit that something like the legality of audio recording is something that, quite simply, nobody thought of when they were planning for this. Most people's expectations of surveillance systems draw largely on what they see on TV and in the movies, so if they think "we want to record audio", they generally assume they can do it and that's all there is to it. Just because it's a government office doesn't mean everyone is up to speed on the law - this is your chance to look super-smart by bringing up the question... and if it turns out to be verboten, you look like the hero for catching it before someone else got in trouble. (Of course, if you don't bring it up, and they go ahead with the audio, and then the $#!t hits the fan over it, guess who the finger gets pointed at? Yup... the guy who installed it!) " title="Applause" />

Sounds like a decent setup given the budget! The only thing I'd suggest, is to check on local laws regarding audio recording - it's actually illegal in some jurisdictions, or may be illegal in certain parts of the building. Some regions allow it only with posted signage, others allow it, but the audio isn't admissible as evidence in court unless there's signage... and so on. In short, the law varies widely on audio recording and you'd be well advised to clarify what it is in your area before proceeding with that portion of the install.

I've never used an AvTech, but from what I read about them here, I think a chimp with a crayon and sketchpad would be a reasonable equivalent...

I have cameras watching our street and a construction site across the street, because some of the workers have taken to just dumping their garbage out the doors of the cars - including a pair of track pants that look like they were destroyed by a nail, a broken tape measure, and several instances of uneaten lunches... of course, nobody's done it since I started recording, but the next time someone does, the site super is getting a very unpleasant visit. On a friendlier note we have systems in a two-square-block crane yard, and a smaller satellite yard in another town, that record for security purposes, but are also accessed by the dispatchers to check on the locations of people and equipment - like, "#22 done unloading yet?" (zoom in) "Nope, not quite..." "Okay, get him on that next call when he is".

Four cameras, "high" framerate... depending on how much motion is being triggered, I'd say three weeks isn't too bad for <250GB. How are you using the space? Is GV recording to both partitions? Which is the system partition? Keep in mind that other things are taking up space on the system partition, too... your temp folder won't clean itself, so as things use it, it will tend to take more and more space. Your pagefile is probably taking a couple of gigs. If you use IE on the machine, the Temporary Internet Files folder will be gradually chewing up more and more space as well. The recommended setup would be a small-ish (20 or so GB) system partition for the OS, GV software, etc., and a separate large partition, dedicated solely to video storage.

I've used SLR filters on CCTV lenses before... basically just by placing the filter in front of the lens and then wrapping some PVC tape around to hold it in place. You need a smaller filter, and it works better with larger-diameter lenses, so the size disparity isn't so much... use the quality tape, the stuff that doesn't get brittle in the cold, and it works fine - I have cameras that have been in place for 5+ years with this setup.

Try reducing the frames/sec setting, as well as the motion sensitivity setting. Also try masking areas that aren't of interest so they don't trigger motion, and look for things that may be improperly triggering motion (monitors or display, hanging signs, etc.) What size hard drive do you have?