Soundy

Proper tool for the job: if you're recording video for the purpose of editing later, I would strongly advise using cameras intended for this, rather than those meant for surveillance. You really want a system that will record SMPTE timecode on the video, so you can properly synchronize later (and audio, if you plan to add that later). Ideally you'd use a setup that records all feeds with synchronized timecode, but most editing software that supports timecode should also allow you to easy enter an offset for each stream when it's imported. Yes, you can still edit non-timecoded video together, but having the timecode makes life a whole lot easier, especially since the software is designed to make use of it for exactly that pupose. Your best bet will probably be a hard-disk-based camcorder (there are HD models out there), so you can record what you need internally to the camera, then import that to your editing station... usually by plugging the camera into the computer via firewire, but there are probably networkable cameras out there that will let you selectively download the video as the need arises (so you could only download, say, an hour clip of the timeframe you need), rather than keeping all the video, all the time. These types of camera will probably handle the low and varying lighting conditions a lot better, too.

You can AVOID the fisheye effect entirely with the right lens. Unfortunately that lens will probably cost more than the camera. Other cameras like the Arecont panoramic one have "de-warping" software available that will mitigate the effect. Of course, something like Photoshop will always allow you to "de-fisheye" your pictures as well.

This can be tricky - I've come across routers that will not let you port forward to addresses that are outside its DHCP range (won't let you set them as DMZ, either). A better method is to use a router that supports its own reserved or static IPs (this would be an option on the "LAN" side, not to be confused with similar options in the "WAN" setup), allowing the DVR to pull an address from the router's DHCP server, then setting that IP as "reserved" for the DVR. Again, potentially troublesome, as MANY routers will start their own DHCP pool at *.100. If you're going to hard-code your own IP address, you should ensure it's something outside the DHCP pool, so as to avoid conflicts. Of course, this can lead to the issue noted above... personally, any router I come across that DOESN'T support reserved IPs goes straight in the bit-bucket. Or just point your browser at any of a number of sites on the web that will tell you your "outside" IP... personally, I like www.ipchicken.com (it's just easy to remember )

There isn't really a dictionary definition of "true day/night", but amongst industry professionals, as others have noted, the term DEFINITELY implies ICR. Alas, without something like an FTC-enforced definition of the term, manufacturers are free to tack "true day/night" on any camera they want. So it's not really a good term to go by in the ad copy, unless it's a trusted brand name. So, ICR, ICF, removable IR filter, whatever... that's what you want to look for in the specs. If they list that, or something equivalent, then you can safely tell your customers that it's a "true day/night" without looking like a shyster If you really want to be sure, keep in mind that the filter in almost all TDN cameras will produce a very audible "click" when switching between day and night modes. You can test it by putting your hand over the lens to darken the scene, or if it's in a dark room, shine a bright light into it, to force it to switch... or, most will have either a switch or a menu option to force day and/or night operation; either way, you'll be able to see the display change between color and B&W, and should hear the corresponding "click".

WEP/WPA are wireless encryption systems; no key is required for a direct wired connection (and BTW, WPA is preferable to WEP; it's substantially more secure). You should use a straight-through ethernet cable to connect to a router; unless the router and/or DVR has auto-MDI/X ports, a crossover cable won't work.

Send me one; I'll suss it out and tell you everything you need to know about the rest of them

Looks like that hole is a standard 1/2" fitting... so you could use LiquidTite or ENT (electrical non-metallic tubing) to run into the housing, to maintain some flex.

Personally, I'd push the bare end of a Cat5 cable through, THEN terminate it, rather than trying to fit the connector through...

Found your post on weather-watch.com If this is going to be a weathercam, I'm guessing you probably want the widest view possible and won't generally be changing the camera position or field of view... in which case, a varifocal isn't really needed. You can expand your options a bit (not a LOT) by including fixed-focal lenses in your spec. For something really wide, IQEye sells a 2.5-7mm MP lens (don't recall the actual brand off-hand), only drawback is that it's not auto-iris. One other thing to keep in mind: you'll want to use a housing that allows for your wide FOV. This is an IQ511 (1.3MP 1/3") with their 2.5-7mm lens in a Pelco EH3508 enclosure: And finally, if you really want a FULL-VIEW weathercam, have you thought of something like this? http://arecontvision.com/index.php?section=product&subsection=product_details&product_id=25

Your DVR is not going to produce images anywhere near that resolution, I don't care what analog camera you connect to it.

Check a "realtime" still from a 1.3MP camera pointing at the end of my street: http://moltenimage.com:8080/now.jpg (Note: using a standard, non-megapixel 5-50mm lens, so it's not quite as clean as it should be... gets the point across though )

Doesn't look like D1 even resized back down... in fact, it looks blocky even for CIF (and I'm going more by the overlay text than the image itself). You SURE it's actually RECORDING at D1? Don't you have one that HASN'T been resized?

That image is obviously recorded at CIF (352x240) - you can't make a valid comparison of cameras with that, even (or especially) by resizing it to 1024x768.

Hahahaha, welcome to my life with Arecont If you REALLY want to frustrate yourself, try installing some Pelco domes

I don't know Acti cameras at all, but I'd say the problem is that the stream isn't meant to be viewed directly in a browser. Normally you'd access the web interface, which would load some sort of ActiveX or Java viewer applet that then displays the stream. You might also be able to view the stream directly using something like VLC Media Player.

I've seen some exceptions, but they've been rare. I've seen barrels used for AC as well. But on a DC-power supply, 95% of the time the center pin will be positive.

You could probably do it with ethernet-over-coax adapters, which allow you go far beyond ethernet's standard 100m limit... but if you want to do it RIGHT, you should probably look at fiber. It will cost more (actually, I don't think then equipment is THAT spendy anymore, but installing the fiber itself probably will be), but it's really the PROPER way to do it. Actual topology either way will depend a lot on the camera layout you need... if, say, you have three cameras within a couple hundred feet of each other, you could link them directly by ethernet using a five-port switch, then uplink that switch to the server room with fiber.

You don't say where you're located, but that picture says the camera came from a "UK seller", meaning it's probably using PAL video standard... if YOU'RE not in the UK or other country that uses PAL, that would explain why it doesn't work with your TV. These sort of wireless systems are very limited in distance and quality, and if you're not within probably 50' and line-of-sight from the camera to the receiver, that could explain why you're not getting anything, too. Have you tested it with your TV with the camera and receiver close together? If you're putting the camera outside and the receiver is inside a brick/concrete building, that would certainly explain lack of reception. If you want to record, but don't need to monitor in realtime, you might be better off with a camera that has built-in recording, like those from MemoCam. These aren't overly cheap, and you could probably find some cheap knock-off designs on fleaBay, but you really do get what you pay for in this industry.

"In their price range" is the key. Sure, they won't measure up to the likes of the Panny 484s on a raw-quality basis, but they also cost less than 1/3 the 484's price. And like Rory says, there's little than can touch them for low-light response (IMHO they even kick the 484's arse in near-darkness).

Judging from the pictures, the red connector is your power input - you'll need a 12VDC power adapter, rated at least 250mA. The separate wire with the red barrel connector would be for power as well, and intended to connect into a car's power source, the plug into the red connector on the monitor cable. Without instructions, it's hard to say FOR SURE, but chances are that the connector needs to be tip-positive, meaning the center pin should be +12V and the barrel would be ground. If you get a separate wall-wart power supply, make sure it's labelled like this:

Several manufacturers have CCTV power supplies that give you selectable 24 or 28VAC output, usually done with a multi-tap transformer. Most, like the bulk of Altronix' ALTV line, allow you to select one voltage or the other for ALL cameras, but a few provide separate taps for each camera - check out the Pelco MCS series, for example (the Pelcos are nice in that they also have a voltage/current/wire-gauge chart on the inside of the can door).

It's because of the resistance of the wire itself, vs. the resistance of the load, as these two parts of the circuit form a voltage divider. I used to have a good, n00b-friendly explanation for why this happens... at the moment, I'm too tired to remember it, having just got home from an overnight job...

And that assumes you're trying to access your DVR remotely... there are all kinds of reasons to forward ports in a router, and the ports used will depend on what you're trying to do.

I've seen this happen with an IQ753... the filter stuck halfway across the frame, so we had proper color on one side of the frame, and false color on the other, with a fuzzy line across the middle: the filter's frame was just wide enough to "blur" across the picture.