Soundy

For a single camera, not only is 2TB *way* overkill, but I think an HTPC is as well. You're not really dealing with "multimedia" here, so something oriented to "home theater" is hardly necessary. Warnings against "consumer" and "green" drives are also more directed at multi-camera systems that will be writing constantly... a single camera writing only on motion detection won't realistically be accessing the drive any more than any other home activities like gaming, watching PVR'd movies, or working on your finances. Honestly, if you really want a PC-based system, for just a single camera, something like this would be more than sufficient: http://a-power.com/product-16307-457-1 In this case, you may even be better off with something like this: http://qnapsecurity.com/pro_detail_feature.asp?p_id=114 or this: http://qnapsecurity.com/pro_detail_feature.asp?p_id=115 Ready to go, just install a drive and configure it!

You're comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Okay, maybe more like... a small cantaloupe with a giant vodka-soaked watermelon To be blunt, a $40 IR camera is crap. The picture is crap, the night performance is crap, the longevity will probably be crap. A *quality* analog camera - for the sake of argument, let's say a CNB VCM-24VF vandal-resistant day/night dome, which frankly will give you better night vision than that $40 camera in all but complete darkness, and which most here will agree is an outstanding value on a quality-for-price basis, will start at about $175 from online/fleaBay vendors... up to twice that retail. Same as with the camera: a $300 DVR where half the total price is the drives alone, is crap. Simple as that. Don't take my word for that, either - any of the professionals here will agree (the only ones that won't are the Asian manufacturers who are here trying to sell their $300 junk DVRs). There's a WIDE range of NVR software out there, some of it free. Many cameras come with their own bundled NVR software as well, which while it may only work with their own branded cameras, IS still free. Hardware requirements are nothing special - some here have run multi-channel Exacq NVRs with multi-megapixel cameras on Atom-processor systems. Really, your comparisons here just aren't valid: you're comparing the cheapest of the cheap analog junk with mid-grade IP systems and excessive hardware expectations. That depends on the codec used, as well as numerous other factors... H.264 will use anywhere from 1/4 to 1/20th the space of MJPEG or MPEG-4. Some DVRs/NVRs also have proprietary codecs that recompress video to a fraction of the space with little or no loss of quality. At a fraction of the resolution, sure. Apples and oranges, again. And again, your system design is unrealistic. Situations that call for 24/7, 30fps, continuous recording are rare in the extreme. 5-7fps is more than sufficient in most cases, and almost every situation will be using motion-activated recording - after all, there's no point in recording a scene where nothing is happening. While these thinkings apply to both analog and megapixel, the differences become a lot less extreme when REAL needs are factored in. BTW, on a similar note, keep in mind that IP is not the same thing as megapixel. There are lower-resolution IP cameras (VGA, or 640x480, is common). You do not understand it right. Again, REAL bandwidth depends on a lot of factors, BEGINNING with the actual camera resolution (anywhere from VGA to 16MP). Then there's the codec used, the compression-vs.-quality level used, the framerate... The scene itself has a huge effect on the bandwidth: the less complex, the less bandwidth needed. Cameras with built-in motion detection can be set to only transmit video when that detection is triggered, and even without that, a static scene will also use far less bandwidth than one filled with dynamic movement. Even something as simple as "image sharpness" settings can have a huge effect on the bandwidth. Streaming out to a client also benefits from recompression (producing smaller streams for remote viewing) and multi-streaming cameras (which may have one high-bandwidth stream for best-quality recording, and a low-bandwidth, lower-quality stream for remote viewing). And frankly, if you have a *small business* network, you probably only need a *small business* camera count, which can easily reside on its own completely separate, isolated network. See, more misinformation - what you're told is WRONG. First of all, if that switch REALLY only puts out 7.5W per port, then it's not conforming to 802.3af-2003, which currently specifies 15.4W/port (newer -2009 spec allows up to 25.5W). I certainly wouldn't pay $800 for a switch that doesn't even meet spec. Add to that, your power requirements are FAR over-stated. Example: IQEye IQ753, 3.1MP true day/night camera, is listed at a MAX power draw of 2.5W. And as I said before, these same cameras will run off your same CCTV power supply instead of PoE, if that design meets your needs better. Whoever's been schooling you on IP systems is woefully misinformed himself, or has another agenda for spreading blatant lies. That's because you haven't been making proper valid comparisons. You're comparing cheap-grade analog gear to quality IP equipment, for starters; like comparing a little Kia hatchback to a Lexus SUV and deciding that the extra cargo space isn't worth it. You're comparing storage needs based on full-time, all-out performance that isn't required or used in 99.9% of installations. And you're comparing based on poor (or downright WRONG) information on the power and data requirements of the equipment itself. And as thewireguys illustrated, you're looking only at the on-paper drawbacks while ignoring one of the clearest benefits: it breaks beyond the resolution limits imposed by analog video. There are many other benefits beyond that that you're overlooking as well, such as the ability to USE routed data, WANs and VLANs to tie remote cameras and DVRs together even in a SMALL setup. From an installer's perspective, the ability to run numerous cameras over single cable is invaluable - in fact, this saved our butts in an installation completed just this week, where we used an existing network drop between floors to get six 5MP cameras on the main floor connected to a DVR in the basement... with the cameras on their own switch upstairs (8-channel 10/100 PoE ports plus two gigabit ports for downlink, retails for $300), and the cameras, two DVRs and NAS on their own 8-port gigabit SOHO switch downstairs, there's no worry about "crashing the corporate network" - a single connection between the gigabit switch and the corporate LAN provides them remote access to the DVRs, without any of the camera traffic affecting their operations. And oh yes, I say this "saved our butts"... because of the construction (and subsequent numerous reconstructions and renos) or the old building, GETTING a new data drop between floors would have been nearly impossible... or if possible, it would have been very, very ugly. And just to add to the image samples (and don't forget to click the MP images to see them FULL SIZE, as the forum shrinks the display): This is from a typical cheap analog dome (probably cost $60 originally, without IRs, just as a point of comparison to your $40 IR cam), recorded at CIF resolution: And this is from a 1.3MP IQEye 511 mounted directly above the dome (which is visible in the bottom-left): From the same site, on the pub side... another of the same small domes, recorded at 4CIF: And another IQ511 mounted right beside it:

I'm not familiar with this particular system, but in my experience, there would generally be something in the menus/options/setup where you have to format/initialize new drives, and/or add them to the drives available to the DVR... it's rarely as simple as just plugging them in and leaving it at that.

The OP's solution works because formatting a disk typically just erases the catalog or table that tells the system where the data is located, while the data itself is still there. In your case, the data has been overwritten... replaced with new data. The chances of recovering anything are about one in ten thousand... and would probably cost about the same.

From a year ago.... probably not. Few CCTV users store video for that long - the storage costs would be prohibitive. Most of our retail customers require 30 days' retention... one keeps minimum 90 days, still others don't worry about anything more than 15 days, since anything that does happen will probably be noticed within that time, giving the ability to export the footage before it's overwritten. Now, if you originally approached building management for the footage within a short time (a couple days?) and they told you it had been overwritten, they were probably lying (unless, maybe, they were recording on a single tape). At the time, I would have had the police talk to them, or possibly had my lawyer subpoena the video. If it was really serious, the police could probably even seize the system, in case the management was just being lazy. A year later, though... unless the clips were exported to another drive partition or something, chances of getting anything now are pretty much nil.

Actually, initial cost of an NVR is (or SHOULD) usually be less, because there's no analog/digital capture hardware required - just software that can snag and record the video streams from the network. Many manufacturers of storage arrays (QNAP, Synology, and Enhance are three I'm familiar with) also have systems that can do this directly in the array, eliminating the need for a separate PC - take a look at www.qnapsecurity.com for some examples. I even repurposed an old laptop with a broken lid (cracked, so it won't open or close easily, making it of limited usefulness as a portable) to work as a test NVR - just needed the software! Cameras will TYPICALLY cost more (although there are some decent low-budget megapixel cams out there), but you also get higher resolution, and you can pay a mint for a high-quality analog camera as well. Storage cost really isn't that much of an issue either: my usual retailer currently has 1TB drives on sale for $60; 1.5TB for $90. I've seen 2TB going for <$100 on sale as well. Bandwidth is entirely relative to the number of cameras - I've had two 1.3MP cameras running smoothly on a 10Mbit connection. UNTIL you get into bigger systems, bandwidth really isn't that much, especially if the cameras use H.264 and have built-in motion detection to control their transmission. As far as power, almost all network cameras support external 12VDC and/or 24VAC power; PoE is just a convenience, not a requirement. Cabling-wise, it's no more complex or painful to pull Cat5e rather than coax. Cost is the same for both these days, Cat5e actually tends to be smaller and more flexible, and if you do go PoE, there's also the benefit of not needing to pull power as well. In more and more cases these days, we're also using Cat5e for analog video - you can run video, power and control (for PTZ)... or two video and power... or four video... over a single Cat5e run... and then you have that in place for future upgrade to IP, should the need ever arise. Not to sound like an IP/megapixel/NVR salesman, mind you... just clarifying some of the facts for you, since there's a common misconception that IP video must ALWAYS be complicated and expensive.

This is standard if you're using a capture card that uses video overlay and some sort of remote-desktop software. With the smaller pictures, the software is generating the multiple images, but with the one large one, the capture card is displaying the video directly in a portion of the video memory... so the remote software (RDP, VNC, etc.) can't scan and re-transmit it. Only way around it is to use proper remote client software for the DVR system itself.

The only thing you could really do is muck up the DVR software or OS, in which case you just reinstall them both clean - remember that an NVR really does nothing more than accepting data from a network stream (that in this case just happens to be video data), and writing it to disk in some sort of manageable and searchable form. Safest way to cover yourself is to back up the system partition to an image with something like Paragon or Acronis... then if things go south (or if you just want to restore it to original condition for resale), you just restore the image, and you're done. Now ideally, you could look for an NVR software that supports the capture hardware you already have, thus making a nice hybrid box... otherwise, you can either pull the capture card out to make it a pure NVR, or you MAY be able to run the DVR software and separate NVR server simultaneously. You could also see if there's an upgrade/add-on available for the existing DVR software to add NVR capability.

Second this - we use a Hilti TE-15 Rotary drills like this are pricy, but they'll make these holes in no time, and while a cordless will be fine for cinder block, if you run into solid concrete, you'll spend more time waiting for batteries to recharge.

If it's an actual PC, then it's easy to "convert" to an NVR - all you need is the right software (and hardware upgrades as appropriate). Look at something like Exacq, which will run on Linux.

Yes, I read that... thus my assertion that HDMI directly out of the camera would be cheaper and simpler than his other option. Of course, if he insists on the cheap-PC route, then using VGA via VGA baluns or even cheap VGA extensions would be FAR cheaper than HDMI distribution (assuming, of course, the TV has a VGA input... which most do).

A little over-simplified - 1280x1024, for example, is not 4:3. More importantly, "720p" and "1080p" refer to SPECIFIC HDTV standards, and are used improperly *as marketing terms* in almost all cases when applied to CCTV cameras. There are a very few that do true 720p/1080p output via HDMI, and except for those few, the terms really should not be used in relation to surveillance/IP cameras. Back to the OP's question: since there's no way to directly interface an IP camera to your TV(s), you're probably better off to look for cameras that do actually have HDMI output; it may require extenders (not cheap) to get the signal there, but that will still be cheaper, and FAR less complicated, than the alternatives. All that aside, is there some reason you NEED high-def image of your front porch? If it's just to see who's there, you should be able to get a perfectly usable picture from a standard analog camera run to one of your TV's composite inputs. No, it won't look "super cool", but it will let you see who's standing there, for about 1/10th the price of the HD options (by the time you factor in camera, cabling, extenders, etc.)

You can also avoid cheap consumer cameras and use "professional" ones that will run on 24VAC - half the current draw of 12V, and less loss. OR you could run 24VAC over the Cat5, and then put a voltage regulator board at the camera end to provide your regulated 12VDC.

I gather you're trying to do this all one a single Windows machine? First thing you'd have to do is find working drivers and software to get the MIS card working in Windows at all. As koolmer says, it's highly unlikely you'll find any software that will work with two different cards at once. A few will work with two identical cards, but even those are rare. Anything you do find that will do what you want in a single package is likely to be unstable and unrefined. Now, running two separate packages with two separate cards and their own separate drivers SHOULD work, in theory... however, it's likely to be unstable as well - any number of hardware or driver conflicts could cause crashes or performance issues. At this point, you're effectively running two separate systems anyway, the only real difference is the footprint of one tower vs. two. Given the potential problems, you're back to ideally running two individual computers. I take it this is for a company security system, meaning proper operation and stabilty are critical; this isn't something you want to be messing with and trying unconventional, unproven methods. Your best suggestion, really, is that the company either upgrade their existing two machines as needed (if they're set on making it work with the existing cards and software), or ideally just replacing it all with one 32-channel system, and be done with it. Ultimately, what is your time worth? How much will it cost them to have you fighting with this concept for an extended period, only to end up with something that may be unreliable?

Your logic sounds spot-on!

Greetings, from BC! I have family in MT, love visiting there... it's a fun place to drive

Hard to say which is better, floodlights or IR, but in general, I prefer the idea of motion-activated floodlights: they'll not only give you a far better picture of what they light up, but if it's for outdoor and you're trying to catch intruders, a bright light snapping on their face is more likely to both make them look up (simple instinctive reaction), which will help get a better shot of their face(s), and will usually scare them off too. In most cases, if it's too dark for these cameras to make out a good shot, it's probably too dark for someone to creep through safely either.

Geek to English

If it's just the power wires that are CCA, that has no effect on the signal.

If the file format and compression do actually follow common standards, you should be able to simply rename the file with a new extension. Some players will still look at the extension to determine what video format is actually used, and still won't work if you rename it to the "wrong" extension (ie. they may play both .mpg and .avi, but won't play a .mpg file that's been renamed as .avi), but many use the extension only for their program association and look at the internals of the file instead to determine how to handle it. Renaming a file is easy - in Windows, right-click the file and select "Rename", then just change the extension. Try a player such as VLC (www.videolan.org), and if necessary, add in K-Lite Codec Pack.

^What he said. Common ground between video and power is common with many (most?) board cameras... better units avoid the related issues by adding voltage regulation, which isolates the two grounds on the external connections.

192.168.* is a private network address; that won't work for the rest of us.

He already said the firmware was up-to-date - look just four posts north.

Could just go with a basic PTZ dome... all of them will autofocus, AND allow you to move and zoom the camera remotely.

They'll fit SMALLER baluns, or baluns with the BNCs on tails. Once where the BNC is part of the balun body will probably be too long. We use these inside them regularly: http://gemelec.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=493&category_id=58&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1