Soundy

That's what almost all of them do - except Pelco.

I'm with Rory, your best bet is to insert the VCR into the VCR loop on the MUX. Some MUXes need to be configured for the specific VCR being used, but if they're the same brand, it may "just work". Can't hurt to try, anyway. If you're familiar with how VCRs record, this will give you a clue as to how it interacts with the MUX. Hooking a monitor to the VCR OUT jack will give you an idea as well - essentially the MUX just flips from one camera to the next, in sync with the VCR recording video frames, so in essence, each frame is one camera. On playback, it then reads each frame back and sorts each camera to its appropriate channel. The upside is that each camera is in full res... the downside is that each camera is recorded only every 16th frame, or only a couple of times per second. That's a little over-simplified, but hopefully it helps...

Oh yeah, and ACTi too!

Wow, starting to think I shoulda started a separate thread for this... maybe a mod can split these posts off and I'll just come back to this thread when I have some pics to post? One neat thing with the Pelco, the "Exposure" config page includes an RGB histogram!

I have also heard that Pelco cameras require a lot of processing power to decode there H.264 streams. I can attest to that. I've rebuilt my old laptop as a "test NVR" with the Vigil software... now granted it's only a Celeron M (1.8GHz, I think), but man, the "High" 15ips, 1920x1080 stream is just KILLING it. Switching to "Low" at only 5ips at least keeps things usable. The JPEG stream is SOMEWHAT more manageable. And bpzle: Please let me know what these others are so I can avoid them. So far this Pelco is the only one I've seen that does this - IQ, Arecont, Hik and Panasonic all have their "finder" programs that can configure the cameras' IPs from any (routable) subnet.

That's a great tool, and it MIGHT tell me that the camera is THERE (then again, with the camera, it may have fully choked on not having the gateway set) , but it won't let me CONFIGURE it to a usable IP. I've got it going; I'm just saying, this is a serious drawback on Pelco's part, not having a utility that can find and configure any of their cameras on any subnet. One shouldn't HAVE to reconfigure their PC or provide a DHCP server just to set up the camera.

It is. It has a default of 192.168.0.20 but it looks for a DHCP server and pulls and address from that, if it finds one. That doesn't work so well, though, when you're connecting it directly to the computer, or into a network that doesn't have a DHCP server. This is the stupid thing: EVERY. OTHER. IP. CAMERA. that I've worked with so far, has some sort of utility that communicates the camera, I assume via ICMP or other such protocol, that can find the camera and let you configure its IP, netmask and gateway, regardless of the subnet you or it are on, usually whether the camera already has an IP or not. The Pelco doesn't. Like most other Pelcos, it seems to be a camera designed by engineers who've never actually had to install a camera in the field.

I was simply referring to " NJD " post about Aver He sugest to use TV Out from 6240 my point I don't think TV out will display IP cam What works with what I don't have any problem All depends whether the "TV Out" provides a rendered display, or simply switches one of the analog inputs. If it will do split-screen/multi-screen, my guess would be that it's rendered and will likely do the IP cams as well.

My thoughts on it thus far aren't suitable for posting here. Let's just say this thing better turn out to have f'ing STELLAR picture, after all this. It better be able to f'ing see through women's clothing to make it worth what they want for it.

I encounter this issue with other types of devices from time to time. I change the PC to something like 192.168.0.2, connect to the device, change the device to something like 192.168.2.20, then change the PC back to 192.168.2.2. But yeah, it's a bit of a hassle given the broad support for DHCP. Best, Christopher Well... I changed my netbook to 192.168.0.*, changed the camera from 192.168.0.20 to 192.168.2.20, then changed my laptop back... and noticed the camera's config page was complaining that I didn't have a default route set (duh, shouldn't need one if I'm staying with the subnet). Ever since that I haven't been able to connect with the camera, not even with the utility, not with the netbook on either subnet. Fak. Finally just did a factory reset (BTW, they provide a recessed button for that... but not just a slightly recessed button that you can push with a pen or screwdriver tip, noooo... it's recessed a good 1/8" through a pinhole, so you have to actually find a pin, needle, paperclip, or something else of the sort. And of course, Pelco yet again uses a 2.5mm submini TS jack for the service monitor output... but doesn't actually include anything to plug into it to provide a more common RCA or BNC connection. So far this thing has been hooked up for a total of an hour and a half and I've only very briefly had a (very tiny) window showing its Quicktime output...???

I think the point is, most video cards don't have RCA out, and still not all TVs have HDMI or VGA input. Plus, that would at best just allow you to run a clone of the desktop, or maybe extend the desktop and move the camera windows there... but then you don't have them on the main desktop. None of these are solutions for a dedicated "spot" type display of cameras only.

Yeah, never heard of it before... good find though, looks pretty slick!

Congrats! Hope the customer likes that...

$400 each, you could probably find some ACTi megapixel domes for that. If you don't mind buying from fleaBay, something like this would be within your budget: http://cgi.ebay.com/ACTi-ACM-3601-ACM3601-IP-Camera-Vandal-Proof-Outdoor-/230464783446?cmd=ViewItem&pt=BI_Security_Fire_Protection&hash=item35a8c58456#ht_1456wt_964 (note: NOT a recommendation of this product or seller, just something that fits the spec that came up on a search).

It's likely the only thing that would make the customer "happy" is better DVRs... *ahem* but notwithstanding that, if the web client will work with Firefox, there ARE a number of add-ons that will tile multiple tabs in one window. Here's just one: http://www.firefoxfacts.com/2010/05/25/tile-your-firefox-tabs-in-the-browser/ I couldn't find anything for IE... if the viewer only works in IE, you might be able to combine a tiling extension for FF with the IE Tab extension...

Size concerns mainly, I suspect, needing to keep things compact to fit everything within a tight form factor, and light to allow fast reaction. Cost issues, too - since PTZs inherently cost more, using the 1/4" sensor helps keep the overall cost down. A smaller sensor allows a smaller lens to provide the same zoom factor, as well. There are 1/3" PTZs out there, but they tend to be a lot more expensive (check out the Pelco Esprit line).

viewforum.php?f=6

The problem is, most DVRs have proprietary remote-client/CMS/VMS protocols and you can only use their own software for that purpose. If you have multiple different brands of DVRs, you're probably SOL for having everything handled in one program; you may have to run multiple apps and just find a way to lay them all out on one screen (or maybe two or three screens using multiple video heads). The best bet is if the DVRs all have web viewers and you can load them up in multiple tabs of a single browser window. What brand/models of DVRs are we talking about here?

The vast majority of IP cameras you find will support PoE. The big question is what type of cameras you want (VGA, megapixel) and how much you're planning to spend on them.

I've never used those type of connectors that didn't already have wire tails to simply be spliced/crimped. AFAIK the pins for them simply get crimped to the wires. I can see the desire to use something for quick-disconnect on the camera power, but honestly, unless you're building a (trans)portable system, there should be little need to ever disconnect the cameras - I'd just use standard B-crimps if the camera has wire tails or a barrel plug, or connect the power directly to the camera's screw/spring/etc terminals.

Well, you really have two options... You can go with cheap generic eBay cards, which may or may not be "legitimate", may or may not come with software, may or may not come with DECENT software, and probably won't come with support... Or you go with hardware/software BUNDLES such as Video Insight or GeoVision, in which case the card is usually "branded" to the software manufacturer. In most cases, the legitimate software is "locked" to only work on legitimate cards offered by that manufacturer... for example, Vigil and Video Insight use cards that are virtually identical, hardware wise (same chipsets, same design/layout, etc.), but Video Insight's software will only recognize cards that are "branded" for them. Vigil software, on the other hand, will recognize and use Video Insight's cards (I can unplug a Vigil card and drop in the corresponding VI card and Vigil just carries on as if nothing has changed)... however, you can't buy DIY Vigil hardware/software bundles; they only sell complete systems.

120ips / 4 channels should still = 30ips per camera..

Good reasoning Personally, I like that PC DVRs do tend to be easier to work on, it's a more familiar environment for most users, and it's generally a LOT easier to add more space if you need it - internal drives, external USB/Firewire/eSATA drives, external RAID arrays, etc. The PC-based systems I'm most familiar with are GeoVision, Capture, Video Insight, and Vigil. Of those, GeoVision is the only one I know of that will currently sell you the card and software - Capture uses proprietary hardware and only sells complete systems; Vigil doesn't use "proprietary" hardware per se but also only sells complete systems; and Video Insight USED to sell analog/hybrid systems but AFAIK has recently gone all-IP. Personally, I don't like GeoVision mainly because I find the interface and configuration clunky, and from reading here it sounds like there can be a lot of confusion over what versions of the software are compatible with which versions of the software... but it's a very popular system and you may find it suitable for your needs and budget. Outside of that, we're a distributor for Vigil systems, and I could hook you up with something there, although I don't know if it's particularly what you'd consider "cheap" compared to most standalone systems. However, you take a look at http://www.3xlogic.com if you want, browse the offerings, and PM me if you have any questions about the systems.

Vigil systems can handle it. You could use a Vigil hybrid system, with a capture card that provides a "software multiplexor" output to standard monitors... or use a straight NVR and run Vigil's "HD Viewer" app, that will generate as many different IP-camera views as you want through additional video heads (ie. using one or more dual-head video cards). This option provides far better live views, as it's driving VGA/DVI displays at full resolution.

Then all you need is a DVR card for the PC - it will provide the same BNC inputs. Or get a turnkey PC-based DVR; same idea. Question: how have you determined that you "need" to go a PC-based system? I'm a fan of PC over standalone, personally, so I'm more than happy to say go for it, but I'm curious as to how you arrived at this requirement over, say, a beefier standalone system?