Soundy

Could be that the DVR is set for 75-ohm termination on the lines, which is loading them too much and the signal is dropping out. The test monitor would more than likely be "Hi-Z" loading and therefor not causing the signal to drop.

Umm, so... are these just direct wires between sites, or are they going through a switching station (telco)? If the former, $25/mo seems a little... well frankly, like a rip-off. If that's the case, though, they're probably not using just baluns, but some specialized hardware for that purpose. If that's the case, going to a DSL link would allow you to add more cameras over a single connection.

I doubt it's a power-supply issue, or the cameras would be dropping out regardless of whether he's connected to the test monitor or the DVR. One way to double-check this, though, might be to use a T-connector to feed the camera to both the DVR and the monitor at the same time. If the cable resistance readings are too far out of line, it may indicate the need to re-pull those runs. This could be confirmed by just stringing the run across the floor and hooking it up, before pulling it through its final route. BTW, the test load doesn't HAVE to be 75 ohms; I suggested that only because 75-ohm terminators are relatively common. The impedence rating is nominal for design operating frequencies, but the cable should really have near-zero resistance at DC. Any size resistor will do; a multimeter should read within a couple ohms of the resistor's rating either way.

Not in the same price range with the same capabilities. Anything else close will probably cost at least twice as much.

If you can find one, pick up a 75-ohm terminator (or try just putting a 75-ohm resistor across the tip and shield of the BNC connector at the camera end). Then with an ohmeter/multimeter, measure the resistance across the tip and shield at the DVR end of the cable. You should get very close to 75 ohms (certainly within the 70-80 ohm range). Anything outside that will be an indication of a physical cabling problem.

Most of my systems are either on desks or shelves, or in cabinets, so the cables can just lay there and not put any extra weight on the breakouts. The couple of instances where they did hang down (DVR on a small desk or table), I just put a zip-tie saddle on the back of the table and zip-tied all the cables there with the ends right behind the DVR, so there's no weight pulling on the connectors.

As someone who's built a lot of things in those kind of project boxes, I'd say, it's definitely home-made. What do you need to know?

Yes, that should work.

Wow, so many questions, so little info. What DVR is this? Does it need the input to be "enabled" in the setup? Did your installer connect his monitor directly to the camera end, or at the DVR end of the cable? What type of cable is being used? How is it terminated? What happens if you plug into another input on the DVR? How many cameras are they? Are they all showing this problem, or is it just one? If just the one, have you tried swapping it with another one on the DVR?

Take a look at CNB's lineup (www.cnbtec.com). The VCM/VBM-24vf model is proving to be very popular on this forum for their excellent low-light capabilities. They won't see in complete darkness, but they do produce very good pictures with very little light, no need for IR. CNB also has some IR bullets that Rory seems impressed with, so you could look at those when you need to see in near-complete darkness. They do cost more than your eBay specials, but at this moment, they're far above most anything else in their price range, and measure up to many cameras that run two to three times the price.

^This. A 320GB drive can be had brand-new for under $50. For that matter, a 500GB can be had for under $60. Just get a dedicated drive for your video and be done with it. Add $20-$30 and get it in an external USB case. Just a thought though: you're "sharing" this video data drive, does that mean you're "sharing" the DVR computer as well? That's generally a bad idea; you typically want your DVR to run on its own dedicated machine, for a number of different reasons.

Can any one confirm that this is correct? If so, then Thank you! This was the answer I was looking for. I didn't even know there was an output relay on the camera. How come it is not really mentioned in detail in the manual? The relay itself may be optional... same with other features like built-in baluns, RS-485 control, etc.

1/4" vs. 1/3" refers to the size of the CCD sensor - a larger sensor will cover more of the image projected by the lens, which is why you see a wider angle. It's hard to tell much more about your problem without more information, especially on the cameras. Do they have any brand or model numbers on them (other than "Sony", which more likely refers to the sensor used rather than the make of camera; a LOT of cameras, including the very cheapest ones, use the same Sony sensors)? Are they dome style, bullet style, box style? What type/brand/length of lenses are on them? Fixed focal length, zoom, auto-iris?

See, this is just the kind of things I love about the CNB domes: it's like, they actually got installers' input on the physical designs, and used a little intelligence in them.

I think he meant more, how can he tell the system to only use 'X' amount of space and leave the rest free...

I can't speak for the CNB specifically, as I haven't used the motion-detect function in them, but the cameras I have played with it, it works much like a motion-detect area on the DVR, except it triggers an output relay on the camera, that you can then use to trigger a DVR to record (or whatever else you might want to trigger with it).

Don't get so hung up on TVL... to a large degree, it's just marketing hype that CCTV manufacturers have latched on to as a "bigger is better" number that they can toss out for half-informed consumers. TVL these days is to CCTV what megapixels are to digital still cameras, or watts are to car audio buffs - relevant if you understand what you're looking at, but greatly overhyped and at times "fudged" beyond usefulness.

^That was my first thought as well. Another (more expensive) option might be to look into an IP streaming system, where the video is digitized and broadcast via IP, with each TV having a decoder that would let you select which stream to view. Either of these setups would let you do away with most of the DVD players, too - if you only ever need three feeds to chose from on any TV at any time, you'd only need three players. Or let's take it one step further: set up a PC in the basement with a streaming server, rip all your DVDs onto the machine's hard drive, then give each TV its own streaming receiver in the form of a media-player box, a micro-PC, or even a small netbook (a $120 Linux netbook would suffice) to play the streams from the server. No more need to swap DVDs, either. Let's go beyond a switchbox, too: a computer-based player - whether Windows or Linux - would allow you to run a remote-access app like VNC, which would let you then directly access any player and change what it's playing at any time. A friend of mine does this with digital transit signage using his iPhone - he can walk onto any train platform, pull out his iPhone, and adjust all the signage in that station without anyone even knowing it. He can also sit at his desk in his office and reprogram his signage on any or all sites.

Going strictly by the spec sheets, that camera doesn't come close to the 24vf's low-light response - 0.3lux color/0.1lux B&W for the Videcon, vs. 0.1lux color/0.01lux B&W for the CNB.

Are you using baluns on both ends of the run? They do need to operate in pairs. What brand are they? We had an instance here on the forum recently, where someone had a "pair" of baluns that didn't work as well as they should... found out that one of them had the necessary transformer, but the other was just wired straight-through. You can use the "attachment" function at the bottom of the message to add pictures, you just need to make sure they're within the stated size constraints 150k per file).

Yes... that was me that said that, several times.

If the OP doesn't want a PC-based DVR, then it seems kind of counter-productive to have a setup that requires a PC-based CMS to do the remote recording...

My buddy used to park his scooter out on the street in front of his place... one morning he came out to find someone had stolen the exhaust off of it. Not the whole bike, just the exhaust. WTF???

I already said it three times: these are NETWORK cameras. They plug into the same NETWORK as the computer - for example, your internet router. They do not need to connect directly to the computer (you CAN do it that way, but it's not common practice).

That has nothing to do with it. IP cameras communicate over the network - you'd plug the camera into your router along with your computer. They don't need a capture card at all. Yes, lots. Most will need a longer lens than you can typically get in a dome or bullet style (although there are exceptions that have longer lenses). Take a look at the offerings from CNB - we use their VCM-24vf domes extensively as they have excellent low-light response. You could see if they have a "bullet" style equivalent to that, as a dome probably wouldn't work as well in your situation. Again, there's no relation - the only question is whether the software supports it. IP cameras don't use the capture card; they don't require the presence of a capture card. The CNB camera I mentioned works great in low-light, no IR needed. In general, cheap cameras have built-in IR because they don't do well with low light. Good cameras don't need IR unless it's REALLY dark.