Soundy

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.

You can't simply parallel controllers on a serial line. You need this type of device to allow them to get along cleanly: http://www.bb-elec.com/product_family.asp?FamilyId=31&TrailType=Sub&Trail=93

That photo is not from an analog CCTV camera. Look at the dimensions: 1280x720 - that's a megapixel camera (well, technically just under one megapixel, but still...), essentially 720p HDTV resolution. It's also using a larger sensor and a better-quality lens than your cameras (a basic megapixel lens is probably worth more than one of your cameras). These type of cameras don't use your capture card; they plug into the network and your DVR records the data from there. You need either specific software for the camera, or I believe newer versions of the GeoVision software will support some network cameras. Many of these cameras can also record to internal memory (SD card). You could put a longer lens on the camera to get a tighter shot of the bike (probably need something in a 12mm) but you'll still be limited by the capabilities of the camera and the DVR itself. Regardless of the camera or lens, you still won't be able to read most plates from that angle.

Well, let's start with the obvious: these are all cheap junk cameras and the pictures you're getting out of them are pretty much what one would expect from them. As far as capturing plates, you're going to have a very hard time from that angle regardless of what camera you use - you'll be looking at the top edge of the plate. You could do it with a better analog camera, but you'll need something with a lot tighter view around the bike, and you'd have to mount it a lot lower, not just to get the angle on the plates, but to clear all the foliage. Really though, how often does your bike get backed into? Statistically speaking, what are the odds of it getting hit again anytime soon? I'm just saying...

Welcome!

I'm thinking that even if all four coax runs are damaged, the Cat5e must be in at least pretty fair shape for ethernet to function over it, so it should work fine with two pair of baluns. The latency he saw on the network may be the DVR, or it may be the client, or even the PCs themselves that he's using to drive the monitors.

I suppose that would depend on where the damage happened, and who caused it. If someone with a backhoe crushed the conduit and squashed the wires inside of it, then the backhoe operator would be liable... for example.

Not even close: http://avigilon.com/products/cameras-video/#hdproip

Found a couple different hits on possibilities. 1: http://www.lammertbies.nl/comm/cable/RS-232.html Use pin 2 (TX+) and 3 (TX-) 2: http://www.w4rp.com/ref/pinouts_for_rj45_jacks.htm Use pin 3 (TX+) and 4 (TX-). 3: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tcsprod/technics/rj45.htm Several slight manufacturer-specific variations shown, but all use pins 3/4 for data TX (same as #2 above). 4: http://www.zytrax.com/tech/layer_1/cables/tech_rs232.htm This one shows RJ45 pinouts as "RS232D" standard, using pins 6 (TX+) and 4 (TX-) So there are a few different variations to try... as zmxtech suggests, a multimeter can help you narrow down the testing.

Middle of page 1, Rory:

Can you provide a photo of the monitors with the "double image"? It might help provide a clue as to the problem. Exact makes and models of ALL the equipment involved (DVRs, monitors, adapters/converters, amplifiers, even baluns) could be useful as well.

Yes; in fact, you can run up to four separate video signals over one Cat5e.

Most any PC-based system should be able to do this inherently - your external drive(s) can be USB, Firewire, eSATA, networked through a variety of methods... as long as the PC can see it as a drive letter, most DVR software will be able to use it.

And as Scorpion says, anything mounted to the building would have to be cleared with the management... the only way you could "get around" that is if you arranged with a neighbor on an end unit to put the camera in their unit, attach it somehow non-destructively outside one of their windows (something that clamps to the window frame perhaps), and then either put the DVR in their unit and monitor it remotely, or run the camera into a "video server", essentially turning it into a network camera, allow you to access the camera via the internet (assuming that person has broadband internet). At the distance you have there, you'd need a camera with a pretty long lens to get any kind of detail on your car from a camera mounted on the building, and nothing with built-in IR (at least not anywhere near your budget range) would illuminate that far. I'm guessing the lighting in that lot isn't great, so you'd need something with pretty wicked low-light performance. A building-mounted camera would also need to be at least on the second floor to clear anything else that parks in between (taking Murphy's Law into account, the guy at the next space directly between your car and the building would then get a really tall RV or something), and of course, the higher you go, the less likely you are to get faces clearly. Scorpion has good advice for putting a recorder and cameras IN your car.

Try connecting your cable to a computer with a serial port (or using a serial/USB adapter), fire up HyperTerminal or other terminal app, and see if you can see the incoming data. You'll probably have to tell the terminal to "connect". If the wiring is right, you should at least see gibberish, even if the comm parameters are wrong. I would assume the POS is using straight RS-232C? Does the DVR use a standard DB9M serial port? You should be connected to pins 2 and 5 on that...

RG59 SHOULD be okay for that distance, but here's something you can try: since you have the Cat5 in place, try disconnecting it from the network and use the baluns on it to connect the video (in other words, the baluns via Cat5 take the place of the coax run).