Soundy

I haven't worked with this grade of wireless products myself, so I couldn't tell you. I'd like to, but the need/budget ratio hasn't been met on any jobs yet When I've had to do something like this, I've used a water-tight PVC box to just mount a standard 5-port D-Link switch. To power the switch, I ran 24VAC to the box, added an adjustable voltage regulator board, and wired the barrel plug off the switch's power supply to that. Tell them I'm not charging for my time - just feed me and fly me

Yeah, that's a bit annoying... the VCM is a slightly different enclosure than the VBM, lower-profile for flush mounting with a separate back-box... but with the VD you lose the day/night and the lens is a shorter zoom (4-9mm vs. 2.8-10mm for the VF). If the customs stuff is done properly, you shouldn't have to pay the duty twice. I don't know if you'd have them shipped as "warranty replacement" or something, a good customs broker should be able to sort it out for you... or even call RevCan or CBSC (or whatever the appropriate agency is these days), spell out your situation, and ask them how to deal with the duty issue. They're still fine cameras, you just lose the day/night function and get a shorter zoom range on the lens (at least as far as I can tell from the spec sheets). I don't know how well they'd work with external IR lighting. Worst case, get the VF models for this job and keep the VDs around for future use...

It's probably the same as a cheap-cheap National DVR I have kicking around... unfortunately that's installed on a temporary job at the moment so I don't have it handy. I'll look it up as soon as I can.

I didn't know Cisco was getting into this game... got any links/info on "their model for CCTV"?

I can't speak for the Panasonic specifically, but I'm doing something like this with an IQEye IQA11 dome, recording the IP data on a Vigil DVR and feeding the analog out to a customer awareness monitor. I know with the CW484 dome, the SDIII function is disabled when you're plugged into the service port, which to my mind is absolutely ridiculous (had a hulluva time setting up the SDIII for cameras that were mounted in a bulkhead!)

Found a manual for the Ultra 8, and it states that camera supports Pelco P. so I would think this one would too.

Primarily, that it's IP based. Some will argue for "traditional" analog systems, and those still have their place as well (as do hybrid systems, which I deal with extensively), but in your case, the large area involved can really benefit from the use of IP systems. Wireless isn't a selling point as such, but where it is necessary or at least preferable, it's certainly a lot easier and cheaper to implement with IP. For example, you have two cameras at or near the guard hut - if, for the sake of argument, the guard hut was too far for a direct wired run, you could use a wireless link to the hut, feed that into a switch, and run the two cameras over the single link... and for that matter, other cameras that are also in proximity to the hut. Doing something like that with analog gets a lot more complex. There's that too. Again, IP gives you a lot more options and flexibility in a situation like this. That COULD be, but I really don't see THOSE cameras having something like that. Well hey, send me a plane ticket, and I'll come consult in person... cuz I'm just that kinda nice guy

He's full of $#!T. "Wi-Fi compliant with wireless standards IEEE 802.11b/g" - there's no such thing as a "different frequency". 802.11n draft supports 5GHz, as long as you're using all-N equipment, but so do the "home units". Agree with you there. I think this provider has the better plan overall, but he's selling you a bill of goods on the quality of the cameras. IP definitely has some benefits here, when you have multiple buildings. You can have a single network drop to a building and add more cameras by adding switch ports within that building (using quality switches, of course, so they don't choke under the traffic). Ultimately, you can even route video over the internet, if necessary.

Getting ethernet over the powerline is the easy part... I still have to get three cameras to three displays. Will a single receiver drive three displays, each with a different camera? Keep in mind, none of these are IP cameras, this is just using existing analog cams. Most likely, I'll be splitting off their inputs to the existing GeoVision system (using active splitters, of course).

Okay, this may prove to be an exercise in futility, but... I have a customer who wants three small (7") monitors in the hostess stand in the front of their restaurant. They'll provide the monitors and all the millwork, all I have to do is get the video to them. Here's the catch: there's no existing wiring to the stand except a single AC run. We're told there MIGHT be a conduit under the stand that the AC runs through, but have no idea how big it is, how much space there is in it (not that I WANT to run video through it right beside the AC, but if that's the only way...), or where it will end up... and I can't find out without ripping the whole stand up off the floor. I have one "easy" option and that is a small "trough" cut in the tile floor from the stand to the wall, to run a piece of Cat5e through. That would still be tricky and involved. So the other option is either a video-over-powerline setup, or network-over-powerline with video encoders/decoders (keeping in mind that I need THREE feeds, which would mean three sets of either). Neither seems cheap. I talked to the customer's IT guy who has played with some consumer video-over-powerline devices, but says they don't work on a power bar (which we'd have to use), and between us, we don't see how you'd use three on a single power leg. If there IS a device that would do it, I expect it would be prohibitively expensive. SO... anyone in da house who's more familiar with these technologies??

With one exception (apparently), the Monalisa line would be the near-unanimous recommendation from the denizens here. There are better cameras out there, but they will cost SUBSTANTIALLY more. For today at least, the CNB Monalisa series are the cat's a$$ for low-light coverage.

And for that matter, if you bring a camcorder to your kid's birthday party, how are you supposed to ONLY record your kid without getting anyone else's? Fine, OP, cover your ass, get each parent's written permission if you plan to record anyone else's kids... but again, despite this being a CCTV-type camera, this is not a typical CCTV implementation. Put your camcorder in a plastic bag and drop it underwater; this is effectively all you're doing. Nobody ever worries about pulling out the camcorder, video-capable camera, or cel phone at a kids' party and letting it roll.

Looks like an 8-pin mini-DIN. Depending on the exact pinouts, you might be able to hack the end off an old bus mouse, if you can still find one. I think the old Apple serial connectors used that layout as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-DIN_connector for more detail. The online store linked above (RP Electronics) carries all these types of connectors with solder points.

If you're running power and video via a wire to the camera anyway, why not just use the supplied wall-wart? As long as it's a transformer type (not switching) there's electrical isolation and it should meet even the most stringent electrical codes. As far as laws about recording children, this isn't being used for covert surveillance; it's being used in the same capacity as a standard camcorder, the kind every parent brings to their kids' birthday parties. I don't foresee there being any problem there.

Ahh... I've seen those on some National Electronics DVRs. Not rare, certainly, but not usually off-the-shelf. Silly question, but have you tried simply contacting Eclipse?

According to the spec sheet, it's a 12VDC, 5A power supply... I would say 99% chance the connector is a pin-positive barrel plug. There should be a label or marking beside the power connector that confirms this, looking something like the attached picture. This type of power supply should be easy to find at any good electronics supplier. See here: http://rpelectronics.com/English/Content/Items/RPT60-12-P5-A3.asp

Under-voltage shouldn't harm the camera, but it probably won't run at peak performance, either. I got called in to check an enterphone camera a while back, because it had really poor, washed-out picture... turned out the only problem was that it was only getting 10V. Boosted it up to a full 12.5, and the picture was spectacular by comparison. Your main problem will be, 9V batteries tend to be very low capacity (assuming you're talking the standard consumer type with the two snap-on terminals on the top). The datasheet for a standard Energizer alkaline cell, for example, shows that at 500mA draw (which is about what your camera will want with the IR on), the battery's capacity is under 400mA hour when running down to 4.8V. Since the camera will kack out long before that point, you're probably looking at well UNDER half an hour on a single battery. Paralleling two of them might get you up to 45 minutes. If space isn't a concern, you'd probably be better off with a pair of 6V lantern batteries in series... or a pack of D cells... or ideally a sealed lead-acid "gel cell" battery like the type used in UPS battery backups and alarm panels - more capacity in a smaller space, and rechargeable as well.

Exactly.

www.videolan.org

Ummm, wait... you're using the video ground, through the balun, as your power ground as well? Yeah, that would definitely be a problem. If you're using Cat5, try using one pair for the video (I use blue), one pair for power ground (green), and one pair for power "hot" (orange).

What is the camera connected to? Are you just viewing it on the TV? If so, you'll need some sort of hardware to digitize the video to be able to view it on the 'net, and that won't be free.

Only if the cameras support AC. What you could do in that instance is run AC, and if the cameras only take 12VDC, then put a 1A regulator board by the camera.

You won't lose any quality using baluns over Cat5 vs. coax. In fact, you likely WILL lose quality using some cheap pre-fabbed all-in-one cable. Size of the wire has no effect on video or control data. Just double-up the other two pairs for power, using 24VAC, and you're good to go. My usual color scheme is blue pair for video, orange and green for power (orange pair for + or AC hot, green for ground or AC neutral), and brown for... whatever else (data, audio, spare, future video, etc.). No specific reason for it, the colors chosen are completely arbitrary.

Short answer to the OP's question: "No."

They cost $240 each. I am going to call the guy tomorrow and get the model #'s from him. Also i'll ask him if there are any other options at that time (better ones). Something I don't understand. He has 7 wifi cameras and 7 long rang ap's on the quote. Couldn't this be setup using less ap's having two antennas each and then use external antenas to point at each camera area? Potentially, I would think so, yes... unfortunately I'm not too experienced (yet) as far as WiFi cameras go, but I've worked with consumer WiFi for years. It would really depend on the APs and how they're designed. With consumer stuff, most multi-antenna routers are using some sort of diversity setup, where it will switch antennas depending on which has the best signal, so replacing each with a directional antenna pointing in different directions wouldn't accomplish anything as the signal would drop intermittently one one or the other. Newer MIMO setups may not have the same issue, I haven't really dug into how that works. The AP itself would have to support the multiple antennas... and would probably cost substantially more. Certainly. That's one of the benefits of IP - you can use existing network... you could have two or three cameras on the guardhouse and feed them all back over a single network drop (or a single WiFi link). As cool as DD-WRT is, I wouldn't advise using what really is a hack, for a production environment like this. Great stuff for your own bench and around your own house, but I wouldn't rely on it for a client's site unless there was really no other way. You are totally right. The hardware will determine the longevity of the machine. Even though the machine will be connected to the internet, since no one will "use" it there is a VERY VERY small chance that a virus will get on it. 98% of viruses infect computers because of the users. Exactly. Place it behind a router/firewall, enable the software firewall, and you're pretty safe from intrusion as long as you don't go surfing porn on the machine's browser. Thanks. I met with Provider A... he seems to know his stuff about cams but Provider B is a friend of mine and thought i'd give him a chance. I just feel that Analog and cables are not very appropriate in this situation. I think all in all I need to sit down with Provider A and tell him we need a system that is a hybrid wireless / wired IP system. Use wireless cameras for the furthest 3 cameras. Use AP -> Client Bridge AP's for all the locations where appropriate and where more cameras may be installed in future. Also just to give you an idea, the ENTIRE quote including hardware and install is $9000. The install is only $1500 of that though. I do really like the IP system though because it allows us to easily expand in future up to 32 cameras (I doubt we'll ever require more than 20). Let me know what you think of that. I really appreciate your help! Sounds about right! The IP route will certainly give you more expandability in the future without needing to add cabling. My main concern at that pricing, again, would be the cameras themselves and the level of quality you get for that - keeping in mind that I'm used to dealing with cameras that start at twice that price, at OUR cost (nevermind markup).