Soundy

Probably because the screen thinks that the signal has gone away (which, technically, it has, for an instant) and may be wanting to start cycling inputs to find another valid signal. You could check the settings for an option to not auto-seek inputs. Whatever looks good to you, in that particular viewing location. There are monitors that support just about any imaginable type of input(s). A bigger concern would be what you can get out of the DVR: DVRs typically only support composite and VGA out, although some newer ones also support DVI, and a few old ones also support S-video out. Realistically, composite is probably your only option.

Never heard of such a thing. What would be the point? NTSC video is 500 visible lines of resolution... anything over that for capture is largely pointless.

Soundy signal get compress at DVR end I realize that... that's my point, it still needs to get compressed if you want any sort of decent retention time. And if retention is really critical, it will need to be resampled to a lower framerate as well. So as far as recorded footage, you end up back where you already are with analog and IP. Unless it's in an application where watching the video in realtime is a *requirement* (such as casinos, etc.), that pretty much negates THE major stated benefit of the format.

What sort of price point for this stuff? I remain skeptical - yes, it will give you magnificent-look full-framerate HD video to look at... and take about a terabyte per week per camera to store unless you recompress it.

Why would you say that? There's no technical reason for any loss of quality using baluns over non-twisted wire of any kind - if you've experienced it, there's probably some other reason.

You're right, HD *might* be easier. So far all we have to really go on is the marketing hype from the HDcctv Alliance.

Well, that is an EXTREMELY broad question - there are SO many different ways to accomplish it! You might as well ask, how does a carpenter drive a nail? That's pretty much it, if you're talking about a centrally-manged, card- or fob-based system. I've not seen such a thing, but I would imagine it's also possible to have the "validation" processing done entirely IN the reader unit, and simply have that managed from a central server... or to have multiple units communicate with each other and do without the server altogether. Simpler systems would have the validation done within the reader, but without multiple readers communicating with each other. Think of a home door lock with a thumbprint reader, or even with a numeric keypad: it's just a standalone device with reader and strike all integrated. Yes. Typically the strike plate in the door jamb would be replaced with an electric strike built around a solenoid. In a 'fail-safe' configuration the strike is normally in a 'released' state to the door can be opened readily; energizing the solenoid then locks the door. In a 'fail-secure' setup, the strike is normally locked, and energizing it releases the lock. Some strikes have the option to select which method you want to use; others, you have to buy the appropriate version. It COULD. It would depend on how the installer sets it up. Typically, you'd want it to release the lock, then initiate the opener after a brief (<1s) delay, then re-lock the strike after another brief delay. But the sequence and timing could vary depending on the specific needs of that installation. Yup. All it would require is something to energize the strike to cause it to release. The access control interface would more than likely be on the same server that provides the fob validation, but it wouldn't have to be. You could also have an "emergency exit" button, crash bar, or other such device paralleled with the controller, or tie it into a fire alarm system. In a lot of cases like this, you might actually use a fail-safe strike, where the system keeps it energized until you need it to unlock. That way, if you had a power outage, people wouldn't be trapped by a locked door. (Of course, you can also have other sorts of mechanical releases on the doors themselves, in conjunction with a fail-secure strike... again, the are so many different ways to do it, some of which may be dictated by local building, electrical, and/or fire codes). Plenty of reasons to opt for a maglock over an electric strike. They can have substantially more holding power. They can be used in instances where a standard strike isn't practical (all-gladd doors, for example). They tend to be a lot easier to retro-fit in many installations, because you don't need to be cutting out door jambs and fishing wire into them. I've done strike installs into steel door frames that were filled with concrete, and had to spend hours with a small air chisel and hammer drill hollowing out enough space for the strike to fit. In either case though, the idea is the same: something else - a computer, a controller, or just a simple switch, controls the electricity to the lock in order to control access.

I've done baluns over 18/2, works just fine. I've used them over station-Z wire (four 22ga conductors, non-twisted) without a problem. I've even run video *and* power over station-Z in a pinch (situation similar to yours - cameras on a gas station's pump canopy, where all the conduits have been sealed). Realize that the "balanced line" concept really doesn't rely on the pairs being twisted - that helps with EMI rejection, but it's really not crucial in most instances. Consider that the concept is the same (though there are slight technical differences) to that used for balanced audio lines in pro audio, and that typically uses shielded, non-twisted 18/2 or 20/2. All that said, if you'd prefer to delete the Siamese and start clean, instead of using the Siamese to pull new wire... use it to fish through a proper pull string, then use THAT to fish your new run.

There are no "good" cameras for $100.

Never even heard of "LT Security" so I couldn't tell ya... tell the other installer to send me one, and I'll compare them BTW, don't get too hung up on TVL ratings - they're a fair "indicator" of comparative resolution, but not the be-all, end-all factor most marketing makes it out to be.

So let's assume optimal response for both sensors: 1. Color sensor during the day with sufficient light to generate solid color image 2. Night sensor with sufficient light to generate solid black and white image Will the resolving power of the two be the same in your opinion? We can haz obliviousness?

STOP FOLLOWING ME!!!

It does not all come down to pixels on target. There are other factors that must be considered, such as low light performance. 3 mp is worthless if it's too dark to see an image on the monitor. Good CCTV system design requires an understanding of issues beyond simple pixel count. Best, Christopher

Little late, but welcome aboard!

An important question that nobody has asked yet is, what is your budget? You can get something that will meet your specs for probably under $500, but that won't be very solid or reliable.

The question is still whether it will work with anything besides Axis cameras? I want to rig my netbook up with a neck strap, like I had for my DVD player I used to use (before it died). Really, the Archos or a similar device is a great way to go - the Archos, at least, has a wrist strap so it just sits on your arm like a (really big) watch.

Uhhh... so what are you going to run VLC on that you can carry up a ladder??

http://www.london.ca/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London,_Ontario http://www.londontourism.ca/

How about putting the recorder on a UPS (computers should be protected like that anyway), and power a few select cameras and lights on a battery system like those I suggested? They could run off the backed-up power supply or car-battery setup 24/7 and will simply keep going when the power goes out, while the others will shut off until power returns. Again, it seems wasteful to have a whole separate system with separate lights and cameras that will be used only very rarely for very short periods.

If I wanted to eliminate the use of a punchblock to demarc my "tie" cable and camera runs, could I just beanie-crimp the Video pairs in the 24VAC PSU enclosure assuming there's space in there or would that cause interference with the video signal? I have done that, it works just fine. This line in the features list: "- TDN(ICR)". The VF is a "true day/night" camera with a switchable IR cut filter - during the day, the camera operates in color mode and the filter is in place; below the defined light level, the filter moves out of the way and the camera switches to B&W mode. You'd use the VF anywhere you need better low-light performance. The VCM is a shallower dome with a small (3-1/8" diameter, 1-1/4" deep) protrusion out the back - these are the style we use most, and they flush-mount nicely in a tile or drywall ceiling with a 3-1/8" or 3-1/4" hole saw. The MuxLab balun should fit fine inside the back-box - we use these GEM baluns and they fit inside the CNB back-box. Unfortunately, I couldn't tell you if the baluns would fit inside the VBM models, as I haven't used that style. If there's ambient lighting, I'd stick with the VxM-24VF, as they do really well with very little light. I'm not a fan of built-in IR, as it's usually added to compensate for poor low-light performance. The V2815NVR is a case in point: according to your link, despite also being "true day/night", the 2815 has a low-lux rating of 0.3 color and 0.1 B&W, while the 24VF is rated for 0.1/0.01. Built-in IR has other problem all its own as well, such as a limited range where it provides good exposure - items too close is washed out, too far and it's ineffective. They absolutely can - we have several VCM models in outdoor weather, mounted directly to vertical walls or other surfaces. There are pendant mounts available, but I've never bothered.

I'm not quite clear here... so you have two separate camera/recorder systems, one that runs on 120VAC, and another 12V one that you want to kick in when the power goes out? Is there a specific reason for doing it this way, or is this just the way things have evolved? Two separate systems seems overly complicated and wasteful to me, especially if the 12V system will kick in only rarely - that's a lot of money (relatively) to put into something that will see only limited use. Personally, I'd go one of two (and a half) ways: 1. Put the 120V system on a UPS to keep it running when the power goes out (although this would require a fairly hefty UPS for 1-2 hours, depending on the number of components and their power draw). 2. Use an all-12VDC solution, running either: a. on a power supply with internal battery backup, like the Altronix shown above b. on a deep-cycle car battery with a smart trickle charger If power goes out regularly (I grew up in a rural area on a lake, I know how that can happen), I'd probably go with option 2. Option 1 is rather inefficient, especially since many standalone DVRs ultimately run on 12VDC anyway, and 12VDC cameras are cheap and plentiful - when on battery, you're basically stepping up 12VDC from the UPS's internal battery, to 120VAC, only for the cameras' and DVR's power adapters to drop it back down to 12VDC. That's a lot of wasted energy when you need to run it for a long period.

Plus, how many stores these days DON'T already have at least one PC? Throw the client software (or use the browser) on your paypoint or back-office system - no additional hardware needed. The lower-resolution "night" sensor also aids in low-light performance - as has been discussed here many times, the more pixels you put on a given chip size, the smaller those pixels get, and the lower their light-collecting ability. A 1.3MP sensor will give you better low-light capability than an otherwise-equivalent 3MP sensor.

This one: http://ca.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=BtksJTDENqfsnuyf In blue

Well, not inherently "worse". If your set automatically stretches 4:3 images to fill the screen, they'll look distorted, of course (most can be set to NOT stretch, instead leaving black bars on the left and right sides). It CAN look a lot worse on cheap sets that do poor stretching/upscaling.

I wouldn't worry so much about lower response times on these; you're not playing video games or watching sports. Worst case, there's a little motion-ghosting when something moves through quickly, but that's only on the display, it's not recorded that way.