Soundy

I'm afraid to click on your links... I'm not gonna get Rickrolled, am I??

Yes. "Autoscan" on some (many? most?) cameras means simply setting a start point, an end point, and a scan speed, and the camera then cycles between those points at the defined rate. At least, this is the case with the Capture and Pelco PTZs I've worked with. Your two other options are typically called "Tours" (where you define a number of preset positions, then have the camera step from one to the next), and "Patterns", where you set the camera or DVR into a "record" mode, and drive the camera through the pattern you want (left, right, up, down, zoom in, zoom out, pause, etc.). From my experience, most better cameras support these two functions internally, but I've more often set it up within the DVR.

Depends how much realtime control you want over the display. If you want to be able to readily and easily change up displays, splits, banners and such, you'll probably need something specialized for video wall display. If you want the wall to be fairly static (same monitor will display the same thing all the time), you could do what you want with Vigil HD Viewer, using either all IP cameras, or analog cameras via a Vigil DVR. You could use a multi-head card, or multiple dual-head PCI cards to drive the monitors off a single machine - we have one site that's running a desktop monitor and one store display off the main PCI-E card, and three more store display off two basic PCI video cards. Windows XP supports multiple cards like this natively.

This is just a guess based on the 484-series cameras, but if you go to the bottom of the screen, there should be an END option, and to the right of that, should be SETUP ENABLE - move the cursor right to that, press the center button, and you should be able to access all the menus.

You left out one important criteria: price. How much are they willing to spend? And an important piece of information if you want to reuse the existing PCs is, what are their specs? Processor, RAM and operating system will affect what software they'll support. Personally, I'd suggest looking at Vigil: the software can be installed as an unrestricted 30-day demo, supports a number of IP cameras, will work with their own cards or several other chipsets (such as Hikvision and ComArt; doesn't support Conexant, and I don't think it does generic BT878), and has an excellent Windows-based remote client that's easy and painless for noobs to use once you set it up. However, it's not among the cheaper end, so it's important to know what the budget is. In this business, you really do get what you pay for.

Make sure it has an auto-iris lens, for sure. I'd adjust the lens level as low as possible, too, so it closes as much as possible when it's bright. It's really hard to know what to suggest without SOME idea of the application, as most things done to guard against sun damage will also reduce light for that application. If they want to watch the stars, for example, things become a lot more complicated, and you might be looking at some sort of timed mechanical shutter/shade. If it doesn't matter what area of the sky, it could be simply aimed away from the direction of the sun - problem solved.

I dunno about for a network camera, but for analog video, there's this: http://www.ovation.co.uk/video-stabilization.html I haven't tried it, but give this a look: http://ptf.com/download/video_stabilizer/08455/

Not familiar with that MUX in particular, but many have the ability to show you a live OR VCR feed; if the VCR feed is selected, it may be showing a slight delay because of the extra processing. But just curious, why wouldn't you use a MUX(es) with proper loop-throughs, so you just run the cameras direct into the MUX, then out from each channel to the DVR? Would save a fortune on the active splitters (not to mention removing a lot of complexity).

Where did you get the value 33%? Sensors are two dimensional and the length (e.g. 1/4", 1/3", etc) is shorthand for one side of a rectangular sensor. A 1/3" sensor is approximately twice the area of a 1/4" sensor, and a 1/2" sensor is approximately twice the area of a 1/3" sensor. Not quite right. From http://www.cctv-information.co.uk/i/Equipment_Overview

$2500 is a fair retail price for a Spectra V - these ARE among the better PTZs in their class/style. Edit: Just to be clear, I'm replying to the OP, not r**y...

Whatsamatta, Rory, has the heat wilted your sense of humour?

That was out-of-the-box. We had to hurry and close the cameras up as it was starting to rain, and it rained the rest of the time we were at the site, so were never got a chance to fine-tune them.

You'll find that most cameras with 1/3" or 1/2" sensors use C/CS mount lenses, while 1/4" cameras usually use the "mini" lens mounts (not sure exactly what that form factor is called). Not ALWAYS the case, but that's usually how it works.

What's impressed me most with these so far is their low-light capability. The first ones I've used went on a restaurant patio that's in near total darkness at night (dark enough you could easily trip if you're not watching very carefully), and the cameras show it quite clearly.

You mean this stuff? http://www.megalithia.com/elect/cable/index.html Noooooo, this is not good CCTV cable. Insufficient shielding, for starters. Will probably be a *** to attach most BNC connectors to as well. Certainly not worth the extra cost - most of the "benefits" listed in the above link sound like Monster Cable-type snake oil. Unless you already have a ton of this stuff that you got for free... get the proper wire for the job.

11n allows 2.4GHz *and/or* 5.8GHz. My DIR-655 has only 2.4GHz (that I can see); 5.8GHz has only just recently started to appear in routers. Note this portion of the Wikipedia article you linked: "Multi channel" can mean different things, but if you're talking about separate independent streams, that's something normally seen on more advanced routers. My DIR-655, for example, has an isolated "guest zone" network. My brother's DIR-825 has a separate channel intended for multimedia streaming, the concept being that it doesn't affect the bandwidth for users on the main channel. There are a number of variations on the concept. All these are in the $100+ range. Edit: BTW, keep in mind, 802.11n is still a *draft* standard - "certifying" products to a "standard" that's not yet written in stone is a specious endeavour at best.

But seriously... the difference between CAMERAS? The actual measurement IS the cameras - the number refers to the size of the camera's sensor.

1/12"

Umm, yes, you "have" to power each camera - for most low-end cameras, it will be 12VDC. Cameras don't run on air So the electricians are installing cameras as a "standard" but not powering them?? If that's really the case, I'd look for a new electrician (hmmm, don't get me started on electricians trying to do CCTV installs....) In any case, adding more cameras shouldn't be a problem, you just need to run wire from each location, to your distribution box, or to wherever you plan to put the DVR. You have three common options for wiring: 1. one run of RG-59 or RG-6 coax (RG-59 is preferable; don't let the sparks use RG-58 CATV cable), plus one run of power wire of some sort (typically jacketed 18/2 stranded) 2. Siamese cable, which attaches the coax and power wires together with a web, allowing you (or them) to pull both simultaneously (no real benefit other than convenience) 3. Cat5e or Cat6 twisted-pair cable, plus video baluns at both ends - if you're planning to wire the house for network/phone/automation, this may be more efficient and cost effective, as they can just pull lots of UTP everywhere and it can then be used for any of the above (it can also be used for alarms, although most alarm guys don't like it). Ummm, one question, what is a CT100? I found three different Google hits, one for a cable tester, one for a Sony home theater system, and one for a 1954-vintage RCA color TV.

Have you tried the AGC with compression connectors instead of twist-on? (running away...)

Maybe you just haven't found a really GOOD AGC yet?

It's a DVR, that mounts in a rack, usually a standard 19" wide equipment rack, like this: (That's an extreme example, but it's the only picture I could find readily with a rackmount PC *in* a rack). The use of it is the same as any other DVR. The rack is for keeping everything neat and tidy and in one place, often so it can be locked up and access to it controlled.

^That works... as long as you don't have any other content already on those channels. If you have cable, those channels are probably in use.

There's your problem: four-way split is too much for passive; the signal strength to each TV will be too low. You need an active video splitter. Not sure if Leviton makes one for your setup (they probably do - try model BC200-AVD), but there are plenty of others out there.