Soundy

It is most certainly possible, and I have done it on occasion.

Here ya go: 1080p, $150. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Insignia%26%23174%3B+-+5MP+High-Definition+Digital+Camcorder+with+3%22+LCD+Screen+-+Black/9419756.p?id=1218102199440&skuId=9419756&st=1080p%20camcorder&cp=1&lp=1

I'd think even something in an HD camcorder would be preferably to a CCTV camera in this situation. There are models with built-in HDD, as well as those that will record direct flash media.

Well, you need one that has a video or A/V input... then you need the appropriate cable. Most that have that feature will come with the cable, usually with yellow/red/white RCAs on one end and a mini-TRS on the other end (looks like a mini headphone plug, but possibly with an extra ring). Since most cameras use BNC connectors, you then just need a BNC-to-RCA adapter. The player should have its own rechargeable battery, so that takes care of power. For mine, I also created a DVD with various test patterns - most cases, just a JPEG that I made a 60-second video file from. Then I can use the DVD as a signal source as well.

That FreeNAS looks cool, imma play with that when I get home. What kinda PC are you running it on?

I know, I used that pic simply to show the difference between A and B schemes. ronbo: Unless you're really proficient with this, I'd recommend just using pre-made short patch cables and quick-attach keystone jacks - they're color-coded and a lot harder to screw up. Again, just make sure to use the same color scheme at both ends. You need to use the proper layout for ANY network cabling - IP cameras use the same system as your internet connection (IP = Internet Protocol).

^A brick compares well against an Arecont, IMHO.

Are you using the proper wiring scheme? The right pairs have to be in the right positions or it won't work, and a cheap tester won't show the problem. You can't just line the pairs up end-to-end. Notice how the pairs used are 1/2 and 3/6. If you're using jacks, most should have the colors marked, but make sure to use the same variation (a or b) at both ends: blue and brown pairs remain the same; orange and green pairs change.

Well, I'm talking box cameras with C/CS mount in particular, since it IS easy to change out for a wide variety of lenses with those.

Apparently, rory, everybody but you, me, and Alex. Seriously... I could count on one hand the times maximum lens aperture is mentioned when low-light performance is discussed. Chip size, chip type, chip brand, chip TVL, chip flavour, chip crunchiness, post-processing, IR/non-IR, phases of the moon, and even the shape of Oprah's hairdo this week are all covered to death when it comes to things that affect low-light performance, but how often has anyone (besides me) suggested trying a faster lens? And it's not just in here - when's the last time you saw marketing and advertising touting the lens's f-stop and specifically suggesting widers ones for better low-light operation?

I'm constantly amazed at how the lens is almost completely overlooked in this equation. The vast majority of the lenses in use that I come across (whether new ones, or on existing installs) are between f/1.4 and f/1.8... yet I do have some that are f/1.2 and I've seen them as far down as f/0.95. These don't seem like very big differences, but f/1.2 is a full stop faster than f/1.8, which means it allows TWICE the amount of light. In fact, from f/2 to f/1 is TWO stops, or FOUR times the light passage. When low light performance is a concern, simply changing the lens could make a HUGE difference, with ANY camera.

Christopher thx for pix but I was talking about CCTV cameras only by the way Avigilon uses the same type of sensor as the 1DmkIV Granted, it doesn't have dual-Digic-IV processors behind it... but the light-gathering capability is greatly improved with the MUCH larger sensor.

I believe eSATA is distance limited as well. You may need to look at network-attached storage instead. I'm not that familiar with Geo's capabilities, but I've never seen anything in one that suggests it can write to two disks simultaneously. I'd think it far more likely that the machine in question had some sort of mirroring set up, whereby the system itself maintains the second copy of what's being written to the drive, perhaps using something like these: http://www.usbgear.com/USB-RAID-System.html

The reason you had to set up port forwarding in the DSL modem is because it's actually a combination modem/router (I'm guessing it also has four LAN ports and wireless?). The SB5101 is *just* a modem; no router or firewall functionality. I would STRONGLY recommend that you add a router to the cable modem setup... not just for the firewall, but because the NAT layer adds some "physical" security, effectively separating your local systems from the open internet.

How do you think they are placing the text over the video? Huh? With analog, same as always. Doesn't work any differently. My point above is, text-overlay-on-video of POS logging should go away. There's no point to it when you can log the data right beside the video and make it searchable.

Via remote client: Direct on DVR:

Got it. But I do want to take advantage of my cameras as far as I can, so a 540 TVL does allow for higher captures, resulting in lower FPS. Nyet. Two problems with that logic: One: maximum vertical capture resolution for all these cards is 480 pixels. Thus, anything over 480TVL is largely wasted... and the difference would be virtually unnoticeable anyway. Two: If the card only does D1 resolution at the expense of total overall framerate, then you need to record at CIF to get maximum framerate, thus further "wasting" a higher-TVL camera. Is it possible that after paying for this card, at this price, I would have to pay for each CCTV cam additionally? Not on any system I've ever seen. Vigil, VI, and GV at least, if you buy a 16-channel card, you get a full 16-channel-capable system. Period. The only way I've ever seen per-camera licensing on this type of a setup would be when you go to IP cameras, and not all of them use that sort of licensing structure either (some license it in blocks of 2, 4, 8, etc.)

Last one is also one of the longer runs. Near as I can tell, the DVR is set for D1 on that channel, but I pulled all these off the remote client, so it may be scaling it down to CIF for transmission, then back up again for display... not sure, I'll have to check directly on the server when I get the chance.

I wouldn't confuse MP and HD at all, personally. "HDTV" defines a set of specific resolutions, frame/refresh rates and aspect ratios. "Megapixel" includes pretty much anything over 1,024,000 pixels. Technically, 720p isn't megapixel (1280 * 720 = about 0.9MP), and 1080p is barely over 2MP (1920 * 1080).

Why not just set up all four quad groups with the same camera layouts? Sure, it's a bit of a kludge, but...

Umm, yeah, right here. Don't have sample footage, but I have installed a couple. It's no different, image-wise, than having a small board or bullet camera mounted beside the door about 5' off the floor (which I've also done)... just a different enclosure.

I can think of one major problem with your plan right off, and that's the limited range of WiFi. You're talking "walls and floors" - how many? What distance? What sort of construction? If there's concrete (and hence, rebar), your range will be severely limited indeed.

Likewise with the Vigil DVR/NVR - POS data can be captured, cataloged, and searched directly in the main interface. Text overlay should have died with the time-lapse VCR.

How about once you add in the PC for monitoring?