Soundy

You would need to use a video modulator in between the termination box and the splitter (assuming the splitter isn't internal to the box). The other catch is, your service needs to provide a "hole" for the modulator - a channel that carries no other content. If you go through your channel guide, this will often show up as a blank channel named "Security Camera" or something along those lines. Of course, that all assumes that the Verizon set-top box supports analog video at all. First thing you might want to do, is contact Verizon to ask if their boxes will allow the insertion of a CCTV camera. Since this is a function normally relegated to apartment or condo towers, you might have to talk to someone in business support, rather than residential. If the boxes are fully digital and don't support this sort of analog signal being inserted, that will probably end your quest right there.

I mostly like the GVI and NVT tool-less units, although we use the MuxLab ones for VGA feeds (and the component versions have been handy in the past for multiple cameras on one line). I like the ones with a small body and BNC tail for their ability to fit inside camera backboxes.

Wow, I skip out for a couple days and the thread explodes Rob, IP cameras CAN run over coax, using devices like Veracity HighWires, but that will add substantially to the cost, as they retail for probably around $500-$600/pair. On the other hand, analog video will run nicely over Cat5e using baluns... I've had no signal problems with even cheap ones (the main thing I find, as they get cheaper, is that they're more likely to have intermittent connectors or other such physical issues). Unfortunately, where you DO run into problems with baluns, is when you're using cheap 12VDC-powered cameras that use a common power and video ground - the baluns introduce substantially more length to the video line and once you get two or more cameras connected to a common power supply, you get ground loops and interference. The one sure cure for this is to use 24VAC cameras when you're using baluns... and that probably doesn't apply to most of the cameras these guys are recommending. If they've been using them with baluns, that would explain why they think baluns-over-UTP gives poor signal. As far as your previous question (a couple pages back) about the length of ethernet runs, the spec for Cat5e is 100m, which works out to about 330'. Cat6 will, I believe, approximately double that. The other thing to take into account is that Cat5e is currently the same price as, or cheaper than, coax... and since you can run power over the Cat5e as well (plus control, if you have PTZs), you don't need to run power alongside the coax, which saves some money. Now that's somewhat offset by the cost of the baluns, but ultimately they should come up pretty close to the same price either way. In your case, I would definitely recommend going with Cat5e over coax... IF the cameras are all 24VAC-powered (I haven't tested it in "lab" conditions, but I've noticed that dual-power 12VDC/24VAC cameras don't seem to have the ground-loop issue when powered with 12VDC; I attribute this to the power supply isolating the power and video grounds from each other). 24VAC also has the advantage of having less than half the current draw of 12VDC, and thus less voltage drop over longer runs, especially with the thinner 24ga. wires in Cat5e. We've recently done a bunch of upgrades and new installs for a major client, and have pretty much standardized on all-Cat5e for their analog cameras. Those cameras are CNB domes, with Panasonic CW484s for front-door ID shots; all are 12DC/24AC dual-powered, all are running on 24VAC, and there are NO noise or interference issues. All these sites also have 3-5 IP cameras (IQA11 1.3MP domes) and are powered by PoE; they love the megapixel cams in general and will eventually want to start replacing the analog cameras with them, so having the Cat5e in place is just future-proofing the job.

Means you can tilt, twist, and turn the camera in three directions. Usually this means you can tilt the camera up and down in its yoke; you can rotate the entire yoke and camera assembly in the dome; and you can rotate just the camera inside its yoke.

It will depend on the exact sensors you use and the quality of their construction, but if you've had them working fine outside already, I'd say there's no reason not to keep using them. Just some general advice would be to try to keep them out of DIRECT weather, like wind and rain...

Agreed - I even have a PTZ on one site, running a *mix* of 18/2, RG6, RG59, and Cat5e for video and control, works just dandy.

There are several others inside the restaurant that look great, when I get a chance I'll grab some stills from them.

"Here's the daytime shot (note that we only had a chance to get a rough focus before the rain started and we had to close them up, so they're not as sharp as they should be)"

No warnings popping up here from Avast or NoScript... what AV are you using?

I've been dealing with Capture's PC-based systems for several years, they not my favorite (mostly because of their interface) but they're pretty solid and do have some good features. Took a quick browse through the PDF there and it looks fairly inclusive - should be just fine for a home system.

We just put in a number of the VCM-20VF models in a restaurant... I can't speak for how they handle backlighting (we still use a CW484 for the front door), but they work great in low light. Here's the daytime shot (note that we only had a chance to get a rough focus before the rain started and we had to close them up, so they're not as sharp as they should be): And then at night - one with the patio lighting (which is VERY dim in itself), and one with only a bit of street lighting and lights from inside the dining room filtering in (basically dark enough I was tripping over things):

Unless it's substantially the same price, I wouldn't worry about 380 vs. 550 TVL. You wouldn't see the difference on a screen that small either way.

Same idea though, the system can spit out sales data through a serial or network interface...

Find the f-stop rating on both lenses, that will tell you exactly how much light reduction you get.

POS tie-in is great, but I'd go for a DVR that can log and search the text data, rather than a text overlay (or in addition to it).

I think that might be the ticket... http://www.amazon.com/Power-Acoustik-PT-727MSV-7-Inch-Monitor/dp/B0007YYG18 There seems to be some debate about the pros/cons of mounting it up high vs. down low. Again, I primarily need something that can clearly see the area immediately behind my bumper, extending out 10-15 feet for aiding in parallel parking and making sure I don't hit anything while backing up. Being able to see further back (for driving in reverse) would be great but isn't critical, especially at the expense of being able to see right behind me. I would love to mount it up high for the "big picture" perspective but not if the image gets distorted and ugly in the critical area I need to see directly behind me because of the added 4-5 feet of distance. And I would love to mount it on my bumper for the clarity of the image of what's directly behind me and the direct line-of-sight it would provide (the camera would be pointed "out" rather than "down"). Is there some sort of camera/location combination that gives the best of both worlds? I'd say you're over-thinking it. Any wide lens is going to have some distortion, that's simple optics (unless you get into some very expensive lenses). Once you can see what's behind you, you'll get used to judging distances pretty quickly. Personally, I'd go higher, because then you can angle down and get a better idea when something is actually getting close to your bumper. Mounted low, you'll have little or no way to tell the actual distance, since there's no depth perception.

Well... they're a local company (to me) so I like to support them Plus they have excellent support, and an excellent product. Put it this way: two of Canada's major oil companies that we service have standardized on them (at least in the Western Canada regions we cover), as well as a major restaurant chain we look after.

I don't, because I deal almost entirely with PC-based systems... but others here will have plenty of suggestions, I'm sure. If space is a concern, though, you could always look into one of these: http://us.shuttle.com/ We've been building DVRs into their "cube" cases for years - they work great (as long as you don't lock it inside a small cabinet, as some clients have had to find out the hard way).

Just FYI, most standalone units - particularly those that support IP camears - are essentially PCs running an embedded OS (Linux, embedded Windows, etc.). So whether you run a traditional "tower" machine or a standalone, you end up in pretty much the same place. Difference with building your own machine is, you have a lot more control over things like the software, the interface, the networking (VPN to your DVR? No problem!), and the power management... plus it's a lot more expandable in the future, for things like adding disk space, adding cameras, adding software, etc.

See my reply in your other thread.

If you're going with wireless IP cameras, like that Axis, then you don't need the DVR to support wireless *as such*, you just need one that supports IP cameras - the wireless will be handled by whatever WiFi system you choose to implement. Since you're in IT and no doubt have plenty of spare parts around to build a separate PC, I'd suggest just doing that, and running some suitable NVR software. There are plenty of commercial apps out there (I personally use and recommend Vigil), but Axis actually has a bundle available with four of those cameras, along with their own Camera Station software to view and record them:http://www.axis.com/products/video/bundles/m10/index.htm Something like that would be a good starter for you, and it addresses all your listed requirements (like remote access) - just slap together a separate computer to run it on... and at some point in the future you decide you need to upgrade your software capabilities, all you have to do is uninstall their software (or even just take it off auto-startup) and install something more advanced.

Right off the top of my head... some eBay vendors are full of ****? Either that, or the unit has some sort of additional "lens" in the cover that will stretch or distort the image, but that doesn't appear to be the case from that picture. Also that style of camera almost certainly is based on a simple internal "board camera", which almost universally use 1/4" sensors. I'm not saying this one DOESN'T use a 1/3" CCD... just saying, don't be surprised if you get it and discover it's only a 1/4". Not that it will make a huge difference to you, other than losing a about 15° of FOV. My guess is, this vendor is betting on the fact that most eBay shoppers wouldn't know the difference between 1/3 and 1/4" sensors even if they did bother to disassemble the camera to look at it, and wouldn't recognize that they're not getting anywhere near 120° in their view. Yes, but you don't need to IDENTIFY a car or object behind you... you just need to see that it's there. When you're backing up, does it matter if the car you're about to hit is red, blue, or grey? Are you less likely to back over a guy if he's wearing a green shirt vs. a brown shirt? Being able to see it AT ALL is more important than knowing what color it is - there will be plenty of time to get out and look at the colors AFTER you hear the *CRUNCH*

According to the calc in CCTV Design Tool, a 2.7m lens on a 1/3" sensor will give you a 65.9 degree horizontal field of view, and 51.9 degree vertical. 2.8 gets the horizonal up to 81.2 degrees. The sweeting.org calculator gives the same results. For a full 90 degrees, you'd need a 2.4mm lens. Most standard pre-fabbed backup cameras will come with either a 2.8mm or 3.6mm lens. Most are also 1/4" sensors. That will give you about a 65 degree, or 54 degree horizontal field of view. It doesn't really sound like much, but in my experience installing a couple dozen of these things on garbage and recycling trucks, that's more than enough to see everything going on behind you. In your case, you'll probably want to go with the wider one, since your camera will be mounted a bit lower, but it will still be plenty. And yes, those are all B&W - they give far better night performance than color. Think about what this camera NEEDS to do before worrying about how pretty the picture looks.

I don't know about their cameras, but I've used Trendnet routers and switches and found them fairly solid, for low-price, mid-low-end equipment.

Switch the Video/DC to DC.