Soundy

You should be able to walk them through steps 1, 2 and 3 over the phone...

A few things come to mind... One, set the PC for DHCP, and confirm that it does get an IP from the router. Two, check if you can access the router's config page from the PC. Three, are you sure that you can't access the internet, or can you just not lookup names on the PC? If the PC's DNS setting is wrong or has a problem, it won't be able to resolve names. Instead of http://www.google.com, for example, try http://74.125.155.106 Four, if all else fails, do a factory reset on the router. It's possible (actually, very possible) that the user has tweaked or changed something in the router setup that's broken the connection. They will deny it vehemently, of course, usually fearing that they'll have to pay for the service call instead of it being a warranty fix. Finally, it's possible the router itself has failed and will need to be replaced. If possible, take a spare along to swap in (I like to always carry a cheap Belkin wireless router for just such instances). If that works, leave the other one in place and take the WRT home for hacking and experimenting

yes you could use your timelaps video. no problem to wiring both cameras. all you need is some RG59 cable with power some bnc connectors and a power supply. Ummm, you will likely NOT be able to run both cameras into a VCR (I'm assuming that's what you mean by "tape type DVR"). Any time-lapse VCR will have only one set of inputs and outputs, and requires a multiplexor to generate the necessary signal for it to handle multiple cameras.

I like the ability for new users to post links and pictures, simply because sometimes they DO have a legitimate need to do so, and it would be really frustrating for those to not be able to - how many times do we see a newbie come in asking about noise issues, and we ask him to provide pictures of the noise, but he can't embed an image or post a ready-to-click link to it? However, this version of phpBB should have the ability to set new users' posts as "moderated", so for their first "X" number of posts, the posts don't appear until they've been approved by a moderator. (and don't count toward that "X" amount until approved, either). I've found this method VERY effective on another board I admin. Prior to introducing that restriction of not being able to post links, I would be editing or deleting dozens to hundreds of posts a day, as there are so many spammers that are attracted to this particular industry, in fact there are much more spammers than the odd newbie that legitimately wants to post a link. That said, many now just get around that by waiting a while, like a user I banned last night who had joined in December and made a couple useless posts, only to come back last night and flood the board with their spam. So whichever way makes it easier for all, except the spammers, im open to that. Well, that's the beauty of the moderation-on-first-posts function - someone can sign up and post dozens or hundreds of spam messages, and none of them will appear without mod approval. If you (as a mod) log in and see a new user has posted a ton of spam messages, you just have to delete or ban that user, and there's an option there to delete all his posts well - problem solved and spam posts deleted with just a few clicks, and nobody else ever has to see them. With my other board, we've had about the same number of spammers regularly trying to sign up and post (averaging three a week)... but since that function was implemented, not one single spam post has made it through to public viewing.... meanwhile we get bands signing up wanting to post gig announcements with links or pictures, or post in the "musicians wanted/available" areas, and aside from the brief mod-approval delay for their first three posts, there's no frustration.

I like the ability for new users to post links and pictures, simply because sometimes they DO have a legitimate need to do so, and it would be really frustrating for those to not be able to - how many times do we see a newbie come in asking about noise issues, and we ask him to provide pictures of the noise, but he can't embed an image or post a ready-to-click link to it? However, this version of phpBB should have the ability to set new users' posts as "moderated", so for their first "X" number of posts, the posts don't appear until they've been approved by a moderator. (and don't count toward that "X" amount until approved, either). I've found this method VERY effective on another board I admin.

Wouldn't it normally use a network connection between PC and DVR? Anything showing standard ethernet/RJ45 pinouts would apply...

The main difference is that the onboard video will use some of your system RAM for video memory, while a separate card will have its own dedicated memory. If you have lots of RAM, it shouldn't affect other operations, but you may see less performance with the onboard simply because cards with dedicated video RAM tend to use faster memory than is typically used or available for the motherboard. Seeing as this is a CCTV-oriented board, I don't know if you'll get a lot of info on gaming systems. Try www.icrontic.com. Then why even ask what the difference is?

"Barrel distortion" like that is to be expected with a lens that short. A 3.2mm lens on a 1/2" sensor will have the same problem. It's akin to the "fisheye" effect you'd get with, say, a 12mm lens on a 35mm film camera. There are two ways around it: software processing to adjust the distortion, or a specially-designed lens that would probably cost substantially more than the camera itself.

I don't know about their other model lines, but D-Link's DIR-series routers have very flexible and powerful port forwarding, including the ability to forward complete ranges.

Most building supply stores - Lowe's, Home Depot, etc. - should have the wire you need. Some may also carry the power supply; if not, you might try an electrical or security supplier. Not being in your area, I can't recommend somewhere specifically, but try the Yellow Pages (or www.yellowpages.com). For example, I plugged in Summit, NJ and "cctv" for the search terms and found http://www.yellowpages.com/info-23318797/U-S-Security-Solutions

FUNDAMENTALLY, the difference is simplicity: the end user needs only to open the box, take out the recorder, plug in the cameras and a monitor, and he's off to the races. Internally, they're largely the same thing: your typical standalone DVR designs are based on embedded computer hardware that isn't very different from a PC's motherboard, CPU, I/O chipsets, and capture device... except they're not in the standard PC form factor of an ATX motherboard, removable CPU, and PCI slot with video capture card. Instead, the mainboard is usually smaller, doesn't have standardized I/O ports, and the CPU and possibly the RAM are permanently attached, but they're still likely very similar to the I/O, CPU and RAM chips you'll find in any PC- the main difference is, in a PC, those chips are attached to standardized carriers that are intended to be able to be removed and upgraded. The capture hardware will also probably consist of a custom-shaped card connected to the mainboard by a ribbon cable, if not being built into the mainboard, rather than using a PCI slot, but they'll likely use one of the same analog-to-digital chips common to many PC capture cards. The operating system will most likely be a stripped-down embedded version of Linux or maybe BSD or other open-source OS custom-tweaked to be specific to that hardware, rather than Windows or a common Linux distribution, but it's still an OS that's initially designed to be installed on a PC, or at least based on the same core as a PC OS. The most similar thing will be the storage: pretty much all standalone DVRs use off-the-shelf IDE or SATA hard and optical drives connected to the exact same type of IDE or SATA controller on the motherboard. In short, they're both PCs, just one is customized by the manufacturer and the end user has little or no ability to change or upgrade the hardware, while the other allows the end user the ability to upgrade or replace almost any component. There may be only one OBVIOUS upside - ie. far higher resolution than is possible with analog capture - but it CAN be a pretty substantial upside depending on the user's needs. A 1.2MP camera, for example, has fully FOUR TIMES the resolution of 4CIF capture - that can give you four times as much detail over the same field of view, or it can give you the same level of detail covering four times the field of view. In some circumstances, this MAY allow a single 1.2MP IP camera to do the work of two, three, or mathematically four standard analog cameras (and yes, many will come back and say that this is rarely the case, which is why I stress that it only MAY apply, and only in certain circumstances... but if those circumstances apply to you, the convenience and savings can be substantial). An important thing to keep in mind is that IP and megapixel are not always necessarily the same thing. There are IP cameras that are only VGA/4CIF/D1 output, as well as "adapters" (commonly known as "video servers") that allow you to plug in any analog camera and put it on the network, thereby turning it into an IP camera. While it does add some complexity and arguably more points of failure and lowered overall reliability, simply going IP does have some advantages on its own. For example, it makes any individual camera directly accessible on the network or even over the internet, without the need of a DVR. It allows an installer in some cases to make use of existing network infrastructure rather than running all new cabling (and yes, some here will dismiss that concept as well; the important thing to remember is, you don't HAVE to do that if it's not appropriate to the specific install, but you DO have that option/ability, and more options are generally better than fewer). It also allows an installer or system designer to get away from the need to home-run every camera. For example, say you have two separate buildings to cover, with four cameras in each one, and only one DVR... you can put four IP cameras (or analog cameras with IP video servers) into the remote building, run them all to a readily-available network switch in that building, then run a single network line (or use an existing network connection) across to the other building with the DVR. The all-analog way, you'd need to run four separate video feeds between buildings. Again, this may not be an option that's suitable for every install, but it IS another option that's available. IP cameras do also allow you an additional measure of redundancy, in that you can have multiple DVRs record the streams from any cameras without the need of splitters and additional cabling. Take the above example: you could have DVRs in both buildings, and four network cameras in each building, and easily configure both DVRs to record all eight cameras, using that single network link between buildings. There are certainly more benefits than that, but those are some of the main not-so-obvious ones. Hope that helps. There are TONS of threads that cover (or devolve into) these same topics (read: arguments)... and that's the problem. The information is there many times over, and it's scattered all over the board, so it's not surprising that it's hard to find solid information in one place.

Might help to know what DVR you're talking about... If I'm understanding you, you've burned video from a DVR onto a DVD+RW and now can't view it on a computer? If the DVR specifies only DVD-R discs, that may be part of your problem. Offhand though, it sounds like it may not have completed the burn properly, either failing during writing, or not closing the session at the end.

That would be far more than sufficient for the number of cameras you need... however, a DVR really should have its own dedicated machine, whether standalone or PC. A basic $300 PC is all that's needed - some of our older DVRs in the field right now are 1.8GHz P4 systems with 512MB RAM. Yes, it really is that simple. Some card/software bundles are a little pickier about the CPU or chipset used (ie. certain ones don't get along with AMD systems, etc.) but most are pretty solid with just about any hardware you put it on. 99% of systems I deal with are Vigils (www.3xlogic.com) - they sell card/software packages as well as complete systems, and the ones we build/rebuild have worked with any hardware we've thrown them at. ANother I've used in the past is Video Insight (www.video-insight.com), they use the same hardware as Vigil. GeoVision is popular around here as a lower-cost package; I don't like it personally, and we're actually in the process of replacing all the Geos with Vigils for one client, but others here are big boosters for it. That's always a possibility, IF an intruder gets as far as where your system is installed... either way I don't know that I'd recommend putting it in a firearms safe. Any system like this needs ventilation to avoid overheating, whether PC or standalone. A better idea would be to hide it away in a closet or attic, and run a remote client software on your desktop PC.

I suppose I'd be at least an Installer... how do you define "Integrator"?

Go LCD - it will save you a ton in energy costs alone, and if you plan to leave it on much of the time, an LCD will also last a lot longer, as the CRT will suffer burn-in and slowly degrade over time. As noted in the other thread, super-high-quality isn't a concern with the monitor here, as it will still be better than the recorded video, and that's the place where you need image quality the most. You have two needs here, that should be considered and addressed somewhat separately: 1. You want a live view of the gate and property to see if anything untoward is going on around the house, and particularly at your front gate, while you're working inside. For this, extreme quality is not necessary - your brain's "built-in video analytics" are smart enough to determine from even a rough overview if there's something of concern happening. The addition of a motion sensor at the gate can trigger an alarm to alert you to a presence at the gate. Ideally you're able to determine a risk and respond accordingly (call the cops, get the gun, etc.) to head off any incidents before they occur. 2. Reality and idealism rarely meet and the fact is, you CAN easily miss the precursor to an intrusion and someone could quite conceivably still get past your gate. To address this, you want to record activity around the property and especially at the gate, in the hopes of being able to later identify intruders to aid in their subsequent apprehension and prosecution. A tight, detailed shot of the gate addresses the apprehension portion, and surrounding overview cameras go toward prosecution. For part 1, even cheap cameras and a cheap monitor will do. However, for part 2, you need a quality camera on the gate, and quality recording to submit to the police later. In neither case is a super-high-quality monitor necessary. For the DVR, I'm not familiar with the model you listed, but I'll point out one other benefit of a PC-based system: software upgrades. For example, you CAN add an analytics package later if desired... or have a lot more flexibility in programming responses to various events. Other than minor firmware updates, most standalone systems offer little or no expansion to their functionality - if you find it insufficient at a later date, you need to replace the whole thing. Just something to consider

Welcome! Now you've told us about us, tell us something about you

IN GENERAL I've had a lot fewer problems with D-Link than with LinkSys, but bear in mind that all consumer brands will have some models that are more problematic than others... for example, both have had a couple routers over the years that have been known to have been riddled with problems, and a couple others that have been incredibly solid. My single biggest beef with LinkSys is that a range of models of theirs, at least at one time, had a problem with the DHCP server randomly changing the IPs of machines on their LAN, which makes port-forwarding pretty much useless. I've also seen a higher-than-average failure rate recently of certain older models. All that aside, sometimes problems can be solved with a firmware update... sometimes not. I've heard some good things about TRENTnet as well. I've also had good experiences with a couple of super-cheap TP-Link routers (both required firmware updates, which were hard to track down... manufacturer website was a mess at the time... something else to take into consideration, quality of support). I've also had a lot of success with Belkin routers, you might look into them - solid performers with a lot of great features for a low cost.

I assume this connected to your other posts looking for camera suggestions... I wouldn't be too concerned about a super-high-quality monitor in this case. If all you're looking for is the ability to see what's happening and determine if "something is going down", you don't need that much detail in your immediate live view... where the detail becomes important is in the recorded video, and any LCD will be higher quality display than analog video capture will give you (weakest link, and all that).

Hi wizz. you say you are not interested in getting faces. so you will go for cheaper cameras. the best thing on cctv is to get the best footage as pos. and try and get as many faces as pos. if somthing bad happends and you dont have good footage then your system has been a waste of money. Yup, good point too, tom... I think I was heading in that direction and got distracted. Anyway, yes... your desire may be to see activity and stop it before it starts, but chances are at some point, you'll end up needing to look back later at what happened, and identify someone from it, and in that case, you need the best quality possible. You're fortunate in that you HAVE a "choke point" in that gate - somewhere than anyone must pass through to access the yard, where you CAN get good detail from a tight shot.

Unfortunately, unless you start getting into some form of video analytics, the system won't really be able to give you accurate warning of someone "about to do something they shouldn't". Most systems will detect if there's movement within a designated area, and can start recording and trigger an alarm based on that, but they won't generally be able to differentiate between a person, and animal, or just leaves blowing past... and they certainly won't be able to tell if a person standing there is bent on mischief, or just someone walking by. What you might be looking at here, is something additional... perhaps a PIR (passive infrared) sensor on or near the gate, just like on your standard home alarm system... something with "Pet Immunity" that won't be triggered by a passing cat. Such a sensor can be wired into most DVRs to trigger an alarm and initiate recording.

A number of controllers use that same type of connector. I don't know if the pinouts are identical, but on Capture-brand joystick controllers, the wire carries two RS-485 data pairs and power - the cameras and power all plug into an interface box, and two sets of four-pair flat ribbon with RJ45 plugs connect the joystick and the interface box. If you have a model number for that controller, it may be possible to look up the exact pinouts.

You might want to use some dedicated systems before you make that call - most of them, the interface is pretty limited and clunky compared to a good PC-based system (depending, of course, on the skill of the interface designer). Take a look at www.video-insight.com and www.3xlogic.com and browse some of their demos and screenshots to get an idea how inclusive a Windows-based DVR's interface can be.

Hi zmxtech. Not sure I understand? These picturse showing a mock up of what I had in mind do overlap each other so why would this not be good to identify someone? Is it a legal thing? Remember what I'm trying to cover are my 2 cars. I also want to cover as much of the parking as possible cause I can't always park outside my house. What he's saying is that with the views you have there, you won't get a clear enough shot to ID someone in most cases - the shots will simply be too wide and not have enough detail. Remember that analog CCTV systems record at a maximum resolution of 720x480 (most closer to 640x480 to 702x480)... basically the same resolution as you posted pics. If someone you didn't know or recognize was standing beside your car in those pics, would you be able to positively identify him from his face? Factor in that you'll lose some detail to compression as well - probably a little closer to the attached picture. There are two ways around this: one, high-resolution megapixel cameras... or, as zmx suggests, one wide overview of the parking area to capture activity, and a couple of tight views on the sidewalk approaches to capture detail of anyone entering the area.

If you go back to the original files from the camera and view them in a good free viewer like Picasa or IrfanView, it will show you all the relevant exposure data - ISO, shutter, aperture, etc. I tried it on your posted pics, but they've obviously been resized and then re-saved without that data. Depends on the camera. Some will slow the shutter down and achieve the same motion-blurred effect you have there. Others will simply be very dark. The benefit with SOME CCTV cameras is, like with SLR photography cameras, you can change to a lens with a larger opening that allows more light.

That should work fine... only drawback to that is that you can't watch both at the same time, unless your monitor does split-screen or PiP. You'll have to rely on others for that, then - I deal almost exclusively with PC-based systems. The only standalone units I've worked on, with one or two exceptions, have been super-cheap junk that go in only because of super-cheap clients.