Soundy

Just offhand, I'd suspect most standalone DVRs don't support this. Nevertheless, if this one has an "external HDD" option, it just might. The trick, then, is probably needing to format the drive properly: most new drives come either unformatted, or formatted as FAT32. If your standalone is *nix-based, it may want to use a native format like ext3. Then again, it's possible "external HDD" is there simply as a backup/export option...

I know the URL for LinkedIn, I have a profile there... this still doesn't tell me the name of the particular group. There are a few dozen that come up on a search for "CCTV"...

"Sorry you are not a member of the group you are trying to access." - but it doesn't tell me what group that actually is!

-50F is about -58C -40 is where the two scales meet up. I dunno, we've been seeing news reports about that kind of cold out there, too... looks like it's warming up quickly midweek though!

I'd be surprised if the software version *must* match the firmware on the DVR. Software updates tend to come regularly... firmware, usually only to address bug fixes and major feature upgrades (speaking generally for almost all types of upgradeable hardware, not just DVRs). Of course, this is the difference between cheap offshore multi-branded junk, and buying professional gear from a reputable vendor...

rory's here all the time. We try to chase him away, but he keeps coming back.

You don't specify whether you want remote-controllable zoom or not. Many dome/IP/D-N cameras come with varifocal lenses, which provide optical zoom, but require direct access to the camera.

Good stuff, but you might not want to leave it that way - that essentially leaves that machine wide-open to the internet, and with a PC-based DVR (particularly a Windows-based DVR), that means it becomes a LOT more hackable.

Router ports should have nothing to do with it. The GV software communicates directly with the PTZ via the RS-485 port, the signal doesn't go through the router. The web client (via IE) allows you to control the software. If you can access the software remotely, your ports should be fine. Only thing I can think of is if the remote client sends camera control on a different port, as I know some remote clients do... but I wouldn't think that would be the case with the web-based client. In any case, you can test it by finding the "DMZ" section of your router, and setting your DVR's IP as the DMZ... that will forward ALL otherwise-unassigned ports to the DVR.

Need a little more info before anyone can even think about answering this... What make/model of PTZ? What make/model of DVR (if any)? How was it connected before - modem, router, etc.? What remote software or viewing method (browser) are you using?

That machine is bare minimum for GV's listed specs: http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?lc=en&dlc=en&cc=us&docname=c00045799 It's an AthlonXP 2600 (2.1GHz) and ships with only 256MB RAM and a 40GB HDD. The DDR RAM will be pricey to upgrade (to 1GB max). It would work, but you won't run anywhere near 15fps/camera, and you WILL need a larger hard drive for video storage. Frankly, I could get a brand-new system for under $300 that would walk all over that machine: http://a-power.com/product-2513-457-1 On the fps note, however... bear in mind that for surveillance purposes, you don't NEED anywhere near 15fps. It looks nicer, but it takes more power and eats more space and is rarely necessary. 1fps is plenty to see "what happened" in most instances.

You'd specify that if you want/need the DVR to look up internet domain names.

If memory serves, the Seagate firmware issue was with the 1TB drives when they first came out, and caused the drives to sometimes not spin up, which would cause them to disappear from a system. What codec are you using? MJPEG, MPEG4, H.264? Try a different codec?

okay, those are definitely artifacts from either the analog-to-digital conversion process, or the compression codec. either way, it's the DVR's problem. the fact that it shows up on YouTube pretty much eliminates your computer's video card.

What people, who said pixels? Nobody "said" pixels. The way MANY (even MOST) people ask about "lens resolution" indicates that they equate it with image resolution. The way manufacturers market lenses doesn't help matters. Resolving power? Who said "resolving power"? We were talking about lens resolution, which is about the ability to resolve detail. "Lens Resolution: The ability of a lens to resolve detail is usually determined by the quality of the lens but is ultimately limited by diffraction." I realize that. Sorry, in photographic jargon, this measurement is often called "resolving power". Not at all. As I've mentioned before, I come from an extensive background in photography; I understand these concepts quite well.

Absolutely! It's better to make sure problems DON'T happen in the first place, rather than to simply have a record of it happening. Cameras or not, your average perp's initial concern is not being seen AT ALL - some nice bright motion-activated lights will first and foremost startle them, and ideally drive them away before they get any further. If that doesn't work, the lights mean your camera(s) will get a way better picture than they would with IR.

Well, lenses do resolve. Lens resolution is typically defined as the ability of a lens to resolve detail. See Wiki for a more detailed description of lens, sensor, and optical resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution#Lens_resolution Best, Christopher Yes, but people in this case tend to think of "resolution" as "X by Y pixels". "Resolution" and "resolving power" are nowhere close to the same thing.

To clarify: the lens doesn't "have resolution" as such. Cheaper lenses will be manufactured to lower standards and not usually be as "clear" or "sharp" as possible. On normal analog cameras, these deficiencies aren't usually noticeable because of the low image resolution, but as the resolution of the camera increases, poor-quality optics becomes more noticeable... So, you get so-called "megapixel lenses"... which as far as basic lens theory and design goes, are no different than cheap lenses... but they ARE designed and built to a higher quality standard, so they produce clearer images with higher-resolution cameras. If you're familiar with the photographic world (and digital SLRs in particular) comparing a "standard" lens to a "megapixel" lens would be analogous to comparing a basic $150 "kit" zoom lens to a $1500 professional-grade zoom: the basics of both are the same, but one is built better, using higher-quality glass and closer manufacturing tolerances, and will therefore produce a better picture. Or to use another analogy: a Honda Civic engine works great in a Honda Civic. In basic concept, it's no different from the engine in a big Ford F-350. You could even put the Civic engine into the Ford (okay, not easily, but you get the idea), and it will work... but not as well as it could, because the truck is larger and heavier and needs more power to work effectively. The deficiencies of the smaller engine - particularly the lack of torque - become more noticeable with the greater load.

It's impossible to say exactly what's going on without seeing a picture of what you call "ghosts and trails", although I suspect cglaeser is on the right track and your problem is simply a too-low shutter speed on the cameras.

"720p" is a term semi-specific to HDTV - it means 720 lines of vertical resolution, progressive-scan. Standard-definition NTSC TV picture is 480i, or 480 interlaced lines. Basic progressive-scan DVD players can output 480p, if the television supports the progressive signal. HDTV specifies four video/resolution formats: 720i, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. A typical device with 1080-line resolution will have a total resolution of approximately 1920x1080 pixels. In CCTV terms, that equates to about a 2MP camera. I say the term is "semi-specific" to HDTV, because although it actually exists AS a specification for consumer HDTV transmission, the terms "720p" and "1080p", and "high definition" itself for that matter, are being used more and more frequently by CCTV manufacturers... and rather improperly so, IMHO. As for your customer's question, lenses don't "have resolution" as such. ANY lens will "support" 720p.

Damn... maybe I should be on commission!

Not saying there's anything wrong with the Sony CCDs... just that cameras that seem to need to SHOUT that fact all over their marketing probably do so because they have very little else to shout about... and are counting on the fact that Sony is a highly recognizable name. Our friend above is a quintessential example of this, pushing his bottom-of-the-barrel cameras, and when called out on it, insisting that they MUST be good simply because they use Sony chips. Frankly, after yet another customer-support nightmare recently (granted, with consumer products, not at the component level), I've completely lost whatever respect I may have had for Sony as a company.

Transmit power isn't the problem... what you'll run into is the fact that no currently available WiFi spec has the bandwidth needed to support more than three or four cameras. Any more than that, and you'll see them all start to crawl, drop out, jitter, or have other display issues. Simply cranking out more power won't fix that. See this thread for a recent example of the problem and the fix: http://www.cctvforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=19442 - that was with just four cameras. You're talking over seven times that.

Sorry, but the Panasonic SuperDynamic lines are still the cameras of choice for tough lighting. Go check some other threads for discussions and screenshots from the SD5 models. The point is, the cheap junky cameras use the CCD brand as their main selling point. The good ones DON'T NEED TO.