Soundy

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.

Everyone here will give you the same suggestion: don't do it. You'll drop all kinds of money into boosters and repeaters, and in the end, it just won't work, because WiFi provides very limited *real, usable* bandwidth. Two most likely suggestions will be a high-end RF wireless solution that will cost a fortune for that number of cameras, or just go with a wired system... with the all-wired system being by far the preferred option.

Funny thing... just about every bottom-of-the-barrel camera I see touts "SONY CCD" very prominently... while most of the GOOD cameras don't even bother to list the CCD maker other than buried in the spec sheet, and a number of the best ones don't use the Sony sensors at all. The Panasonic CP/CW484 cameras, for example, are widely regarded as one of the better analog cameras out there, and on Panasonic's website, they don't list the brand of CCD. Even the sales brochure doesn't give a brand name for the CCD. It's like the cheaper the camera, the more they need to throw about a supposedly big brand name to try to sell themselves. Like nothing else matters about the camera, but IT'S GOT A SONY CCD, IT MUST BE GOOD, WOOOO!!! Sorry, but Sony ain't the name it once was - they survive these days on their name and little else. The fact that you find it important to tell us your cameras are loaded with Sony electronics tells me that they have very little else going for them... and Sony parts alone are a very poor selling point.

Check some of my posts - we use IQEyes almost exclusively and love them. I've not used the Sentinel line, but we use the IQ511 boxes and A11 domes extensively, as well as the occasional 7xx series. I haven't done any side-by-side image comparisons, and I don't know what the difference is in price point (although I'm pretty sure the Areconts are cheaper, since one customer has started to spec them as a budget-cutting measure), but I can tell you one thing, Areconts are a PITA to set up: they force you to install their NVR software that then starts automatically with Windows (IQ gives you a simple little standalone configuration utility with the camera, AND makes it available on their website - Arecont has one but won't give it to you), their web-based configuration is extremely limited and very poorly laid out (at least compared to IQ's), and I'm told by a DVR manufacturer that their SDK is horrible and their H.264 implementation is iffy at best. I can't speak to the quality of Arecont's tech support as none of my emails to them have ever been answered. IQ's support, on the other hand, is excellent.

The problem is, there's very little standardization in the POS industry, and everyone likes to do things their own way (sound familiar?), so keeping track of EVERY different system out there, let alone being FAMILIAR with them all, is asking a lot. Case in point: Vigil DVRs list some *83* different devices when you select a POS type for data capture - some are *store-specific* (there's an entry for "Subway"), some brands have four or five different models listed. *ALL* of these are under the "Serial" setting, too, meaning all they do is capture text data from the serial port - these different entries are to accommodate varying formatting codes and data layouts (columns and what not - position in the stream of the date, transaction number, product name, price, etc.). Squirrel isn't listed at all, despite Camacc (the makers of Vigil) and Squirrel being both being BC-based companies - we actually had to have them create a custom IP interface for the Squirrel POS systems for a customer that wanted it, a restaurant chain with an average of a dozen Squirrel terminals in each of over a dozen stores. In fact, Squirrel is used widely around BC, but until just a couple years ago, apparently nobody needed to interface it to a Vigil. We've also put Vigils in a couple of Tim Hortons stores (a MAJOR coffee-and-donut chain all across Canada and growing in the US), where they use a Panasonic POS, and there's no support for that specific model in Vigil either - again, apparently just something nobody's ever asked for. I think I already suggested that That's about the process. The tricky part is, you have to know what baud rate (2400/4800/9600) and comm settings (data bits/parity/stop bits - 8N1, 7E1, 8O2, etc.) the POS is using, and match that with your Hyperterm settings. If that doesn't match, you could just see gibberish, or you could be hacking away and see nothing at all - doesn't mean it's not working, just means that the communication parameters don't match up YET.

11n will improve things, definitely... even 11g gear sees a boost from it, but you still only get maximum speed and range between 11n devices. If wired network is an option (even a difficult one), wired is ALWAYS preferred for CCTV.

My understanding is that UL listing means only that the specific component has passed certain test specific to that equipment... sort of a "quality control" designation. Meanwhile, UL requirements for installations are only as required by electrical or building codes and generally only apply to specific pieces of equipment. It doesn't automatically mean that every piece of an installation has to be listed, only if it's specifically called for by the code. Case in point, when we used to do analog cameras for gas pumps, some sites required the use of video-loss detectors (so if a particular camera went down, the pump it was monitoring would shut off). By building code, those detectors had to be UL-listed; however, NOTHING else in the system required the UL mark (most of it HAD it, but none of it REQUIRED it). Interestingly, as far as the detectors went, the UL testing only applied to the power supply, nothing else in it. Rather than submit their units to an extensive certification process, the designers simply used an external, off-the-shelf, UL-listed wall-wart power supply... and that's all that was required.

Ha, I was just the roadie, no firing sound guys for me It was an ongoing thing - the speaker had become intermittent, and he'd found that if he pushed on the terminal strip so that it pulled the Litz wires tight, it would start working again. Of course, he didn't take into account that the movement of the cone would be continually tugging on the wire and adding stress to the failing connection... his "fix" worked for him for a couple weeks but finally gave out at a show in the middle of nowhere (of course). As it turned out, the coil wire itself (which runs up the face of the cone) had pulled loose from the rivet that "passes it through" the cone for the Litz wire to attach. I had to scrape and burn the old coating off to expose the rivet and the end of the wire, and basically applied a big blob of solder to bridge the two. We put it back in, tested it... and I smacked the soundman down for his little "fix". I didn't even realize the drivers used aluminum coil wires until I took it in years later for reconing, and the guy in the shop was amazed that my patch had worked at all, let alone held for so long.

I bow to you! You're the man if you pulled that off during a live performance! That is dedication! Thanks The repair actually held up for several more years, until the speakers had to be reconed anyway. More importantly, it far outlasted the soundman who broke it in the first place

Sorry, but "$15-$80" is the EXTREME low-end for CCTV cameras. $300 is pretty low-end for a PC as well, WITHOUT DVR card or software.

Typically, you would connect a serial port on your POS system to the capture device, whether that's a DVR or a text-overlay box or whatever. In some cases, the POS will have an option to drive a pole display; in some you'll use an output for a serial receipt printer - either method typically outputs plainly formatted raw text that is then captured via a serial port on the DVR or TVS for processing. Many DVRs, BTW, won't do text overlay-on-video inherently; if they do it internally, it generally requires additional hardware. More commonly (and far more usefully), the data is simply logged, synchronized to the video. This makes it searchable, something that's not possible when the text is simply embedded in the video. The method we've been using most recently is a Honeywell SmartPIT - it's a very smart box can take the serial data in one port, overlay it on the video, filter it for the DVR to log out another serial port, and pass-through the data unfiltered via a third port, in case you need to insert it in-line with a printer or display. It's web-configurable, and can log incoming serial data internally and create a file that you can send to Honeywell to have a custom filter made, if necessary.

Are you using the browser, the remote software, or both when trying remotely? Does the software use port 80? Many ISPs block incoming traffic on port 80, which would affect web-based viewing. If the remote software uses port 80, it would affect that as well. Other ports may also be blocked by your ISP.

Even if we can't spell "we're"??

UL listing MIGHT be required by some areas' electrical codes, or by certain industries (like, if you were putting them in a lab or gas-processing facility or something, I dunno) but I've never run across an instance that required it. We do new installs for two of Canada's largest oil companies, both in-store and at the pumps, and they've never asked for or spec'd UL listing on their cameras. We've installed some equipment that requires UL certification, usually as a component of the building code, but it's never been an issue with the cameras. I don't doubt the Panasonic rep's story, but I'd certainly ask for more specifics as to the exact situation surrounding it.

I think you're on the right track, that the Axis is at least part of the problem. The root of issue, though, is available bandwidth. At 802.11g, you've got *theoretical maximum* half-duplex 54Mbps available... to ALL wireless devices. Realistically, you're only going to see about half that for a continuous stream, so now you're down to 27Mbps, SHARED. Your fix, quite simply, is to hardwire as much of the system as possible. You can dial back framerates to further reduce the "interference" but that's only a workaround.

What's between $400 and $900? Is that the price per camera, or the price you're looking at for the DVR? I would hope the former, if you're serious about a quality system. Your camera layout sounds like a typical retail plan, but it's hard to give specific advice without seeing the store layout. For example, backlighting conditions may affect your choice of door cameras. A single megapixel camera may be able to cover both tills as effectively as two analog, depending on their layout. Limiting your broad store views to two cameras may be affected by the shape of the sales floor and the existence of tall shelves, or structural details (beams, posts). Ongoing "areas of concern" (eg. particular products with high shoplifting rates) may dictate some camera positions.

It's possible the post was "eaten" by a glitch of some kind. It's rare, but it does happen.