Soundy

Yes... in fact, I'd go so far as to say MOST do.

Well, if the camera is powered by a 12/24 power source (ie. not using PoE), you can plug a laptop into it directly with a crossover cable. You can buy them or make them... I carry a retractable network cable that includes a switch to toggle straight-through/crossover. You can also use a crossover adapter with a standard network cable - something like this: http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/tools/7470/. If you laptop has a gigabit network port, chances are it will even support auto-crossover switching. Personally, I carry a cheap 802.11n router (D-Link DIR-615, goes for about $55 - 11n gives you a lot better range than 11b/g) that I just plug in to the network along with the cameras, and then connect via WiFi. That also allows me to run the DVR's remote client to adjust ANY of the cameras, analog or IP, via my laptop. My co-worker has also used this setup to adjust IP cameras with his Archos, and if you have cameras whose web interface will work with a mobile browser, any WiFi-enabled phone would work for this as well.

If it's the same resolution, yes... but that's a factor of the sensor; the lens is irrelevant to that equation (assuming the same lens is used on both).

I have a similar LinkSys setup - it was being used to power an access point, but right now I have just the injector portion running an IQ camera. Kinda handy to have around, actually.

OK, I understand the confusion. This lens/sensor mismatch is common in digital SLRs, and a better way to describe this is image cropping. Using phrases like "reduced sensitivity" and "reducing the light" is misleading, because it implies that an f1.4 becomes an f2. There is no reduced sensitivity or reduced light. Rather, the image is cropped. Absolutely correct! Think of it this way: take a 1/2" sensor, and a (very small) felt pen, and draw a 1/3"-sensor-sized box on it. That area inside the box is getting the same amount of light whether the area outside the box exists or not. Heh... that veers off into another pet peeve of mine: the endless debate in photography circles of 3:2 vs. 4:3 sensors. Some newer cameras (certain DSLRs in particular, although I think there are a couple of P&S models that apply) use a 4:3 aspect ratio rather than the traditional 3:2 shape that mirrors a standard 35mm film frame. Proponents have numerous silly reasons as to why this is "vastly superior", primary that it's a "larger" sensor (for a given "standard size", I guess) and makes use of more of the lens's circular light pattern, and thus gives the photographer a larger image to work with. The naysayers counter with how the shape doesn't conform to any standard output medium (ie. almost all common print sizes are 3:2), to which the proponents say it can be cropped to that ratio (kinda defeats the purpose, no?), and the naysayers come back that a 3:2 shot can be cropped to 4:3 as well... and on and on it goes. My answer to them both: by that reasoning, a perfectly square sensor makes the best use of that area, and even then, neither is an ideal shape; the only PERFECT sensor design is a ROUND one. Anything else will lose SOME of the image; only a round sensor will capture ALL of it, and give you the most to work with and crop from

I've seen the stills - it's pretty obvious. It may be a "pinhole" TYPE of camera, but the install sure isn't. And yeah, it's a pretty freakin' gaudy birdhouse - thing could house an entire aerie of bald eagles, I'm sayin' it's bloody HUGE.

Was it really necessary to post this in three different sections? A single post in the correct forum is all that's required.

Well smedley, I don't know about any others, but Vigil DVRs should handle your listed needs. They make 16- and 32-channel units; all their DVRs will work as hybrid (analog and IP mix) systems, or they have pure NVR units that use the same software, just without the capture hardware. They also have both a remote client that will let you easily display multiple sites on one screen, and even group cameras from multiple sites together for one-click viewing, as well as a CMS/health-monitor utility. Systems can even be configured so multiple DVRs/NVRs can use a single central database. The only thing you don't mention is your budge - Vigil isn't the cheapest out there, but it's not the most expensive either, but for everything it does, IMHO, it's pretty reasonably priced, and (also IMHO) very user-friendly.

Rory I sent you a pm but it's sitting in my outbox and I don't know how to make it go. Does it go on it's own? It will show as being in the "Outbox" to you until he reads it... then you'll see it in your Sent box. Just the way the forum software works. I say, hell with Mr. Moron, post the pics... if he's reading this, he already knows you're talking about him. Plus, if he does find these threads, maybe he'll come to realize that you have the braintrust of several dozen collected years of CCTV experience working to help you defeat him, and give up. Or if he's really got balls, he'll post his side of the story for us to laugh at....

Let word slip to the local crime community that your neighbor has an extensive and unprotected grow op in his house.

well in that case you would have to be buying lenses and cameras just to play with and that costs alot of money, not everyone is rich boss. Buying lenses and cameras and just randomly testing combinations is certainly not a recommended method of education, and it surely doesn't teach you HOW things work. Well unless you have a hands on, and that would mean buying the lenses and cameras, then you are still just blindly relying on what someone else is telling you. You don't need more than a couple of lenses to see theory put into action. Well... *I* don't. I can't speak for anyone else. Still... six years in this industry and 30 in photography in general provides lots of experience in having experience reinforce theory. I would hope in that time, I would have installed enough cameras bought with other people's money to see theory in action, too.

Do you set each device (e.g. each camera) to time.nrc.ca, or do you set the router to time.nrc.ca and point each camera to the router? Best, Christopher I've always just pointed the camera at the outside NTP server directly. Not all routers provide NTP server service, and some I've seen, the NTP client doesn't work either. I've had to install a third-party NTP server on the odd DVR/NVR for the cameras to sync to, on sites that the system doesn't have an internet connection, but those are rare - people are usually happy with the timestamp the DVR/NVR puts on the video and don't even care about having the camera's timestamp turned on.

I've come to the conclusion that the whole H1N1 hysteria is being driven by Purell.

I'm sure you mean NTP? NNTP is Network News Transfer Protocol - the basis for Usenet. I've never seen a camera with a newsreader Anyway, what do you mean by "preferred configuration"? The only camera I've seen that even gives an a choice is the IQs, listing "ntp" or "daytime" options, and "broadcast" or "passive" options for ntp. For standard internet-based time servers like time.nrc.ca or time.nist.gov, I find "ntp" and "broadcast" settings are necessary.

The short shouldn't damage the cameras, but it can easily take out the power supply, which then takes all the cameras offline until it's replaced.

well in that case you would have to be buying lenses and cameras just to play with and that costs alot of money, not everyone is rich boss. Buying lenses and cameras and just randomly testing combinations is certainly not a recommended method of education, and it surely doesn't teach you HOW things work.

That statement is pretty funny considering you went on to discuss it, then posted another response! I'm still trying to figure out where it's been "twisted in so many different directions". Several people have presented facts, details and knowledge that mostly all agree with each other, someone else has quoted contradicting third-party information... not sure where the "twisted in different directions" part comes in. I guess if you're a consumer, it's fine to be spoon-fed "what you need". Maybe some professionals prefer that as well. Personally, I like to know the "how and why" of equipment I use - makes it easier to know the right stuff to use despite marketing gibberish, and a helluva lot easier to troubleshoot problems. With the non-spoon-feeding concept in mind then... Adjusted that - "tunnel effect" may or may not come into play. It's more likely to occur with very short focal lengths. Not if you maintain the same aperture, as specified by the "f-stop". Lens aperture has no relation to what the lens is mounted in front of. Aye, and there's the rub with generalities... As a general rule, this is true, but you have to trust that the lens manufacturers are being completely truthful as well. For example, it's not uncommon in many fields (and I expect this is true with cameras and sensors as well) that one manufacturing run is done, the lots tested, and those that don't pass QC are rebranded as a model of lower capability. Two lenses could roll off the same production line, with one passing QC and being labeled for 1/2", while the other tests soft around the edges and is therefore designated for 1/3", where the edges of the image won't hit the sensor... the two cost the same to make, but the 1/2" model will naturally cost more. Obviously this isn't true for ALL manufacturers or lens designs, the same as it's not true for ALL cameras, or anything else... but you know, if you want the spoon feeding and choose to believe that there's inherent superiority to 1/2" vs. 1/3" lenses, well... that's up to you.

Unless, of course, you prefer to learn HOW stuff actually works rather that blindly relying on what vendors tell you you're "supposed" to use, especially ones who don't appear to know what they're talking about.

IR *is* light... just very long wavelength on the verge of human vision.

If you actually look at and factor in the rated maximum aperture of a lens, there will be no difference. I get the impression though, a lot of CCTV people don't actually know what an "f-stop" is, or what it relates to, and as such don't often bother to look at that spec on a lens and take it into account. Lenses designed for 1/2" sensors MAY generally be a bit larger in overall construction, which COULD equate to some designs having a larger aperture by default, which I could see easily leading to the impression amongst installers that 1/2" lenses *as a whole* allow more light than 1/3" lenses... but that impression would be mistaken. Alas, such false impressions have a habit of propagating, in ALL professions... and are hard to squash.

Well, these ARE the people who seem to think it's a good idea to auto-install their own NVR along with their camera-management software, AND have it auto-start, without giving the user any option during install to avoid either occurrence... and who actually HAVE a small, lightweight, standalone camera-setup utility but don't make it readily available to end users... so... yeah, forgive me if I don't have a hard time believing they don't understand lens technology. That's your choice. What Arecont is telling you contradicts what my 30 years in photography has taught me about lenses. That doesn't even make sense. Lenses don't have pixels, so where does this "larger pixel size" come from? They are completely out to lunch with that (assuming you're quoting them correctly). The "mm" is the focal length of the lens. That measurement is 110% unrelated to the size of the sensor. A 12mm lens has a 12mm focal length regardless of whether the sensor is 1/4", 1/3", 1/2", 1", 35mm, 4x6", or 8x10", or if there's no sensor at all. Unless you're severely misquoting them... no, I'm sorry, they have NO idea what they're talking about. Unfortunately, that group doesn't appear to include the Arecont trainers.

Not so - at least, not directly. There is one measurement that indicates the amount of light allowed: the f-stop, or aperture size. This is a direct ratio of the opening size to the focal length - f/4 on a 20mm lens will be a larger opening than f/4 on an 8mm lens, but it both cases, the same amount of light is passed. If you have then 8mm lens, rated f/1.4, and one is designed for 1/2" sensors, one for 1/3" and one for 1/4", all will allow the same amount of light. Wouldn't the effective aperture be higher when using a 1/2" lens on a 1/3" imager, due to a portion of the light gathered by the lens being projected beyond the edges of the imager? No... at most you'd just get a cropped view. The light transmitted by the lens is the same. The area that IS imager still gets the same amount of light either way.

Not so - at least, not directly. There is one measurement that indicates the amount of light allowed: the f-stop, or aperture size. This is a direct ratio of the opening size to the focal length - f/4 on a 20mm lens will be a larger opening than f/4 on an 8mm lens, but it both cases, the same amount of light is passed. If you have then 8mm lens, rated f/1.4, and one is designed for 1/2" sensors, one for 1/3" and one for 1/4", all will allow the same amount of light.

Any number of video-capture devices should work, but yeah, a Slingbox is probably the easiest by far. Good idea, tom!

Because maximum resolution of 99% of the video-encoding chipsets on the market IS 604-480 to 704x480, so the DVRs CAN'T be set any higher. To go beyond that would require a new chipset, which would mean redesign and retooling of existing cards and software. That would equate to a very expensive hardware upgrade to support MAYBE 10% higher usable pixel count. Meanwhile, megapixel camera prices are still dropping fast - 1.2MP is four times the resolution of 4CIF/D1 for very little extra money and no additional hardware required... it's just not cost-effective to substantially redesign video-capture hardware for such a minimal improvement.