Soundy

Well, there's that too, but his main confusion seemed to be over the DVR showing different image quality on WAN vs. LAN, while the Panasonic camera looked the same either way.

sounds like you answered your own question So the described connection speed alone could make a significant difference? In that case I could move the little Panasonic "R2D2" wannabe to the site that has only a 800 Kbs connection and see what the difference is. btw - Since my original post on this thread I replaced the clunker LTC camera at that site with an SIR-4160. While the Samsung's video is noticeably better than the LTC, it is still not comparable to the very nice picture produced by the little Panasonic pet monitor. After laying out several hundred $ for the SIR-4160 that finding has me scratching my head for sure. Thanks for your comments. It's unlikely that the slower uplink speed is DIRECTLY causing the lower quality. If anything, it would cause stutters and pauses in the video stream as the bitrate exceeded the available bandwidth. Unless the software on one side or the other had a way to measure the upstream speed, or had it configured by a user, it would have no way of knowing that there's only 800kbit available. What's more likely is, as I've already stated, that the CLIENT software recognizes that you're connecting over a WAN (because you're NOT using a 192.168.* or 10.* or other reserved private IP range), and thus tells the server to use a lower-bitrate video feed. It's not likely to know what the server's upstream bandwidth is either, so it would just knock it down to something significantly lower, to strike a balance between quality and data rate. You could have 10Mbit upstream available to the server, and it wouldn't make a difference in this case. Changing the camera itself would have nothing to do with it.

Can't you do the same thing with analog cams by using a UTP transciever? Camera all plug into one transceiver,RJ45 from one transceiver to the other,than coax from that transceiver into dvr. For up to four cameras, sure. What you're talking about is basically just four baluns in one box, using all four pairs of a single UTP. Beyond that though, you'd need another UTP drop to the DVR. And you're still technically home-running all your signals.

Three or four cheap cameras with common video/power grounds, UTP, baluns, and a central 12VDC power supply. The shorter the runs, the more differential the baluns will introduce.

You can add a DVR card and software to pretty much any existing PC, as long as it's powerful enough for what you're trying to do with it. Some cards are also fussy about the motherboard, chipset, or processor type you try to run them with. As long as your "spare" PC meets the spec for the card you get, you should be fine.

TVL is, to over-simplify somewhat, a measurement of the vertical resolution of the sensor. IN GENERAL, the higher the number you can get, the better. Keep in mind though, the numbers you're given may not always tell the whole story. Sometimes, for example, the sensor itself may be a lower resolution, and the image is "upscaled" to a higher resolution by the camera's processing, and the manufacturer/vendor will quote the "upscaled" resolution. Personal preference certainly counts - looks, aesthetics, etc. Domes tend to be easier to "blend in" to existing architecture. Some dome designs, though, don't allow you to adjust the camera's aim fully, which can be a pain later when you need to, say, look flush along a wall or something. Better domes will have a full gimball mount to facilitate more flexibility. Many cheaper domes and bullets also don't provide, or don't have the space for, larger varifocal or auto-iris lenses, which may be a concern depending on your needs; "box" cameras with C/CS lens mounts offer a lot more flexibility in lens selection, but are also larger, typically less aesthetically pleasing, and usually require a separate enclosure if you want to protect them from the elements or minor tampering. In the end, the most important thing is for YOU to decide which style suits YOUR particular needs. There's been a lot of discussion on that already. The general consensus is that IF you need IR, use off-camera illuminators, rather than built-in. My personal opinion is that, in most cases, I'd rather use a camera with good low-light performance rather than trying to "fake" it out of cheap cameras with IR. IR does have its place, but it's over-used as a cheap hack, IMHO. All cameras should list their power requirements - just add up the numbers! If you can get a 10A supply for about the same as a 5A though, go with the 10 - never hurts to have more capacity. Varifocal just gives you the ability to adjust the field of view, rather than being locked into one view. Once the cameras are installed, though, you're probably not going to be adjusting that on a regular basis... so varifocal is really only useful once, during installation, in most cases. If you know the field-of-view you'll need, you can calculate the lens you need and probably just do with that. If you're not sure, or want to fine-tune things for a specific view, then varifocal may be more useful for you. A lot of cameras use the same CCDs and list similar specs, but with widely different resulting outputs. A lot of those specs are so generic, it's like listing a car as having "seats and windows" - nothing special about it, they ALL do. A name and model would give a better idea of whether it's really a worthwhile camera.

Remember, one of the benefits of IP is that you don't have to home-run every camera. If, say, all four cameras are on one side of the third floor of the house, and the DVR is on the opposite side of the basement, you can put a switch on the third floor, connect all the cameras to that, then just drop a single cable to the basement for the DVR. The cameras can plug directly into the router, if it has enough ports available. This should suffice for initial testing. Most cameras have only 10/100 ports on them anyway. Where gigabit comes in handy is between the switch and the DVR, especially with more cameras running higher res or framerates, because that's where you're funneling all the data from the cameras. Gigabit isn't a burning necessity right off the top. Neither is Cat6, for that matter - Cat5e should do just fine at a lot lower cost (unless you already have the Cat6).

I dunno about that. Upper-second class maybe. Just got a call today to one of our legacy GV sites (ie. systems supplied by our predecessor on this account). Four cameras out. Got onsite to discover it was - surprise surprise - one full "column" (viewed at 4x4). Moving the machine just slightly brought all four back. This is something I've found inherent to the GV Conexant-chipped hardware - ONE flaky/noisy camera or connection can affect up to three others that share some common hardware (whether one of the four A/D chips or what, I don't know). If you're lucky, you can see which camera is going squirelly so you know which one to fix... in today's case, there's no indication of which camera it was - a slight shift of the cabling, and all four would drop out. Another wiggle, and they'd all come back. This is something I've never seen on the ComArt-based cards used by Vigil and VideoInsight systems. The whole GV interface is kinda clunky and poorly-designed for my liking as well. Lotta stuff is in weird places where you'd never think to look, or poorly labeled. Try sitting down for the first time in front of a GV and figuring out how to add cameras, I just dare ya. Funny that you should compare them to Microsoft, because like Windows, being the "market leader" doesn't necessarily mean you're the "best"... just the most pervasive.

Another 3155DN on the same building...

All using the lenses that came with the cameras. Actually, that one was maybe a poor example, the focus turned a little soft a couple days after we installed it (it's 40' up a wall, so it's not easy to get up and adjust it without a boom lift). It seemed the best example of low-light though - all the others are are looking at fairly well-lit scenes.

You can use devices like HiWires to run ethernet over coax, which would allow you to put in IP cameras, although they aren't particularly cheap, either.

AV3155DN:

Guessing a simple NO/NC type alarm signal. Best, Christopher "MegaFlashâ„¢ provides automatic camera calibration to support a wide range of strobe lights, and the 1 millisecond (ms) speed shutter can be triggered by a network request or the input/output connector. " Assuming a decent trigger (which is not hard to do), only one frame is needed for one car, independent of the speed of the vehicle (within some range, e.g. 0 to 100mph). I've reviewed images from the CA DMV (California Department of Motor Vehicles) of vehicles running red lights, and the cameras are set to take the photo when the vehicle hits a precise location in the intersection. Best, Christopher That's how red-light and photo-radar cameras work. Capturing high-speed cars has nothing to do with framerate and little to do with shutter speed - it's all dependent on the flash. Since your average strobe burst is on the order of 1/10,000s to 1/100,000s, the camera's shutter speed becomes largely irrelevant. Most common trigger for this sort of thing would just be a vehicle-detector loop in the road/driveway/etc. Simple, effective, and reliable.

I've very, very rarely had to replace an "octopus" cable for broken connectors. A DVR should be tucked in its place and almost never moved, so there's no reason for any "wear and tear" on the connectors. That said, neither is a particularly ideal solution IMHO. The octopus CAN be a pain the arse to sift through if you need to find a particular connector in a mess of incoming cables, especially once you start getting into 32-channel systems. On the other hand, most backplane connectors tend to be pretty tightly packed and while it's easy to tell which channel you're going for, actually reaching it and disconnecting the cable can be a major challenge unless you either have a special tool for it, or really thin fingers. One thing I do like about the octopus cable, if I have to remove a DVR for upgrade or repair, I don't have to disconnect 16-32 cables, keep track of which is which, and then reconnect them all to the new system - I just have to unplug the octopus, take out the old box, put in the new box, and reconnect the octopus. This is especially handy if I want to drop in a loaner DVR while I have the other one out for repair.

Sounds like there are two problems at play here. First, "blur", especially at night, is generally motion blur caused by a too-slow shutter speed. Unfortunately, you won't be able to adjust that with this camera, so your only solution there, short of replacing the camera, is more light. From what I was able to find about these cameras, they only have 12 LEDs and are rated to *maybe* 30 ft. illumination, so for viewing your street , the IR is all but useless. I think you have that backward - the 3.6mm lens would be the wider view, and the 6mm a tighter shot for more detail. Looks like these cameras come with a 3.6mm lens, so you must have switched the 6mm ones yourself - are you sure they're properly focused? There's no way you'll get plates at that range with that coverage, especially not if your trying to capture moving cars. The resolution of analog is just too low. Well, the Geovision is a decent entry-level PC-based system; that isn't where your problem lies (not most of it, anyway - you might check your record resolution settings, make sure they're as high as possible). The problem here is entirely in your cameras - you need something higher-quality with better low-light performance and/or better illumination. Unfortunately, that won't be particularly cheap. Your skinny "mistake" wire could be part of the problem as well - can you tell us exactly what type of cable it is? If it's not the right type, it could be causing distorted or noisy video that's also reducing your quality.

Looks like the IR LEDs are reflecting off the inside of the glass and into the lens. There should be a black rubber "gasket" around the end of the lens and snug up against the inside of the glass to prevent that - make sure that's in place.

There are a couple other factors to consider as well: 1. Future use. If you think you'll upgrade to IP cameras in the future, it may be preferable to pull UTP now. UTP also gives you the ability to run multiple analog signals over a single line, or to run video, power and control signal (such as RS-232/485 for a PTZ). 2. Cable cost. Sometimes you'll find one or the other type substantially cheaper, or already have some onhand. If you're wiring up a new site, it's likely already being pre-wired with UTP for network and phones, so it may be more cost-effective to add another run or two of UTP at the same time (especially if you or your builder can get a bulk deal). There are other cost considerations either way. You can run network over coax, for example, using devices like HiWires, but you're looking at several hundred dollars (currently) for a single pair. Going the other way, baluns to run analog over UTP add cost, but can average out to cheaper - for example, four pairs of baluns to a single Cat5e/6 run, vs. four coax runs. There's no definitive answer as to which is "best"; each method has its place. You have to factor in all your needs to determine which is best suited for you.

There is no one "best". Different systems have different strengths and weaknesses; only you can determine which is "best" for YOUR needs. There are numerous "what is the best DVR" threads - you might be better to search those rather than re-start the holy war.

If you have EXISTING, properly-supported telephone runs, however, you CAN use that, if there are conductors available. With baluns, you can run one video signal on each unused pair.

Not to mention, if it needs to be inspected or have something like UL-approval, you'll never get that on a DIY. But to answer the original question: what sort of power supply do you need? 12VDC or 24VAC? Multiple fused outputs, or no? Space-conscious? What sort of current capability?

I don't think it's a factor of the line speed itself - the Q-See remote software probably recognizes when you're connecting via WAN and dials down the quality to accommodate. The Panasonic web viewer either doesn't know or doesn't care.

Excellent news! I've done phpBB installs and one conversion, I know how much is involved (actually, CONFIGURING everything in phpBB3 is the largest part of it!)

Or use one of these:

Lot of good info and some pictures here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_rod http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_protection_system http://science.howstuffworks.com/lightning7.htm