Soundy

What's wrong with that? Still need to log in to post.

Just one bit of advice, don't bother RAIDing those two drives - it won't gain you anything in performance for this purpose, and if one drive fails, you'll lose the data on both. Just install them as individual drives and be done with it. (Well, assuming the software can record to multiple drive letters - some can't.)

I'm still waiting for a printing fix from them... ever since v2.3, and current on 3.1.1.2, on certain systems, live video will print properly, but recorded video prints a black frame overlaid with an image of whatever dialog box happened to be up over the image (usually a print dialog of some kind). I'm told it will be fixed in v3.5, but that's AT LEAST a month or two away (no definite date yet). Took me forever to get that answer out of them, too (just this past week), and I've been asking for over a year. Normally I've found their support to be exceptional, but this one issue has been a real bugaboo for me. (And no, I won't be able to convince this client to do a paid upgrade to v4.x for TWO machines).

One of the drawbacks to standard analog CCTV is that it's a point-to-point topology, and there's really no way around that (at least not without extreme expense). HDcctv does little to change that - although "hubs" to consolidate/collect multiple signals and send them over a single line should be POSSIBLE, will existing cable be able to handle the combined bandwidth of three or four cameras? For most intents and purposes, it's still a point-to-point system. And I'd like to know how one would integrate, say, a camera at a remote site into a system using this method? With IP, it's easy - run it through the Internet. No, you won't get the massive bandwidth necessary for 3MP at 30fps... but you CAN GET THE SIGNAL THERE. Thank you, that's exactly what I've been saying all along. Any new technology will be initially expensive, to recoup development and tooling costs. Economy of scale is the main thing that drives prices down - as more people buy them, the required profit margin for the manufacturers gets smaller. The more of something that a given assembly line churns out, the less it needs to recover per unit to pay for itself. I don't know that HDcctv would be "technically superior"... from the descriptions, it has some advantages, but still has other limitations compared to IP cameras. Neither would usurp the other outright for every situation. The problem is, while HD continues to be developed, IP prices continue to fall, and the limitations continue to be addressed and improved upon. A 2MP camera that does 30fps will eliminate one of the main stated benefits of HD.

Fine, I'm sold. So, recommend me some HDcctv cameras I can go buy right now. And a capture device. No? Hmm. Comparing vaporware is pointless.

Sometimes it seems 90% of our business comes from "after an event". Like insurance, surveillance is something a lot of people don't think they need... until AFTER they need it! I'm not familiar with either of those specifically, although I've been starting to work with some Arecont AV3155DN cameras and have been fairly impressed with their low-light performance. Don't know about how they'd deal with your potential backlight situation. You might need to look into Panasonic's SuperDynamic line to handle that. What are the specs on the PC? Anything P4-class or higher should be more than sufficient for your demo; even a fast PIII or Athlon should do the job of demonstrating the difference between analog and 3MP. If you're going to be dealing more with IP cams, though, you might want to think about picking up a laptop or even a "netbook" (one of those little 10-11" devices) as it will be handy not just for demoing the cameras, but for installing and configuring them as well. More than enough for doing your demo. If he goes with the camera(s), you can look at upgrading his network capability later *if necessary* - will really depend on how many cameras you're adding and how much traffic his network is seeing already. For now, just plug the camera into his existing network, fire up the browser on his existing PC, and show him the difference in video quality.

Or at least wait until IP manufacturers get their ducks in a row - fixing the issues with latency, Varies widely with the cameras and only REALLY an issue in a few niche uses. Overrated - very few CCTV uses *need* anything over 10fps. Irrelevant - low-light performance is a function of the camera, not the transmission method. RTSP? More and more IP cams are supporting it... maybe more DVR manufacturers should get onboard with that? Uh, 802.3? Only if you build a ****ty network. Bad infrastructure design will hurt ANY cctv setup, analog OR digital. Come on suvtech, surely you can come up with better red herrings than this?

More to the point, the 100m UTP limit is for 10/100/1000 ethernet... other types of networks can go even further. We used to deal with a customer who used token-ring and had runs approaching 200m on Cat3!

Not really. "The D-Link 8-Port Desktop Switch with 4 PoE Ports (DES-1008PA) enables both home and office users to easily connect and supply power to Power over Ethernet (PoE) devices such as wireless Access Points (APs), IP cameras, and IP phones while adding more Ethernet devices like computers, printers, and Network Attached Storage (NAS) onto a network." Retail price: $150. Factor in the savings of NOT needing a separate power supply, plus NOT needing to run a separate power wire to the camera. How so? The 100m maximum for ethernet itself is far more limiting than the power capacity. Yup... done it on several sites now. Works like a charm. Still pull a separate power wire to run the enclosure heater, but the cameras are quite happy with PoE.

You're right, I don't want to deal with all that stuff... I'll just sit back and not deal with anything over D1 until HDcctv comes along... Real Soon Now...

The software and the card is what I needed, not the technical support, So you've already figured out why the software crashes if you go over CIF resolutions, and fixed the problem? A lot of products use the pay-for-support model as well (see posts elsewhere on Linux-based, open-source solutions). I suspect most vendors of CCTV applications have found that model doesn't work for them or their customers. That's great, but you're a rarity in this business. I've been in IT support for close to 20 years, I find 95% of others I deal with in the CCTV industry are clueless when it comes to computers and are of the "I just want to click a button and have it work" ilk. System developers don't get paid catering to those of us in the 5% have-a-clue bracket, they have to cater to the other 95%. Someone still has to update it regularly, to keep up with changing markets... issue patches to support newer hardware... drivers to support new/other platforms... if you're a software developer who expects to just release a single version of your application and then get rich collecting royalties on it for the rest of your life, you're going to find yourself hungry pretty darn quick.

I hope they succeds, because also IP needs to meet competition outside the IP market so that everything will be even better in the future! While that's a possible advantage to this, I suspect even the threat of it is already causing price drops for IP cctv... and that alone may help kill HDcctv before it ever comes to market. The rate IP prices are falling, HD won't be able to compete when OR IF it ever actually hits the shelves. That's that HighWires are for - run a half-dozen megapixel cameras over a single RG-59 if you want.

I'm not closed to the concept, but having seen similar types of promising technologies arise and then vanish over the years, in all manner of different market segments, I'm not jumping on the HDcctv-as-savior-of-the-industry bandwagon. Don't overlook the numerous issues involved in bringing a new technology like this to market - I still haven't heard anyone address the issue of all-new capture/input hardware that would be required on the recorder end to support these cameras, or the cost thereof, for example. I've seen others argue against megapixel in general because of the storage costs involved - where are they on HDcctv, which will have the same storage requirements, if not more as people go ga-ga for 30fps on everything? As someone said long ago, being open-minded is fine... as long as your brain doesn't fall out.

Well, I listed the two I'm familiar with... most here will tend to do the same. As you've found though, you really get what you pay for, and when you're looking for a certain combination of features AND quality, you're generally going to end up in a certain price range. As I already pointed out, a good portion of this cost goes to after-sales support - updates, technical support, etc. - it's not JUST the hardware and software costs.

Why? Would a 5MP camera be able to see the shoplifter in the next aisle? No... can these HD cams see THROUGH bags of chips? Same question - is x-ray vision a feature of HDcctv? Kinda depends on the lens, doesn't it? Kinda depends on the specific camera as well. None of these questions are relevant to the comparison. Twice the resolution is still twice the resolution, isn't it?

Thing is, a lot of people get hung up on framerates and *think* they want/need 30fps for everything, when 15 or even 10fps is practically indistinguishable to most people in most circumstances, requiring a fraction of the bandwidth and storage. I think in most cases, I'd find a 5MP (2560x1920) resolution at 10fps (IQEye 700-series) more useful than 1920x1080 at 30fps...

Speaking of good deals, our local (Vancouver) ADI/Burtek has twin-packs of GVC passive baluns on for $13 (yes, that's TWO baluns for $13!). Dunno if others have the same, but it's worth dropping a quarter to find out! These are a bulkier model, fairly large transformer portion with screw terminals, and then the BNC on a 4" tail, but still a pretty unbeatable deal!

Even $12 for a 25-pack is pretty good!

Holy crap, I better check this out! I've never seen RG59 BNC compression fittings at the HDs in Canada, only the F-style ones, but I suppose it's worth another look!

Get a MUX with that display option, is about the ONLY way. You could do it with a TV that does PiP, but you'd need to connect each camera to its own input on the TV then.

The basic guts of the cameras wouldn't be difficult, as there are sensors and support components already on the market for 1080P HD cameras. What jacks the price is the addition of the SDI interface... and while the cost of the cameras may only be 10-15% more, you still have to get the signal into the recorder somehow. SDI itself is relatively niche-market and always has been, used mainly in the broadcast segment.

$180. BTW, 1080P is only 1920x1080 pixels... barely 2MP. The same as LOW-END megapixel cameras. Megapixel CCTV cameras are currently available in 3MP, 5MP, and even higher.

Amen, brother!

Casinos aren't "most situations".

I've been hearing "soon" from proponents here for probably the last year... when is "soon"? I don't see it really catching on beyond a niche market. As with any new technology, it's bound to be expensive initially - not just the cameras, but the need for new capture devices. It will take even more time for the price to be able to compete with current MP/IP technology, and that market isn't standing still. What I've seen/heard so far is still limited to HDTV spec, which is 1080p maximum - that equates to 2MP resolution at best (1920x1080). The ability to use existing wiring is a good selling point for upgrading existing systems, but for new/retrofit installs, going "back" to point-to-point, home-run topology is a drawback IMO... hub/branch layouts are possible, of course, but that's even more cost that's sure to be expensive for the first while. The biggest knock I hear on IP is the lack of support for full 30fps at higher resolution... by the time HD-CCTV/SDI costs drop enough to be competitive, I don't expect that will be an issue anymore. Plus, 30fps is really overrated for most situations - we're not making movies and TV shows, people.