Soundy

Once again, these cards don't do hardware encoding, so the record format is dependent on the software. Vigil and Video Insight systems actually both use the same ComArt-based cards, and while the VI software is locked to VI-supplied cards (or was the last time I tried it), the Vigil software is not - in fact, I once had a Vigil DVR where the card died, so I dropped in an equivalent VI card, and it just worked, no updates or drivers required. Nice. In any case, with Vigil, they use AZTECH by default, which does require its own codec, but the installer for that codec IS included. It also provides the option for MPEG-4/H.263 recording, but AZTECH works exceptionally well so I've never bothered switching. Most Video Insight systems I've installed, I've found WMV9 works best all-around, so I've been using that... completely standard, playable on any Windows Media Player 9 or later. Same chipsets... not necessarily the same cards. Supporting components, construction quality, additional functionality, may all be different. But in most cases, I suspect, you're paying mostly for the software. The stuff you get with most of the eBay cards is pretty limited in functionality, often clunky in operation, poor in design and layout, and pretty damn thin on documentation (and what there is, is probably written in really bad Engrish). And forget about any kind of technical support with most of them for that price. With the likes of Video Insight and Vigil, you're getting solid, advanced software that's under constant development, is well-documented, and has excellent support backing it up. You have a toll-free number you can call at any time to get help where you can talk to real, knowledgeable techs without having to decode a thick accent. You have people who will respond to your emails and even accept suggestions for future features. Those kinds of things aren't cheap for the vendors to provide... and that's where a some of the money is going when you buy a good package from a reputable vendor. Edit: case in point! http://www.cctvforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=105624#105624

Did you try simply renaming the files to *.MPG or *.AVI? Often the file, video, or compression formats themselves are standard, the software just tacks on its own extension rather than one Windows will recognize (side rant: when will Microsloth ever get a better way to identify files than with a lame three-character extension?? OS/2 was doing it far better with Extended Attributes, 15 years ago). Proprietary isn't necessarily a bad thing, if the vendor properly supports it. Vigil systems, for example, use a proprietary AZTECH variation on M-JPEG... but when you export video in that format, you can have it include an installer for the codec and player (once the codec is installed, the video will play back in just about any video player). We have customers give those discs to the police all the time and have rarely had an issue with it (just once, that I can recall, was there a problem running it on a machine with locked-down permissions). Similarly, Capture DVRs export in a proprietary "Minibank" storage format, where the exported video is encapsulated in an executable file with its own standalone player... so in essence, you just "run" the video. Well, that's one of the risks in buying from eBay, isn't it? Buy from a reputable manufacturer/vendor and avoid those kinds of issues. Nothing like buying something from a supplier halfway across the world, finding out the thing doesn't work as advertised, and finding the shipping to return it is more than you paid for the thing in the first place! Not hard to do. Vigil is represented here (3xLogic Systems); you can use their cards, or their software will work with a variety of third-party cards. Video Insight is here as well, their software will record in M-JPEG, MPEG-4, WMV, and possibly others now (I haven't really looked at it since v3.0). Those are the two I'm familiar with - several other manufacturer and vendors are represented here as well - AverMedia, GeoVision, etc. The catch with all of these is that you'll pay substantially more than you would for those cheap eBay cards... but hey, you get what you pay for, and that includes software features and after-sales support (both VI and 3xLogic have excellent technical support). www.3xlogic.com www.video-insight.com

3389 is the default port for Windows Remote Desktop Protocol; it's not required for Geovision client connections (and frankly, I'd strongly recommend NOT using RDP/TSC for remote control of Windows DVRs - if you have live windows up, the refreshes will completely kill your performance. Use UltraVNC with the mirror driver instead, or Remote Administrator 3.0, both of which deal with live video cleanly). In answer to the original question: in most instances, the remote software does not communicate with the DVR card at all; it communicates with the server application. Standalone DVRs are no different; most are basically a stripped-down PC-type computer with some customized hardware, and embedded operating system and server software; the remote client then talks to that server application.

Most of these cheap cards don't do hardware encoding (part of why they're so cheap); thus, the video format is not a function of the card, but of the software and/or codec used. Simple solution: try different software, or look for a setting in the software you have to tell it to use a different compression format.

Hmmm, another reason to expedite the upgrades: the ability to lock the avatar dimensions to a maximum size...

^What's with the f'king massive avatar??

Spot output will be composite video, not RF. To get it into a TV, you need to either use an A/V input (usually a yellow RCA jack), or you need to use a modulator to feed it to an RF (cable/antenna) input. I wouldn't expect it to be an "either/or", since the whole point of a spot monitor is to give a video output separate of the main display.

Have you found that certain drives actually DON'T work, or are you curious as to why manufacturers only list specific drives as being supported? I can't think of any reason these days why any drive with the appropriate specs shouldn't work in any DVR (or computer, for that matter). Back in the day, when IDE was new, there were assorted compatibility problems, most often arising from single/master/slave configurations, but that shouldn't be the case today. Sometimes a manufacturer will test specific brands and models of drives in their systems and list them as "supported", then note that any other drives aren't "supported"... all that means is, if you have drive problems, they won't "support" it; it doesn't automatically mean they won't work.

Actually, I have a location with both 1.3MP and analog cameras running from about the same position... The MACE analog minidome in a liquor store: And the IQ511 1.3MP mounted a few inches above it (you can see the MACE dome in the view): (Note: The MP cam is a little soft because at the time I installed it, they wanted a wider view than the 3.5-10mm lens I brought with it, and all I had on-hand was an old non-MP 2.8mm lens... it looks much better today with a proper 2.8mm on it).

Yeah, Shoreview's got some good tips too. One other thing I like to use to test: I keep a 75-ohm BNC terminator handy, that I can put on the far end of the line, and then meter across the other end, the way he suggests. That should then get a reading of around 75 ohms; anything significantly higher or lower indicates problems.

While it SHOULDN'T be an issue with such a short run, check the power at the far end *with the camera connected*. It's possible that the voltage is dropping too much under load and causing the camera to shut off. If that's the case, check for an iffy splice on the power run. Also, try connecting the camera at the other end, then run the DVR end of the wire into an A/V video input on your TV, and see if you get picture.

Man, I should be getting a commission from these guys

UTP is pretty versatile - you can run up to four cameras over a single cable; you can run one camera with video, power and control (serial); you can run VGA using VGA baluns; you can run KVM with the appropriate extenders; and of course, it gives you the future ability to easily upgrade to IP cameras. The only REAL drawback is cost - the cable itself will cost about the same as coax with a power run (18/2 or station wire), but the baluns add a fair bit to the total price (around here, passive baluns start around $20-$25 each, meaning $40-$50 extra - or more - per camera). It helps balance out the cost if you can run four cameras on one cable, instead of needing four coax, but the cost savings will depend largely on the length of the run. Sometimes the versatility can save your skin, too... like the site we did recently where the electricians put in a single 1" conduit... for us to run 9 camera feeds through. The ONLY way we could make it happen was to use UTP - one per camera, for video and power.

Find me a a megapixel camera manufacture that would recommend/support this and I will send you $1 . The whole idea behind megapixel cameras is better image quality so after spending extra money on a megapixel why would you save a couple of bucks on the lens which is the weakest link in a megapixel camera? Buy the best lens you can afford. I was talking about using a 1/3" lens on a 1/2" camera... which at the shorter focal lengths will give a wider view, even if it is distorted. There may be instances where the extra FOV would be a plus despite the distortion. I do things all the time that manufacturers don't recommend or support... sometimes you need to come up with solutions that they simply haven't thought of.

^unless that's an appropriate view for the particular install.

Sure it will... it will just give a more distorted view. I guess i should have gone into more detail on why it would not use a 1/3 lens on a 1/2 imager. I've done it before, when testing an IQ701 when all I had handy was a 1/3" lens. Actually, at longer focal lengths, there was no noticeable difference. At wider views, though, the image became "rounded off", because the lens projects an area smaller than the sensor. Actually, I didn't get to test it, but I suspect adding a C/CS adapter to space the lens out a bit might at least partially compensate for this phenomenon...

If your camera supports auto-iris, you can use an auto- OR manual-iris lens on it. The only limitation here is that an auto-iris lens won't work on a camera without the auto-iris driver.

There is no legitimate reason you can't use a 1/2" lens on a 1/3" sensor. The mounts are the same, the optics work the same... the only reason you might choose a 1/3" lens is price (the 1/2" one would probably cost more for the same basic specs). By the same token, there's no reason you can't use a "regular" (non-"megapixel") lens on a megapixel camera. In each case, the higher-end lens will generally provide better quality or performance than its cheaper equivalent, but there's nothing that STOPS the cheaper lens from working.

Sure it will... it will just give a more distorted view.

You can get USB cameras at any computer store - they're called "webcams". Why do these need to be USB? What does that accomplish? You say these will be installed to forklifts, what would they be connected to? I think what you're looking for is a camera that will record to a memory card...

The one-big-and-smaller-around display is only suitable for larger (ie. more inputs) devices - I suppose they COULD make a four channel with a one-large/three-small display, but typically, you won't find layouts that require more channels to FILL than are available. What you describe, for example, would take six views to fill, so you wouldn't normally find such an option on a four-channel MUX. I have seen four-channel units that have one main full-screen view and three separate PiP windows in the corners for the other cameras... couldn't tell you what brand that was though, let alone the model. As for a the purpose of a MUX... it does many different things, but the primary purpose is to generate the proper output for recording multiple channels on a time-lapse VCR. I don't know how familiar you are with the way a helical-scan VCR works, but briefly: the video heads are on a spinning drum that rakes the heads across the tape at an angle, which creates multiple short angled tracks along the length of the tape. With regular VHS systems, it's one frame of video per track. What the MUX does, is output a different camera on each frame: one pass records camera 1, next pass records camera 2, and so on. If you hook up a monitor to the VCR OUT terminal, you'll see this as a rapid flipping between cameras. Similarly, if you plug a time-lapse tape into a standard VCR, you'll see the same thing. The second function of the MUX is to take that signal via the VCR IN port, and split it out again into individual, stable camera views so the user can then select individual views, or split-screen views to watch. Beyond all that, it's still good for providing split-screen and sequenced views (and in fact, we regularly re-use old MUXes for just that purpose). Yours might be worth keeping around for that reason, as your DVR seems limited for that functionality. Most MUXes will have properly-loaded, daisy-chained inputs that allow you to run a camera into the input, then chain from the channel's output to your modulator, DVR, etc.

The problem with a two-camera split is that it won't fit the screen properly - you'd end up either with half of each camera, or with the two horribly stretched to fit. The only "normal" way to get two cameras on a screen is with a PiP (Picture-in-Picture) display. Otherwise, it needs to divide the screen up evenly: 2x2 (four channels), 3x3 (9 channels), or variations with one of two large views and several smaller ones (for example, imagine the screen split 3x3, then take the top-left four and combine them into one, leaving five more smaller displays). From the sound of it, the multiplexor you've got isn't even being used (or if it is, it isn't actually needed for the setup you've described). If you're modulating each camera onto a separate channel, do you really NEED to split-screen, or can you live with just flipping between channels? Most devices that give you a split-screen, BTW, will let you select which cameras are viewed on the matrix... so you could have a 2x2 display of, say, entry, front, back, and baby's room, and just skip the billiards room *for that display*. You have six modulated channels available, so you could perhaps, put each of the five cameras on a channel (say, 110-115, for the sake of argument), then on 116 have the 2x2 split-screen. If you want to RECORD all five channels, then you WILL need to upgrade your DVR; however, if there's one you want to display but don't need to record (say, billiards room), you can use the multiplexor to generate your split-screen while having only the four necessary cameras connected to the recorder... Lots of different ways to go here, depending on your needs and priorities.

Web client?

I knew it - Magic Beans Is this guy's name Jack??

You can also use any combination of the following as necessary: