Soundy

"Interference"? Huh? "Those guys" who? Doesn't make sense... I run a number of domains off my cable connection using EasyDNS... lots of subdomains pointing at different locations too (client sites, using "clientname.lps-cctv.com" for customers with remote DVR access on cable/dsl connections). Have NO problems or "interference". Just as a generic recommendation for ANY reliable PC. A good proportion of systems I see die, the primary culprit is heat, and the root of that is poor cooling. A cheap machine with good cooling will usually outlast a very pricy, high-quality one that runs too hot for a long time. RAM is so cheap, I'd max it out, just because. But yeah, no special graphics capabilities needed - on-board VGA should suffice. All it's going to be used for is your local control of the machine, right? Yeah, we use the IQeye cameras. They do have a couple models that do H.264 (look at the Pro Line), although according to their site, it only does that at VGA resolution, which is kind of a waste of a megapixel camera. If you're only needing to broadcast at VGA (640x480) there are probably much cheaper cameras.

Wow, that's impressive. Fair enough! Well, there are several options. If you have a static IP, you can just register a domain with any registrar and point it to your connection (they'll either need to provide DNS services, or you'll have to set up your own DNS, of course). Or there are a number of services that will work with dynamic IPs to keep a domain pointed at you. Personally, I use one that does both: www.easydns.com. Registrar and DNS host with dynamic-IP support (they link to several third-party clients and scripts that can be used to update your IP on the DNS if it changes; I use one called DynSite). They cost a little more than the bulk registrars like GoDaddy, but their support has been outstanding over the 10 years or so I've been using them. Like I say, just about anything available off-the-shelf today should suffice... a bigger concern for me would probably be getting a reliable system, something with quality components and good cooling.

Depending on the cameras' output, you might be able to use something like Windows Media Server from Microsoft, or VLC, to run your own streaming server...

6-9Mbit upstream?? That's unheard of for upstream... how did you test it?? Try http://www.speedtest.net, they give you a link for your result, like this: I haven't used any streaming hosts myself, so I can't really recommend one offhand, but if you have that kind up upstream, you shouldn't need one. As far as the IP, you could always check with Comcast if they provide static IPs as an option. Most broadband providers do, at a slight extra cost (I think around $10/mo. is the norm). I'd say just about anything you can buy off-the-shelf these days should be more than sufficient. I don't... others here might. Probably not. Or more accurately, it probably is POSSIBLE (flash new firmware), but you're unlikely to find different firmware ready-made. If you're capable of rolling your own, you can probably get an SDK from most cameras' manufacturers. Some MIGHT be willing to customize the interface for you, no doubt at a substantial extra cost.

I'm with ya there! The one that bugs me is the tendency to refer to megapixel cameras as "HDTV" - other than the fact that a few of them match HD spec resolutions (720 or 1080, either natively or via internal cropping), using what's essentially a hot marketing buzzword really does sell the technology and capabilities short. I dunno, I've seen more... I'd almost call it paranoia, about IP/megapixel in here, than I ever have in "the real world". Anyone I've shown megapixel views to has been amazed at the picture. Nobody yet has balked at the IP technology itself. The costs may be out of the budget for many, but those are the same people you can't sell on a $3000 PTZ or a $600 SDIII. But again, those, as with megapixel and IP, are usually for more specialized purposes, and as such are more expensive. Nothing unusual about that. Absolutely. But that street goes both ways as well. I'm a proponent of whatever will get the job done best... and at least for our clients, we find a LOT of instances where megapixel is a BIG improvement, as long as the budget allows. Sure, it's a problem when they're overused... but it's very often true. In fuel services, for example, when they want to be able to read plates of cars at the pumps, a single 1.3MP camera very easily takes the place of two or even three analog cameras. There, you're saving not just the cost of the second camera, but of its housing, and yes, its cabling as well. Hey, I've had to talk a customer out of using the wrong technology as well... I mentioned before a large client (an upscale restaurant chain) that we stole from a competitor who wouldn't (or couldn't) supply the megapixel cameras they wanted for their new flagship store. They wanted a MP cam for their front door ID shot. I pointed out the terrible backlighting that would exist there and that the MP cams wouldn't be able to handle it... so they went initially with the same WDR domes that were spec'd through the rest of store... found even those couldn't handle it, and we eventually put in the CP484 that should have been there in the first place (and even the SDIII has problems with the backlighting - it took me a good 45 minutes of noodling with the settings to get it really working well). Well sure.... it's something NEW. Naturally the benefits have to be touted. You get the same arguments over, say, hybrid cars vs. standard driveline designs... or plasma/lcd vs. CRT TVs (CRT still *look* better, as far as I'm concerned - a 60" HDTV CRT would be ideal, I think, except for the dedicated nuclear plant it would take to power it). That's alright, my bill is in the mail

Probably an unfortunate side-effect of a lazy employee and a very liberal return policy... An acquaintance of mine who used to work for Home Repot told me some very scary stories of things people were "allowed" to return. Worst example was the woman who brought in a very scuzzy, very obviously well-used, and very clearly NOT originally from Home Depot, section of drain pipe and fittings from her bathroom sink, claiming she'd bought it the previous day (she had the receipt!), and found that it was the wrong fit, and wanting her money back. Well naturally, the CSR refused. The woman raised a fuss and wanted to talk to the store manager. He turned her down as well, pointing out that the piping was too used to have been bought the previous day, and that it was of a design they didn't even carry. She raised the fuss even higher, so he offered her a phone to call their "customer satisfaction" line. After several minutes of fussing at three different levels of management there, the verdict finally came down: take the pipe, give her the refund. There were apparently stories of people getting entire kitchens for free as well. Similar ideas: order kitchen, have it installed, claim it's all wrong and you want your money back... something like that, it's cheaper for them just to refund and leave it there than to take it all back out again and then deal with storing or reselling it (everything is customized so it's not really usable for anyone else).

It MIGHT be possible, if the drive is removed and plugged into a computer with recovery/undelete software. Will depend a lot on how the disk is normally formatted. Keep in mind that if as long as you have it running, it will be overwriting any residual data that's there, which will reduce the chances of recovering anything. Hard to give you anything more specific than that without knowing the actual make and model of the machine...

Be sure to bring plenty of food and a soft pillow I've often wanted a "logging" multimeter that could keep a running tab on voltage (or whatever else it measures)... plug it into my laptop afterward, download the log, show it on a chart.... mmmmm, technology.

I don't know about losing control, but I did have a PTZ continually resetting itself once... it was at the end of about 200' of 18/2 power, and didn't become a problem until I replaced a failing Capture MiniTrax dome with a larger Pelco Spectra III. As it turned out, the long run was dropping just enough voltage that the MiniTrax (with lower current demands) didn't have a problem, but within seconds of the Spectra completed its boot-up cycle and startits its programmed tour, the higher draw would cause the voltage to drop just enough to cause a reboot. The solution there was to move the power supply MUCH closer to the camera... So, my first thought would be to monitor the voltage *at the camera*, and *with the camera operating*. Depending on how far it is from the power now, I suspect you'll see significant variation as you move the camera around.

Gotcha. Okay, well aside from flipping the monitor, or flipping the playback in software, I'm out of ideas... maybe someone else can chime in with a suitable camera. I suppose, if you wanted to get really hardcore, you might be able to physically flip the camera board within its pan/tilt mechanism... depending on the exact camera design, of course; it will be easier with some than with others. Not something I ever looked at doing though, so I couldn't tell you which designs would be more conducive to it.

Well, no, because until now you haven't been this specific about your needs - you asked for "desktop mount", then narrowed it down to "back of a van for surveillance". All our suggestions have been based on that. "Covert to mount on a parcel shelf" is a whole other story. Well, again, the (potential) problem you're going to have with almost all dome-style cameras is that they won't tilt past the horizontal... so even if you can flip the image, you'd only be able to tilt from straight-across to straight-up; you won't be able to look downward at all. This may or may not be an issue for you, but it'll be a lot harder for anyone to recommend something without knowing whether that's a criteria. Of course, if you're recording this camera for later viewing, you can always flip it in software before or during playback (VLC video player will do realtime rotation on playback). Again, we're working off limited information. Worst case, you could just mount the monitor upside-down as well... sorry if that sounds flip, but off the top of my head I don't know of an analog camera that will do what you want (doesn't mean they don't exist, of course), so I don't know what else to suggest.

That is such a ....well I am trying to find a nice way to say the word Immature.....statement and one most IP pro people use it simply is not worth arguing with ... And you obviously missed the part-snide/part-tongue-in-cheek point of that statement.

Okay, well that should be a huge data stream, especially if you're using H.264-capable cameras. Correct. Kinda depends on your connection. What sort of upstream bandwidth do Comcast and Qwest provide? Around here, our cable provider, Shaw, has different tiers of service with different upstream/downstream limits. I think 512kbit uplinks are the norm with most cable broadband services these days... I know some used to actually limit their customers' upstream connections to 128kbit, but I doubt that's the case anymore. You'll also want to check on any usage limits they may have in place - some will cut you off if you go over a certain amount, or may charge extra. A business account rather than a residential one may have different limits. All that is questions you'd have to ask your provider. If you're comparing services, they're important points to consider. If any of that is an issue, then it might be time to look at a streaming host - a site where you send them the feed from your system, thus effectively having only one "user" to each camera , and users then connect to them to view it.

I totally agree with this statement, I hate that all too familiar statement saying that IP cameras can do twice the res so therefore if they are twice the res then they should equate to twice the cost..........try pulling that stunt with almost ANY design in the market, try telling a grocery store with multiple aisles that a single camera can do the job of two.....what rubbish, it can not see from one aisle into the other ...try to picture the scenario...if a camera is placed in an Aisle in the middle looking up it...it can not see the next aisle , but two cameras could... If you had a camera on the inside of a doorway and the outside, the inside one cant see to the outside....so how does 1 camera benefit...now before you say "ok for that situation" I would argue that more than half of installs would not require a large open area...where MP cameras are an advantage....granted if you specialise in this area....then all well and great but as an average I would think that in most instances more cameras and more angles are better than one larger view. Ah, but this is the thing: each has its own place, its own advantages and disadvantages. Nobody's saying IP is the be-all and end-all replacement for analog systems. The issue I have here is with those who seem intent on dismissing it *in general* because they see no advantages to it *for their purposes*. Constantly bringing up, for example, that "gaming commissions don't allow it casinos because of blah blah blah" as an argument against its use *for anything* is really very silly - one, because there are lots of other people and businesses besides casinos that use cameras, and two, because it's a ridiculous blanket statement that's not universally true: SOME gaming commissions may not allow it, but NOT ALL of them. Okay, there's another issue here, for me: "IP" and "megapixel" are being used interchangeably, and they are NOT always the same thing. As others have noted, there are IP cameras that are 4CIF or lower resolution. As others like to keep pointing out, there are megapixel cameras (in development, at least) that don't use IP. And of course, you can plug an analog camera into a video-server box, thus effectively turning it into an IP camera, while still retaining your major pros of analog cameras (particularly the handling of tough lighting). So when you're stacking your pros and cons, it's maybe a good idea to differentiate between "IP" and "megapixel"... many of megapixel's issues have nothing to do with IP technology, and none of IP's drawbacks have anything to do with the megapixel sensors. It may be picking nits, but this blurring of the two really irks me... it's like saying a pickup truck is better than a Mack truck because the semi's diesel exhaust stinks... the comparison falls apart if you bring a diesel pickup into the mix... Anyway, just to further muddy the waters, I had a couple other absurd thoughts on the issue... for example: As far as points of failure, the major SINGLE point of failure for an IP camera network is the switch - a failure there takes out all the cameras; it's the one piece of hardware that they all connect into, that consolidates all their signals. Well... an analog DVR also has a single point of failure, a single piece of equipment that all the cameras connect to, that consolidates all their signals. And yes, I have had capture cards fail. It's rare, but it happens... same as with network switches. And for that matter, if the "star" topology of an analog DVR setup, where every camera runs straight to the recorder and has its own input, is really that beneficial... well... your NVR can be done up the same way: separate NIC for every camera, one single cable run straight from each camera to its dedicated NIC. Same number of wires, same number of connectors. Yeah, it's a little extreme, but... well, it addresses another point. Ultimately, with several dozen of systems in the field, a couple pure IP, several hybrid, most analog, I've had ONE failure of a switch, ONE failure of a capture card, the occasional failure of a camera or maybe an iris... and NUMEROUS cases of failing hard drives, fried power supplies, blown motherboard capacitors, and all manner of other instances of the DVR/NVR itself going down. Frankly, if a single point of failure is that great a concern, you're better to do away with the DVR/NVR altogether, because that is by far the weakest link in the system.

That's why I say, I'm pretty sure VNC (at least some flavors of it) have options for better handling of overlays - as in, ignore them, don't display/send them, etc. As an example, UltraVNC has a "video mirror driver" that, according to the docs, "makes a direct link between the video driver frammebuffer memory and UltraWinVNC server". The author notes, "While the mirror driver is active(vnc has a connection), overlay is not supported. The mirror driver in general disable hardware acceleration while being used. " .... Okay, just tested it... UVNC server on a Vigil DVR, UVNC client on my workstation (the machine I'm typing on right now). Viewing the DVR over the VNC conncetion, I get the typical horrid response and low-color video from the camera displays... with UVNC's "mirror driver" enabled, the video first disappears, but if I click one of the camera buttons, I actually get usable moving realtime video to the client (!!). Just to give you an idea how smooth it is: I have a TV right beside my monitor. The camera is pointed at the TV, the DVR is recording at 4CIF, and the live display on the DVR is running about 6-7fps (rough guess). Movement on the TV shows up on the VNC viewer in less than a second (granted, this is running VNC over a 100Mbit LAN). Response is smooth enough that I can easily zoom and focus the camera watching the VNC display of the DVR. Might be worth looking into... www.uvnc.com. The server install gives you an option to download the mirror driver, but it won't actually install it - for that you have to unzip the package, run the install.bat in the appropriate Windows version folder, and reboot, then go into the server properties and tick the box to enable the mirror driver. I suspect this may suit your needs!

I can maybe help you with the first issue - depending on what version of VNC you're using, there should be options for better handling of overlays (I use UltraVNC, which also has a handy online service to create a standalone mini-server that's useful for remote support). I've also used Remote Administrator successfully on systems with the same sort of display issues.

The problem with most common "hanging" PTZ designs is that they don't go "up" beyond the horizontal... which means when you invert them, they won't go "down" beyond horizontal. down_under has the right idea, I think - this is the aforementioned Esprit, which is along those lines:

No local storage, just remote viewing? What resolution are these cameras? We talking VGA, or megapixel? It shouldn't take a whole lot, really... the heavy processing is all done at the camera, so all the computer needs to do is route the data accordingly. If you're not storing it locally, the reduces the hardware needs even more. I think pretty much universally, you'll get the answer "H.264". The only other concern I'd have is, how many users are you going to have viewing this remotely? Remember that every incoming connection will need its own bandwidth, and the more people you have trying to view it, the slower it will get for all of them. If you're doing this over a standard residential broadband connection, which usually has very limited upstream speed, and you'll have a number of remote viewers, you might want to consider the use of a media-streaming service as well - then your system only needs to push out a single feed to the service, and they provide the big pipe to the users.

Anyone know of a manual-iris, fixed 2.8mm, C/CS-mount, 1/2" megapixel lens... that's better than f/1.4? Preferably f/1? Even f/1.2 would be an improvement...

Thanks, I'll give those a look! The IQs don't have iris drivers, so it'll have to be manual-iris lenses all around.

Just because they are able to set up an IP camera, doesnt mean the video surveillance application is being done right. As to learning "IP", a 5 year old can do that these days. So what I am trying to work out at the moment is can you setup two Vlans on one switch that are connected together without a router then use IGMP policies to filter out specific multicast groups. This is an option to the easier task of filtering ports via a firewall or bridge. While I can make this work is it in the design specs of IGMP V3 and VLAN 802.1p/q Or is there a chance that if I deploy this it will fail if we introduce new switches at some stage in the future. Also how difficult will this become to manage and will Dynamic vlan port allocation become an issue. Has anyone got a list of switches that don't default to IGMP and treat multicasts as broadcasts by default? Does anyone know the answer to these? Damn, boy! I understand what most of that stuff IS, but how it all works is still beyond my scope I'd love to learn all that stuff, but nothing we've done thus far is anywhere near that complex, so I don't think I could make a business case for the cost of training. As noted elsewhere, most of our larger IP or hybrid installs so far, we've just set up a dedicated LAN for the cameras, NVR and NAS. The one exception was the latest job for a gas station, and in that case, their corporate IT guys allocated partitioned ports on their switch for us - they pre-configured the thing and sent it to their installer along with a list of which ports we were to use. Far as I can tell, our partition is completely isolated from their network - they didn't even give a range of IPs to use, just said to use whatever we normally use. Actually, I don't mind that type of setup, either - as long as my wiring is good, my responsibility ends at the patchbay. If the switch isn't set up right, that's not my problem Worst case, I could just slap in a separate switch until they get it sorted out. The only downside is, they don't use PoE switches, so I still have to run power to the cameras. PITA!

1280x1024 is only 1.3MP. According to one handy calculator, 1.3MP @ 10fps for 14 days, with H.264 compression at "good" quality, will require about 160GB per camera (assuming 50% record activity and average scene complexity). You'll probably find dropping it down to 5fps is sufficient; remember, you're recording for security, not for making movies. IQEye is another good brand of megapixel camera you might look at - they have several models in the sub-$1000 range, right down to around the $500 range. They also sell cameras bundled with lenses, for one-stop shopping - they have a 4-10mm lens that's a good "generic" zoom range, as well as some 2.5-7mm models, and even a 1.6-3.5mm if you want to get ridiculously wide. Internet stability won't matter to the cameras, as long as they're on the same switch/router as the NVR. And no, no special card is required, other than maybe a 1Gbit network card to handle the traffic (assuming you have a gigabit switch or a router with gigabit ports, of course). For networking them all, I can highly recommend the Linksys SFE1000P switch - it has eight 10/100 ports with Power-over-Ethernet (so the cameras don't require a separate power run), as well as two gigabit ports to connect your NVR, and some NAS storage if need be. I've used several of these units now for exactly that purpose (anywhere from four to seven 1.3MP IQ511 cameras, a Vigil hybrid DVR, and 6.5TB of storage on a network RAID5 array) and they've been stellar performers. One of the extra ports can be used to connect to your home LAN (ie. your router) for remote access. I know this is all starting to sound really spendy and you're being budget-conscious, but the simple fact is, megapixel video is still on the higher end of the industry. The cameras have come down a LOT in price in the last couple years (the IQ cameras we use most have dropped to about a third of the price they were two years ago), but there's still not much overlap between the low end there, and the high end of analog cameras - the benefit is that you usually don't need as many of them. Storage is getting ridiculously cheap as well (you can get a terabyte drive for just over $100), but with megapixel, you still need a lot more of it. Consider that max capture resolution for NTSC analog will be around 720x480, and 1.3MP at 1280x1024 is *four times* the resolution, with the equivalent increase in storage requirements (assuming the same compression type). Go to 2, 3, 5MP and beyond, and, well... And when it comes to the networking, cheaping out will just lead to headaches, as low-end switches (like a $40 5-port 10/100 Belkin) won't handle the traffic very well of four+ cameras going at 10fps. The Linksys I mentioned retails for around $300 but is well worth it, based on my experience. Not trying to talk you out of your plans, mind you - just injecting a little realism, since you did mention budget: what you want to do will NOT be cheap. The one bright side is that you don't need a ridiculously powerful machine to handle all this, as the heavy processing is pretty much all done at the camera - all the NVR needs to do is file all the data away and facilitate looking it up later. For software, you can take a look at Vigil - they have a downloadable 30-day demo available (www.3xlogic.com), and if you should ever want to add analog cameras at a later date, it can also operate as a hybrid system (with supported capture cards).

U mean RG6 right ? Er, right... RG56 is generally for CB/ham radio use.

Are you saying that I "fear" the IT side? Far from it. As a matter of fact, quite the reverse is true. As the Network Administrator of our system, I know much more IT than the average CCTV installer. ... As I said, we can't take advantage of the casino's IT department due to regulations so we are on our own or have to hire outside integrators every time the system needs to be upgraded or expanded; an even more costly proposition. Fair enough... perhaps a broader, more accurate description would be "fearing what you can't control".

Actually, the screw-type connectors on #1 and #5 there are called "F-connectors" - F59 for RG59 cable (typically used for CATV) and F56 for RG56 (usually used for satellite). "Coax" is a bit of a broad term for connectors, as BNCs are most commonly used with coax cable as well. Technically, F, BNC and RCA are all coaxial connectors (along with a few other designs you won't likely come across in CCTV).