Soundy

Define "cooler"? It's been an early summer here in the eastern 'burbs of Vancouver, highs most of the 33C-34C range (that's 91-93 for you 'merkins)

I do not think is is a lack of standards perse as more of the price range that people are willing to spend. Well, to put the two thoughts together: it's the lack of standards, within the price range that people are willing to spend. Upper-end stuff does use established standards... unfortunately those standards are themselves pretty upper-end and thus rather pricey.

I've installed lots and lots of megapixel cameras. They don't REQUIRE "special" lenses, but what you find is that the higher resolution starts to show up the imperfections in cheaper lenses (poor sharpness, etc.). Thus, most manufacturers have a higher-quality "megapixel" lens line that will generally yield crisper, clearer images. Storage requirements do increase, as even a lowly 1.3MP camera is four times the resolution of 4CIF/D1. HOWEVER, consider that a single MP camera can, in some instances, take the place of two or three analog cameras, and the difference diminishes. And really, the space argument is a non-starter - I mean, why record at 4CIF or D1, when it takes so much more space than CIF? Answer: because you get a better quality image with better detail. More detail will always require more data and thus more storage. If it's that big a deal, just record at 160x120 and one frame every 10 seconds... it's all the same, right?

It probably maxes out at 50mm because that's the biggest lens that will fit inside the dome housing. Instead, look into a WV-CP484, the "box camera" version of that dome. That will let you use pretty much any available C/CS-mount lens that suits your needs, with all the same features (SDIII, auto-backfocus, etc.). Right now I'm looking at an f/1.8 5.5-82.5mm lens that would suit this use nicely. Mount it and the camera in a good environmental housing (Pelco EH3512, for example) and you're good to go. One consideration: with capturing moving objects like this, you want the highest shutter speed possible to avoid motion blur. Especially at night and in low-light situations, most cameras will need to drop the shutter speed to allow more light in. It's important to find the "fastest" lens (ie. with a larger maximum aperture) that you can - the more light the lens allows through, the faster the shutter you can use. In this case, f/1.8 may not be enough; you may need to try for f/1.4-f/1.2 or better, if they exist. That may also require avoiding varifocals and going for a fixed-focal length lens (as varifocal construction makes for larger, more complex and more expensive designs). Tamron has a handy lens calculator on their site - I plugged in the viewing distance as 125ft. and the field width as 8ft. and got the following:

That's a pretty extreme example. A *single* 4MP camera requires very little computing power (by today's standards) to handle recording it. PoE is used only as a conveniences; it's not a necessity. Setting up a complete network and static IPs is not a necessity, especially for a single camera; neither is QoS. A single IP camera can be very happily added to anyone's home network, plugged straight into any off-the-shelf home-grade broadband router without messing up Internet surfing or VoIP phones, and can be recorded with free or very inexpensive NVR software installed on any existing PC in the house... or all of them, for that matter. Most cameras will pull an IP from the router's DHCP server, so little or no configuration is needed. The only added expense *required* is the camera itself. Well, you could ask yourself the same question about your car, and decide to just walk everywhere you go. I mean, they run out of gas, you have to know how to fill up every few hundred miles, you have to get the oil changed and stuff fixed now and then (mechanic = "tech support")... such a horrible hassle and expense! The problem - as has been covered here many times - is the video standards and encoding used. To do it over your cable, you required new hardware (high-def tuner box, generally)... to do something similar with CCTV would also require new hardware. How much did your HD cable box cost? Around here, the basic ones start at $400. Now multiply that by the number of channels you want to record... Of course, that then requires the camera manufacturers to get onboard with a new standard... and the analog/digital converter manufacturers (ie. the people who make the capture cards). And then you have to get everyone to actually agree to and settle on a new high-definition analog-video standard that they're going to use for both cameras and capture devices, or you end up with a lot of proprietary gear that only works with stuff from the same manufacturer. So let's say, to keep it simple and stick with established standards, you actually decide to use HDTV spec - 1080p at best. That gives you a resolution of 1920x1080, or about 2MP. *At most.* That will also require either a component-video feed - ie. THREE coax cables - or a very expensive HDMI cable that's limited to about 25-30' in length. Or you do it like the cable company, digitize the signal, then modulate it for transmission over RF, only to demodulate it on the other end, extract the digital programming, and then spit out analog video from that... seems kind of extraneous when you can simply send the digital signal directly over IP. Well the difference is, megapixel wasn't right FOR YOUR SITUATION. The way cctv(non)expert goes on about it, you'd think they were never right for anyone, for any purpose, at any time. Would one be right for you if you had a large, brightly-lit area that you needed a lot of detail on? Well, as your criteria change, so do your solutions. $1k+ for 5MP may be overkill for that; $300-$400 for 1.0-1.3MP may suffice. By the same token, a really bad high-contrast backlighting situation may call for a $600 Super-Dynamic III or similar type analog camera, because of its special capabilities (as it did in a situation I just addressed a couple days ago, in fact). We even recently talked a client out of using an IP camera for just such an installation and going with a CP484 SDIII analog camera, because we knew the IP options wouldn't handle the severe backlighting this camera would be faced with. Simply dismissing an entire branch of technology because it doesn't suit *one specific* purpose is, frankly, ridiculous.

So various technical and legal concerns aside, the biggest problem to mixing-and-matching wireless cameras is the complete lack of standards throughout the industry... unless you use WiFi.

In addition to that, some cameras have the capability to send still and video clips by email or ftp (or both), either on a scheduled basis or an event basis.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cctv+lens+calculator

What can i do to solve that problem? Very helpful thanks a lot! See bolded text above...

Are these all (at least the IRs) 12VDC-powered cameras? If so, you may have a ground-loop issue. Try powering each camera off its own individual transformer (wall-wart style), or at least test it on 3-4 of the cameras simultaneously, and see if that clears up the probelm.

Scorpion's idea was good, but I still prefer C7 in CA's "privacy screen".

Not really - without knowing what sort of DVR the DISC came from, it's impossible to know what the format is of the video it contains. Without knowing what format that video is in, it's impossible to give one definitive solution. Most of my answer above still applies - does it require a proprietary player or codec, can it be loaded into any common media player with a readily-available codec, or is more hacking around going to be necessary? Without more information on the files we're dealing with here, there are numerous POSSIBLE options, but nobody can say definitely which one will work.

So your telling me a 10/100 switch can't handle 16megs of data? I'm saying it may not handle it as efficiently or effectively, especially on a constant basis, as a more expensive 10/100 switch. It may be fine with bursts of data but not so much under constant load. That's just one suggestion, anyway... there are plenty of other possible reasons that it may be having problems. Bottom line, though: there are reasons why a $300 switch costs more than a $100 switch, when most of the relevant specs are the same. It's hard to comment on that without knowing the test conditions - what resolution are they running the ACTIs at? What framerate? What compression? How much movement (scene changes)? etc. etc. All things that affect the amount of traffic. And "without a problem" is subjective - if you hadn't tried the cameras on the LinkSys, you might not know that the slow performance is "a problem" and might just accept it as normal... likewise for those "different people", they might be experiencing similar issues but don't consider it a problem. There's always that possibility.

I use BNC-to-RCA adapters all the time (and RCA-to-BNC), they make no difference to the image quality whatsoever. If you've had problems with them in the past, they were either of EXTREMELY low quality (and I mean EXTREMELY poor - I've used dollar-store adapters in a pinch with no problems), or they were dirty/corroded, or you had a really weak video signal to begin with. As for IP, I don't deal with GeoVision, but I believe they have IP support in their later versions. The catch is that you have to use cameras that are supported in the software; you'll need to check their website for a list (or someone here might pipe up with that info).

What kind of outputs DO they have?

There are times when cost is a pretty good indicator of quality and performance, moreso than just the specs... like with car stereo amps, where output power ratings can be easily fudged and at times seem almost made-up. My old system had one amp rated 2x30W that retailed at $600, and it completely blew the doors off the $150 2x65W amp, for example. In this case, you're comparing what's essentially an $80 switch (with PoE support adding about 50% to that cost), to a $300 switch, so yeah, there will be performance differences (granted, part of that $300 also gets you management features).

Part of the problem might be that you're cramming all that data through a single 100Mbit connection to the DVR. Try something that has a gigabit port or two for the DVR to run on. We've used these on several sites now with multiple megapixel cameras, and it works great: http://a-power.com/product-6481 (BTW, toni, that Netgear doesn't do PoE)

Like I said, that's exactly what "Virtual PTZ" is...

That will depend on the lens itself, and to some degree, how the backfocus is set up. Any lens should be able to focus on or past infinity, so it becomes more a question of how close you can focus.

So how do you do this with 2 computers? Easiest way, transfer a file from one to the other, see how long it takes. Not the most accurate method, but it'll give you a fair idea.

I think the issue here is your posting style can be confused with what spammers do. We all learn from each other and I would rather see what contributions you have to offer, other than spamming your products. anyway,my friend,Thanks for your remind,i will notice my action ,we think we will learn form each other in the future You have to post more than just "MSN me!" for us to learn anything from you. Learning is supposed to be a two-way street here.

No - that will depend on the card. Some WILL record at full 240fps at D1 resolution. Again, all that will depend on the card and its specific design. Don't assume - check the card's specs and documentation. If they don't cover it, ask the manufacturer. If THEY can't answer it, run away from the thing and buy one with reliable support. That will depend partly on the card and partly on the software, but in most cases, you will be able to.

Sure you could, but that that makes for a couple of pretty bulky testers. Fluke makes a range of "standalone" network analyzers and testers: http://www.flukenetworks.com/fnet/en-us/products/Industry.htm?categorycode=INET

That's exactly what they are - you'd simply connect the transformer to the input terminals (the pair of screws in the bottom-right on that picture), and then each camera to its own pair of terminals as appropriate. 1A is fine. The main purpose of the fuse is to protect your wiring - if, for example, the wires get shorted together, the fuse will blow before it either fries the transformer, or worse, starts a fire. Powering the transformer off a single power bar with surge suppression should suffice. If you're in a problem area (inconsistent power, frequent lightning storms), make sure you get a good-quality one, and not some $5 special.

Point a camera at each monitor? www.pinouts.ru for all your pinout-wiring needs The best solution in this case would be simply use DVRs (or DVR software, if applicable) with a client that allows connection to multiple servers. An excellent example of this would be Vigil DVRs, whose client can connect to and display multiple servers on the same screen, and even allows you to create "groups" of cameras from different servers to display together at a single click. It should also work with any DVR that allows web-based viewing - just open a separate browser window for each system you want to monitor, then resize them all to fit on the screen together.