Soundy

Are we talking smooth surface, rough surface, uneven surface? If it's just stone veneer, is there something solid behind it (plywood, for example) that you can screw into? If it's something solid like concrete construction blocks, Tapcon screws work great. Something softer like fire brick, probably want to stick with nylon anchors. It's hard to give a general answer to this - what I use would vary depending on the exact construction.

Some PTZs, when you start them up, will display the baud rate, protocol, and/or camera ID they're set for... watch for it when powering up. Camera ID must match as well.

You need only a single pair of wire to carry your control signal. Connect the TX+ on the DVR to the 485+ on the camera; TX- to 485-. Leave the RX connections alone. There are a few options for wiring... Cat5 will do, but it's overkill if ALL you're running over it is serial control. What I've done in situations like this, is to use Cat5, with one pair for video (with baluns), one pair for serial control, and the two remaining pairs for power. My usual color scheme is blue pair for video (blue for tip, blue/white for ring), brown for control (brown for +, white/brown for -), and the orange+orange/white pair together for one side of the power (+12V for DC) and green+green/white for the other. Aside from that, just about any single pair of wire will do - speaker wire, microphone wire, station wire, Cat3, etc. Twisted-pair is better for longer distances, but up to couple hundred feet, it's probably not necessary.

I've had YET ANOTHER post vanish overnight... This seems to be happening somewhat regularly. Yesterday I posted a reply in this thread: http://www.cctvforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=97971#97971, to destro_23's post, "does VI work with only their own cards? or with any card? are they software only?" Today, that post is gone.

The Vigil software is, IMHO, more "polished" and better-integrated. Search is more powerful, interface is cleaner, analog and IP cameras all work within the same system (last time I set up a hybrid VI system, it needed two separate "server" apps for analog and IP, and you had to run the client app locally if you wanted to view both). Plus our main customers - fuel services - insist on POS integration; Vigil has had it for years, whereas VI has only just recently added it. I've also seen a beta version of Vigil with built-in Analytics. And frankly, Vigil's tech support has always been better. VI does have some advantages, including a proper complete web-based client (Vigil gives you some web-dev stuff to roll your own, but that's it), but I generally prefer the Vigil system.

I'm installing mostly Vigil systems, but then we deal mostly with higher-end applications. For those on a tighter budget, we put together our own VideoInsight systems; they use essentially the same capture cards as the base-model Vigils. We generally try to avoid stand-alones unless the client is insistent on a really cheap solution.

Like the subject says... our work order forms have been uber-lame for ages. I need to find a better design. Anyone have anything I can rip off... er, borrow from?

Wow, really? You use ALL of those?? The Office website was the FIRST place I looked - there's nothing suitable there. I want examples of what people are ACTUALLY USING. [/b]

Well, Thomas seems to be MIA the past few months... and I still don't have access

Just a postulation on where the 10. address is coming from... 10.* and 192.168.* IPs are universally considered as "reserved" for private LANs. With our local telco (Telus), when you use their DSL internet, whatever device you connect to their modem (computer, router, etc.) will initially pull a 10.* address on their internal network. This allows you to connect to their "customer service" page, where you can register your device's MAC address with the system, after which it gets an "outside" internet IP. What may be happening, if you're plugging the DSL modem into one of the router's LAN ports, is that it will acting as a switch, rather than a router, and your DVR is probably pulling a 10.* address from your ISP, and may be intermittently getting a 192.168.* address from the router itself. First thing you want to do, is make sure your DSL modem is connected to the WAN or Internet port on the router.

I have two Capture Fastrax II cameras on a site, one somewhat older than the other. Both were originally hooked up to a Fastrax keyboard/joystick controller, and more recently we've tried to connect them to a DVR. The newer one auto-detects the protocol no problem, but the older one won't work with RS-232 no matter what I do. It wasn't easy, but I did get some docs from ADI-Burtek that actually apply to this camera (Capture's docs site at AVLogic only has the manual for the newer version); I've tried changing baud rates and control protocols (Pelco P and Fastrax supported) but had no success at all. The docs suggest (without actually stating) that RS-232 may not be supported - only 485 and 422. Before I go splurge on an adapter on the HOPE that it MAY help, though, I'm hoping someone else might be familiar with this camera and could offer some help. The ADI-Burtek tech I talked to wasn't familiar with the older model, and I've yet to reach anyone at Capture that's any more useful. Attached are the two switch-setting pages from the docs, in case it will help someone recognize the specific model of camera (firmware is ver. 1.1x).

As far as bathroom windows are concerned, I say, let'em point a camera my bathroom window! If they like what they see, well, great! If they're horrified and go blind from what they see (more likely in my case), then it serves'em right.

There are a number of threads regarding audio recording... perhaps you could check with your local authorities regarding the laws on recording audio along with your video.

Dammit, the board ate one of my posts again! Yeah, you really want to check with local authorities on something like this, as the regulations will really vary. Here in BC, for example, to my understanding, covert audio recording is legal and allowable anywhere... but it's only admissible as evidence in court if there were warning signs up.

Sorry to say, but you'll have a really hard time finding anything analog that's going to cover the WHOLE table in one shot and still allow you to *clearly* identify all the cards. All a longer lens will do is give you a tighter shot and cut out part of the table. Now, you could use a PTZ to zoom closer (tight on each table position) and then scan around the table. Or you could try a high-quality, high-res standard camera with a "megapixel" lens for some extra sharpness, it MAY provide enough detail.

^Seconded - it SHOULD work just fine, and it won't hurt anything to try it first. If it works, great; if not, then you can look at adding a converter.

Like vin2install says, that SHOULD work just fine... if it doesn't, something is probably faulty, be it the camera, the adapter, the cable, or the TV. My money would be on the camera in this case...

Passive should work fine, if you use good-quality cable. Sure, the signal WILL get there, but it will look terrible - expect severe noise and ghosting artifacts. Well, you can always go with individual baluns on each wire pair, for a total of 8 single-channel units... but that will probably cost even more. Yes.

Thanks for the info. What cable should we use for connecting IR cameras located at 60 meters? Well, take the complete quote in context: "Do not use coax that is designed for the Cable, and Sat dish...". That's typically RG-58, sometimes RG-6. All-copper RG-6 is fine; RG-59 is best for your purpose. Everyone here is big on siamese cable (coax and power attached together) and it is pretty convenient to use, but the last time I used any, it was a lot pricier than using straight RG-59 and a separate run of station-Z wire for the power. The camera itself is usually the largest factor, and the "fantastic" pictures you see here are usually coming from cameras in the $500+ range, be they analog or IP. As with so much else, you really get what you pay for, and you have to balance price vs. desired quality.

Could be missing a codec on the machine with the remote viewer, or a necessary ActiveX component, or there could be a necessary port or ports blocked by a firewall. Just for starters

Umm, maybe you could be a little more specific as to the exact camera. Most don't accept input - cameras are generally output devices.

Depends on the situation... if it's a new install, new construction, going all Cat6 is probably preferable for the long run - not only are you future-ready, it's probably more cost-effective on the whole to buy only one type of cable (bulk pricing) and not have to mix-and-match different cable types.

This is true; going off a junction box is not the best idea if you're using iron pipe. What I've done for that, to run the wire inside it, is to attach a proper flange directly to the roof, Q-deck, or whatever the site has for attaching to, and then used a short piece of pipe, into a T-fitting, and then continuing the long section down to the camera. The wiring can then be fed in through the Tee. I've mostly used this for hanging monitors, though, where the extra strength is required. Much better idea for hanging cameras. Herictopia, the box you'd use in this case would be something like this: You'd then use a cover plate similar to this: Punch out the center hole, and put in a fitting like this: The EMT (conduit) pipe then bolts into that using the drill-and-set-screw method Survtech describes. Use another fitting and other mounting apparatus at the other end of the EMT as required for the specific camera mount. Your wiring then goes in through one of the knockouts in the side of the octagonal box, and down through the EMT to the camera.

The pipe thing is mostly just to get the camera down at or below the level of the girders, in case they're in the way of the shot. If they aren't, then lowering the camera may not be necessary. The other thing to consider, is that the higher the camera is, the sharper the angle to a given point on the ground, and the more you'll see of the tops of things. If you want to see faces, for example, you probably want to get the camera lower, or you'll just see people's bald spots.

EPIC POST.