Soundy

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.

If all he wants is broad over-views of the work areas, then putting the cameras up that high is probably even preferable, as it will give a wider shot and reduce the chance of actually seeing any identifiable faces, in case anyone has any concerns about that. The only potential issue would be the girders partially blocking the views, so mounting the cameras to the girders , or even just at their level, may be desirable. There are a couple ways to do this. One, you could use "beam clamps" (often used by sprinkler guys) to clamp to the girders. They typically look like this: . You'd attach the camera mount via the bolt-hole on the bottom. The other common option to use a piece of pipe to extend the camera down from the Q-deck - I've commonly used an octagonal junction box and a cover plate with a threaded hole, and a length of iron pipe, into a dome enclosure.

I dunno about Geo, but on the Vigil systems with the XECAP cards (one switched-analog and one virtualized MUX output), the MUX output can display whatever IP cams are supported. Since the output is generated by the system, it can be fed whatever the software can draw.

We have a PC-based (Windows XP) DVR in a site that seems to regularly be "missing" video from some cameras. Ongoing troubleshooting has narrowed it down to those cameras conveniently being turned off somehow at "convenient" times, or someone tampering with the DVR. We're hoping at some point soon to add a hidden camera to watch the DVR, but in the meantime, I'm looking for some sort of covert keylogger/activity logger, preferably freeware or open-source, that I can install on the machine before I take it back to them (I've had a loaner in while testing their original machine, and they're reporting the same symptoms with it). Has anyone done anything like this before, and does anyone have any suggestions for what to use?

Just one other note: the main PHYSICAL difference between RG-59 and RG-6 is the size (thickness) of the center dielectric - it's larger with RG-6, in most cases requiring a different connector than RG-59. This is true for most crimp-on connectors (including compression-fit types), and since the overall cable diameter is correspondingly larger as well, will also affect most twist-on designs.

I've used a LinkSys SFE-1000P for two different sites now, and been pretty happy with them. They have eight 10/100 PoE ports and two fiber/GbE (gigabit ethernet) ports - cameras go on the PoE ports, DVR and NAS RAID rack go on the gigabit ports, and everyone gets along nicely! They have management capability as well, but I haven't yet had need for it. Sure, they're just two different types of wire. Current PoE supply spec is, I believe, 48VDC at up to 15.4W, as MYA notes; PoE devices should be able to operate on anything over 12-15VDC, so line loss shouldn't be an issue except over a VERY long distance... and remember that ethernet over Cat-5e is limited to 100m anyway. Cameras should not be burning out unless: a) the camera doesn't adhere to the spec; b) the source doesn't adhere to the spec; c) there's a serious wiring problem. I've had a couple cameras die on PoE, and it was specifically because of a wiring problem.

Why not just use the remote client software? Much more convenient for browsing/searching recorded video. Besides, you don't want to be "changing" the original files if you ever plan to use them for evidence of any sort.

Actually, there's analog in a DVI output as well, on separate pins... hence your basic DVI-VGA adapters that most DVI-equipped cards come with.

It would help if you had a link to the specific cables you're talking about, but at a guess, I'd say the cable is intended for component-video output - separate red, green and blue signals - and won't work unless your TV also accepts component input. What DVR card are you using? Doesn't it have an RCA composite-video output?

The problem with cheap cameras like that is... well, the image quality is cheap too, especially in low light. Don't expect to get any sort of usable picture at night unless you're parked in a very-well-lit area. Even right under a street light probably won't be enough for evidence-quality ID, although it might give you an idea who it is if it's someone you know.

Don't expect great quality going from PC display down to TV, regardless of which way you do it. My PC's ATI All-in-Wonder card, with built-in tuner, has composite and S-video outputs, and at XGA resolutions only large text is really readable on my 14" monitor (an old Commodore 1701!) Doing a dual-monitor setup in this way can be tricky, as well, because with most cards, Windows won't activate or acknowledge the second output unless the TV is connected and turned on at startup. DVI is "digital video interface" and is the new standard over VGA - frankly, if your computer monitor supports DVI (as most LCDs do now), you should be using that instead of the VGA out, as it will generally give you a crisper, cleaner picture.

There are a number of ways to do it, depending on the DVR and the TV and desired final result. Most newer TVs (flat panels particularly) have VGA, DVI or HDMI inputs that can be fed directly from your DVR PC. You could also use something like an AverKey to convert a VGA display to S-video or composite. Most PC DVR cards I've seen have an analog-out that will feed one camera (usually selectable in software) via composite, that could be get into a regular A/V input on your TV. Modulators that will put a composite or s-video signal onto channel 3 or 4 are cheap and easy to come by, but beyond that, you're probably looking at several hundred dollars for something designed specifically for CCTV to modulate it onto a higher channel, if you want to go that route.

That opinion is garbage. Why would a "professional" want to limit himself like that? Standalone systems are great for what they are, but they're generally more limited than PC systems - for starters, they're nowhere near as expandable: I have a PC-based DVR in one site with almost 10TB of storage, with three internal 1TB drives and a network-attached RAID with eight more 1TB drives in a RAID-5 configuration for another 6.5TB available. I haven't yet run across a standalone that supports external storage in any form, be it USB, Firewire, or NAS. I've also not yet run into one that supports more than two internal drives, and most are very picky about specific brands and models. And the first time you have to enter camera and system names by spinning a jog wheel and tapping on a couple buttons, you'll be cursing the lack of a keyboard... There's nothing inherently WRONG with a standalone DVR (at least not as a concept; I've run across some pretty poorly-designed and shoddily-built ones), they fill a specific need, primarily that of low cost. There's a small crossover range, but the two really fit different market segments.

f-stops are a rarely-used and even less-understood term when it comes to CCTV, I find... few guys even consider the actual maximum aperture of a lens, or understand the relationship of the f-stop numbers, despite the fact that most lenses list at least the max aperture. Either you use an auto-iris lens and don't think about it, or adjust the manual iris until the picture looks right - I guess there's not really a lot of call for it in CCTV. Coming from 25-year photography background, I guess I just have more experience with the subject

I think more then twice Right ? Not PRECISELY twice, but fairly close. Without doing the actual math, consider that f/1.4 is exactly one stop "faster" (ie. twice the light) as f/2.0... and you can extrapolate that f/1.2 will be approximately one stop faster than f/1.8. If it wasn't past my bedtime, I'd do the actual math for you, but at this time of the night, you're on your own

There's little point in most instances with going to any kind of super-fancy microphone; full-range 20-20k response simply isn't a necessity. I've done it with simple computer mics, cheap Radio Shack dynamics, etc. The main thing you want to do is make sure you get a dynamic and not a condenser mic, as a condenser requires a power supply, which is usually in the form of a battery that has to be replaced on occaision (usually immediately AFTER someone discovers - the hard way - that the system has been recording silence for two months).

The 3700 isn't really great for low-light, no. Check out the Pelco CC3751H2 for that. A zoom of that range probably has a relatively small maximum aperture, which will limit the amount of light it will let through; looking at Pelco's spec pages, it's not entirely clear, but it's probably no better than f/1.8 Try using a shorter-range zoom or even a fixed-focal lens of f/1.2 or better (smaller number = larger opening). f/1.2 allows twice the light of f/1.8.