Soundy

(server glitch, double post)

Actually, at that size, you're more likely to be getting into "TV" range, rather than "monitor"... and with that, the design parameters generally change, along with a reduced resolution. TVs that size are usually designed for 720p HDTV display, and so won't have a resolution over 1366x768. With a TV, higher resolution isn't necessary, and a LOT of cost is saved by keeping it low: around $600 at my regular retailer for a 32" 720p Viewsonic, vs. $3800(!!) for a Samsung 30" that does 2560x1600(!!!), or $4100-$4600(!!!!!) for a 30" LaCie with the same resolution. Also, something that size, at TV resolutions, is not intended to be watched up close like a computer monitor. 1366x768, watched from 2-3 feet away, is going to look pixelated no matter what you do. Try this with a 20" LCD for about 1/10th the price and the customer will probably be a lot happier... But of course, this is just guessing until we know the actual model of the display in question...

The thing is, the CARD is only a small part of the equation. As Erron indicates, how the SOFTWARE deals with the video and the streaming of it has a much bigger effect on the overall quality, especially when viewing over the internet.

On ANY computer with an LCD monitor, you want the desktop display resolution to match the native resolution of that LCD. In Windows, that usually means installing the driver that's included with the monitor, or making sure the monitor type is set as "Plug and Play", and then maxing out the resolution setting. That will give the sharpest, clearest display that the computer and monitor are capable of... without that, it doesn't matter what you do with the remote view, it's not going to be at its best possible quality. Beyond that, it really depends on the system and the remote client. Some will increase the compression of video streamed to the remote, which makes more efficient use of bandwidth while reducing the quality somewhat. Some will want to scale the video, others will default to showing it at its "real" resolution. Anytime you blow up the video resolution beyond its actual recorded resolution, it will start to look fuzzier/blockier/pixelated. If you're recorded at CIF (352x240), for example, viewing at anything larger than that will show off just how low the resolution really is.

As the old saying goes, "Good, fast, and cheap... pick two."

I was looking at devices to do this and all the ones I found ran in the $75+ range... one actually showed a schematic, and I couldn't believe how ridiculously simple the design was, nevermind how they could get away with charging $75 for $5 worth of parts.

No... you have to make sure the computer's display resolution matches the monitor's native (maximum) resolution. If your computer display is set to a 4:3 resolution (1024x768, 1280x1024, etc.) and you're running a widescreen monitor that supports a higher resolution (1680x1050, etc.), you'll end up with a fuzzy, distorted picture of EVERYTHING displayed on the computer.

Realistically, the only way you're going to get wireless covering that sort of range is with the aid of external antennae on both the camera(s) and the DVR end... which is going to mean disturbing the walls to pull in cables. All you'll really be able to avoid is needing to dig up the street/parking lot to bury cables. Any wireless that will cover that sort of range with any degree of reliability is going to be spendy as well. Frankly, there's no way I can think of get away with this cleanly AND cheaply - they're just going to have to accept that as a consequence of their own shortsightedness.

"Better" is relative in this case as well... "better" for what? Better for fine dtail recognition. [snip] First is the Canon 400F5.6 telephoto: Now the 20f2.8 wide angle: [snip] Huge difference, no? The corners of the wide angle (the curves on the right) have nearly no resolving power, compared to the telephoto which does not suffer hardly at all as you go from center (left of the curve) to the corner (right of the curve) of the lens. So if you have the bad guy in the corner of your camera, you better pray you are not using a wide angle like above! Okay, I have a background in photography as well, so I actually understand all that... however, there's a bigger concern: field of view. If the bad guy is in the corner of your 20mm lens, he's gonna be about 50 degrees outside your 400mm lens's FOV, which makes comparisons of resolving power rather moot By the same token, if the bad guy is within the FOV of the 400mm lens, he'll be so tiny in the center of the 20mm lens that CA and resolving ability also become moot, because he'll be little more than a 2x5 pixel speck on most cameras' sensors, and even a 5MP camera wouldn't have enough detail to make him recognizable And again, given the relatively low resolution (we're not talking a 1Ds mkIII here), the camera sensor's resolving power becomes a significant limiting factor, moreso than the lens for the most part. True although one has to be aware of the design period. Once more, Canon's newer zooms tend to outperform their older prime (fixed focal) lenses in most criteria. For this reason, most pros use zooms without hesitation. Such was not the case 30 years ago when I got into photography. The key word, though, is 'comparable'. I wouldn't use my EF-50 f/1.8 as an example of prime vs. zoom while attempting to stack it up against some of the latest L-series glass. And while it's not a factor most of the time with CCTV lenses, when it comes to pro photographers, primes have another distinct advantage over zooms: less complexity and less glass means less weight (important if you have to be mobile, such as shooting sports), and the ability to put a much faster (ie. larger maximum aperture, for those not familiar with the term) lens in the same size package. And of course, less glass also generally equates to less cost. The trade-off, naturally, is versatility... why carry three lenses when you can carry just one? Depends on the needs of the job at hand. Either way, the question remains, "better for what"? An 80mm CCTV lens might give me better clarity than a 3.5mm lens, but that doesn't do me much good if I need to view an entire parking lot

Ah, the same old FUD being trotted out. High cost? Cost is relative. An analog Panasonic SDIII (like a WV-CP484) has a high cost compared to your average all-plastic, generic-1/4"-board-based off-shore dome. As with anything else, you get what you pay for. Do you try to dissuade customers from an SDIII in favor of a cheap dome because of the "high cost"? Special housings? Special how? I've regularly put IQ megapixel cams into the same Pelco EH-3508/3512 housings I've been using for years for analog cameras... likewise into DF-5/DF-8 ceiling dome enclosures. Network problems? Sure, and analog CCTV is susceptible to all manner of wiring problems too - bad cable, bad terminations, bad connectors, bad runs, damaged wiring, electrical interference... nothing is perfect. The argument is a non-starter. Internet problems? Irrelevant unless you actually need an internet connection to your system, and those problems would affect analog-camera-based systems that you're using over an internet connection too. Lens problems? Like what? Cheap-ass lenses with poor optics? See above regarding cost. Despite the proliferation of "digital/megapixel" lenses, the technology is really no different. Lens optical technology is hundreds of years old. The transmission media and image/video format has no relation to it whatsoever. "Better" is relative in this case as well... "better" for what? A more relevant tidbit from the photography world is that a fixed-focal-length lens tends to give better images than a comparable varifocal lens, because the optics are less complex and thus have les negative effect on the image.

Part of the problem is that the camera is switching to B&W for night mode, and your DVR's video codec doesn't handle B&W well, so you're ending up with color artifacts. IF the DVR allows it, try dialing down the "saturation" control for that camera and see if it clears up (the catch is, daytime shots will then show up as B&W).

What settings will "work best for you" will depend on exactly what you need the camera to do. I'd think you'd want to start with the quality vs. framerate setting (switch to the former). The higher the bitrate, the less (lossy) compression is being applied, so increasing that will help quality as well. You can reduce the bandwidth needed by lowering the frame rate - even cutting it to 15fps you probably won't notice the difference unless you're capturing race cars or something fast-moving. Disable the digital zoom, as well - all it's doing is cropping an area at the center of the shot and blowing it up to fill the frame. As with digital pocket cameras, digital zoom is a gimmick at best.

Pelco sells a version of that camera with a 2.9mm lens - on a 1/3" CCD, that's pretty wide-angle. If you bought the camera new, you might want to check with your supplier about trading it for the version with the wider lens... if used, check with Pelco or your dealer, you may be able to buy the lens separately.

Just a random thought, is there some particular reason for running a *FORTY SECOND* buffer? At that point you may as well just set for constant record...

Every manufacturer has traditionally had the occasional bad batch or series of drives, be it WD's particular model of 500s or Seagate's line of 1TB units... while other drives of theirs may work flawlessly. I wouldn't dismiss either brand based solely on that. Where the problem really arises is how each them deals with their issues and stands behind their products, and more importantly, their customers. I haven't had significantly more or worse problems with either brand failing (yet.... touch wood), but while I've not yet had a problem returning failed Seagate drives for RMA, Western Digital has been a whole other story. Their warranty status check is misleading at best - even six-month-old drives have shown up as "in limited warranty" and offered me a "customer loyalty" option of "upgrading" to new, larger drives... at about the same as I'd pay for those drives retail. Gee, thanks, WD. Yet on contacting them to ask about it, I've been told that the drives were still fully covered and eligible for direct warranty replacement... hmmmmm.

Sounds about right... one site, I have 23 cameras at D1 and an average of 4fps, and five 1.3MP IP cams at 4fps, all motion-record, and for 90 days' retention, we needed to get to 9.5TB of storage.

I'd go with the distribution-amp idea in this case... the problem with looping through is that not all monitor "pass-thrus" will load the line properly, and you're no better off than if you were using a bunch of T-splitters. It may work, it may not, and you don't want to wait until it's all done to find out that it won't. Home-running each monitor feed and using a distro amp is guaranteed to work.

Like I say, power issues wouldn't (or certainly shouldn't) cause the problems you're seeing. If voltage is dropping too much at the cameras, you'd have them cutting out completely, but the problems you describe sound like wiring issues, either with low-quality wire, electrical interference, or poor termination. You can meter the power at the cameras to be sure, but I don't expect you'll find the problem there. If anything, that would affect the COMPLETE view, not just specific cameras. You could even just try swapping a good camera with a problem camera, and see if the issue follows it. Also try swapping a couple inputs between a good and bad camera and see if the issue follows as well (rule out problems with the DVR inputs). By any chance, are the runs for the five problem cameras running through the same area, possibly near an EMI source like an HVAC controller or motor, or a lighting transformer or something?

My answer doesn't change: if YOU have found the technology isn't sufficient for YOUR needs, that's all fine and good.... but you're not trying to tell everyone else that it won't be sufficient for THEIR needs either.

Where did he say that? http://www.cctvforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=14855&start=43 That's all fine and well... saying that the ones YOU'VE seen are not suitable for YOUR NEEDS is perfectly valid, but there's a big difference between saying that, and someone making blanket statements that something isn't suitable for ANYONE in a similar situation, especially when it's clear others ARE using them for those purposes. Well, I can suggest looking at the IQ "Pro" series cameras, if your NVR supports them... the Sentinel and 700/750 series cameras state they'll do 30fps @ 1.3MP. I don't work for IQ, BTW, but I use their cameras regularly and have been pretty happy with their performance. And like I say, that's perfectly valid. But you're not the one making the blanket statements and wild claims without being able to back them up. And FWIW, the only times I've seen our IQ cameras drop off, I've eventually traced it back to network issues, either a cheap switch or router choking from the traffic, or sketchy wiring. Sketchy wiring will cause problems with ANY camera system.

I like this, I have alot of those that I have found during repairs. Answer: This is my concern: simply telling someone new to the whole thing, "Oh, just go to 24V instead of 12V!" may be a recipe for disaster, if he doesn't realize that not all cameras will survive 24V and just blindly makes the change. And besides, voltage drop would cause the affected cameras to simply drop out, not "fade in and out" as described. If you say so.. What solutions would you suggest if the skill level of the receiver is below basic 12/24V knowledge? Just what I suggested right off the top: "make sure the cameras support 24VAC first". Specifically, prudent advice would have been, "16 cameras on one 12VDC? My guess is that you have some problems with tension. Especially on the cameras farthest away from the power supply. I'd try 24VAC instead, IF THE CAMERAS SUPPORT IT."

I like this, I have alot of those that I have found during repairs. Answer: This is my concern: simply telling someone new to the whole thing, "Oh, just go to 24V instead of 12V!" may be a recipe for disaster, if he doesn't realize that not all cameras will survive 24V and just blindly makes the change. And besides, voltage drop would cause the affected cameras to simply drop out, not "fade in and out" as described.

So after all your longwinded technical bafflegab, you can't even answer some basic technical questions about the technology being used? Of course you need a "protocol". Even analog video has to conform to signal and transmission standards of some sort - you can't just take the electric impulses coming off the sensor and send them over long distances to a waiting DVR. NTSC and PAL are the two most common examples of analog video "protocols", but they're limited to available resolution. This is the stumbling block: existing common analog-HD standards are still resolution-limited... so what is the new standard being used? BTW, you claim that megapixel IP cameras "can't" be used in casinos... maybe you should tell IQ about that, as they don't seem to be aware of what their cameras "can't" do...

What do you consider a "digital" monitor? Standard 27" CRT TVs can still be had with composite and component-video inputs. There may still be some around with VGA inputs as well.

If you want more detailed technical info, you can look up the 802.11 spec at www.ieee.org. There's also some good info in this PDF: http://sss-mag.com/pdf/802_11tut.pdf