Soundy

True, unless the camera and DVR support "up-the-coax" control. That is both rare and not the most reliable method. Also known as "Coaxitron", if you're looking around for it. Usually. The vast majority of PTZ's use RS422/RS485 communication for data. Although RS422/RS485 can be bi-directional, for PTZ control you only need 1-way communication - transmit at the controller and receive at the PTZ. CAT-5 twisted pair is the most common method, using one pair, but I've also used 22/2 shielded and even 18/2 twisted power cables for short runs. Using CAT-5, control can be run up to 4000 feet. I've done it with a variety of wiring as well. In some cases, I've even successfully run control, video and power over a single piece of Cat-5e: one pair for serial, one for video (with baluns) and two for power. It depends. You can safely daisy-chain up to three PTZ's on one data line; even more if you turn off the termination on all but the last one in the chain. If you can't daisy-chain due to the PTZ's being in widely spaced locations, you can use a "code distribution unit". Pelco makes the CM9760-CDU-T which handles up to 16 PTZ's (more if you daisy-chain on each output). The less expensive alternative is the Kalatel KTD-83, which has 5 outputs, and it's brother, the KTD-83-16, that has 16 outputs. This may depend on the cameras and/or controller used, too... I have three Capture PTZs connected "star"-style to a Capture controller, with no problems. Either way, you're really just connecting all the cameras in parallel.

Good point 12 VDC over more than 100ft of cable gives more tension fall, which you don't have with 24VAC. That's true, but having 16 cameras on one supply doesn't necessarily have anything to do with that. There are plenty out there that are DESIGNED for 16 or more 12V outputs. And again, if the cameras are designed for 12VDC only, using 24VAC will fry them pretty quickly.

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. Ummm, yeah, might wanna make sure the cameras support 24VAC first, or you'll have a lot of very pricey paperweights. 16 cameras on a single 12VDC power supply isn't a big deal, provided it can supply enough power.

Yeah, what type of screws you use really depends on what you're fastening the box to...I like Tapcons for brick and concrete as well, although there are times a standard nylon anchor works better. Beyond that... self-tapping or self-drilling screws for sheet metal, wood screws for wood... etc.

Chances are that that isn't s-video, but a proprietary connector that both feeds the camera power, and returns the video. A simple adapter likely won't work, because the pins used for power and video will vary with the specific design. The DIN connectors themselves should be available from any electronics-supply house, but for an adapter, you'll probably have to determine the pinouts used by that specific device and custom-wire it.

Yeah, they got bought by Seagate Anyone else here had a spate of system failures over the last couple years, from cheap motherboard capacitors blowing? I've seen probably a couple dozen of one particular system model go belly-up just within the last year... every one of them suffering a half-dozen or so popped electrolytic caps.

But the big question is: do they really want to? Although the ONVIF (Open Network Video Interface Forum), which includes Axis, Sony and Bosch, is working on some standards, in reality they are fighting an uphill battle against the many smaller manufacturers; especially the Chinese, who want their own set of standards. I wouldn't hold my breath for real standards any time soon. Alas, that's an issue with just about anything... and the only thing that will make them change their minds is consumer pressure. If an analog camera manufacturer decided they didn't want their cameras to output using NTSC or PAL, they'd have a very limited market indeed. Likewise an IP camera maker who decided to use something other than 10/100base-T for their connectivity - say, 10base-2, token-ring, or even something proprietary for their IP transport - would find little interest in their products. Consumer demand for a standard is the only thing that will interest them... if Axis/Sony/Bosch can get something going, it will probably make all three much more attractive to the market, and others will have to fall in line to compete. Of course, they also ALL need to realize that the lack of cross-compatibility is one of the last things holding their market back. The assumption that IP cameras can fill in for two or three analog cameras is quite a stretch. That is only in some specific cases and only when you are using megapixel cameras. 640x480 IP cameras have no better resolution than their analog equivalents and would require a 1:1 swap. Yes, poor wording on my part, using "IP" and "megapixel" interchangeably. That's why I said, "in MANY cases". I work mainly with retail - fuel services (pump and c-store cameras), restaurants, pubs, liquor stores. There are very VERY few instances I've found where megapixel cameras don't provide at least a 2:1 benefit over analog. It used to be a harder sell when the cameras were $1500 vs. about $250 for a good-quality analog camera, but now that those same 1.3MP cams can be had for $500-$600 (our cost), it's getting a lot more cost-effective, especially since the price of the same analog cameras has changed little if any. Megapixel/IP technology is only going to get better and cheaper, very quickly.

PCI vs. PCI-e doesn't have a direct effect on your image quality... PCI-e provides higher bus speeds and MAY (depending on other factors) allow higher framerates at higher resolutions without impacting system performance as much, but the "quality" is still a function of the capture device, the framerate, the resolution, and the compression used. It's possible that if your machines are under-powered, you can't get the resolution and compression levels you need for the quality you want, but I don't think going to PCI-e cards will solve that. I recently installed a Vigil "Pro-Series" system that can do up to 30fps on all of 32 cameras (960fps total)... I don't believe it's using a PCI-e capture device. See http://www.3xlogic.com/H.264-Hybrid-DVR-Analog-IP-Megapixel-Camera-Video-Surveillance-Recorder

Hmmm... are these cameras in a particularly damp environment, or in a location near the ocean (salty air)? Two months, I would suspect corrosion is starting to set in on your connections. Are your cables all-copper conductors?

That's a bit misleading, really. There are plenty of standard in use - 10/100 ethernet, video codecs, video streams - it's mostly just the individual interfaces and communication "languages" that differ. Those would be very easy for the manufacturers to standardize, if they wanted to. I'm sure a lot of companies have that perception, but the reality is, the TOTAL cost isn't that much more. IP cameras have dropped to the point they're only about twice the cost of a *comparable* analog camera, while one IP camera can easily provide the same coverage as two or even three *comparable* analog cameras for many uses. Right there, the cameras alone are the same price or LESS than using analog... it only SEEMS like it would be more expensive if you're doing a direct 1:1 swap-in of analog for IP. Factor in that an NVR is (or should be) typically less expensive than a *comparable* DVR or hybrid system, because it doesn't require additional capture hardware. Some cameras even include basic recording software. There's just no hope for some, analog or IP. The ones that are concerned more with cost will go with a $500 all-inclusive camera/DVR package from Costco, because they're more concerned with simply having cameras, than having usable video. There's no point trying to sell anything to them, be it IP, or simply high-quality analog. They REALLY don't like it when you prove you know more than they do Sure it does, but it's also in how you sell it. As noted above, an all-IP-based system can be more cost-effective in a lot of cases, if done properly. "Look, I can give you this system with a $1500 DVR and 8 cameras... or this system with a $600 NVR that only requires 4 cameras." And in my experience, megapixel cameras sell themselves with a lot of customers - you just have to show them a few still shots. Everyone I've ever shown them to is blown away and wants to know when I can upgrade ALL their cameras... sites where I install even one, they almost immediately want the rest done as well. Unfortunately, most of them don't actually make the purchasing decisions, but still, nobody seems to complain about the massive jump in image quality.

Sounds like a cabling issue, just off the top of my head... RG-what? 6, 58, 59? I don't like twist-on connectors - not only are they hard on the fingers after you do a few, but they're really susceptible to poor connections if not done right. Not likely related to the lighting unless you can correlate the fading to lights being turned on or off. You can always check if the cameras have a "flicker" setting that's designed to compensate for some issues caused by flourescent lighting, but I don't think this is one of them.

Oh... don't forget a good cordless drill, and an assortment of wood, steel, and masonry bits and hole saws. Something with hammer-drill functionality will be extra useful if you ever need to mount cameras to brick or concrete walls (although you may need to rent something like a full-size Hilti or Bosch for those bigger holes). Tapcon screws are lifesavers for this as well. I can't stress enough, too... if you're really planning on doing this professionally, DO NOT cheap out on your basic tools! Some things you can get away with having them break and wear out after some moderate use, but good quality tools are not only more reliable, they tend to be smoother-operating, more accurate, and just all around nicer to use, leading to less job stress. This ESPECIALLY holds true of power tools - my beat-up old 14V NiCad Milwaukee cordless drill continues to kick ass over my co-worker's 18V Ryobi kit, which contains two drills (one regular, one hammer), an impact driver, and two lithium-ion batteries he got in addition to the NiCads they shipped with. The Milwaukee just keeps chugging away while he's constantly switching batteries, or even switching drills, as the hammer-drill is stronger but its chuck has a nasty tendency to loosen itself. I think the Milwaukee cost about as much as its own as his complete drill/recip-saw/sander/light/mini-vac/radio kit did... you really do get what you pay for. Don't get me wrong, the Ryobi is pretty good for a low-cost kit (as the foreman on one site put it with regard to his own Ryobi kit, you don't worry as much if someone borrows one and it doesn't come back), and for something you only use occasionally, budget tools will usually be just fine... but when you're relying on a tool working day in and day out, you'll be glad you spent the extra for quality.

Nice little kit! I was going to recommend going with compression connectors over standard two- and three-piece crimp types - way easier to work with, very solid if done properly, and most versions form watertight connections. Another thing you'll want to look at is tools for doing RJ-45 connections, in case you need to install IP cameras, and/or connect DVRs to a network. A good set of crimpers should be all you really need, as they should have built-in tools for stripping and cutting Cat-5e/Cat-6 cable... or you can go with a complete kit. You'll also want something in a small portable monitor for aiming and focusing cameras. You can get nice "professional" units designed specifically for CCTV, that have high-resolution LCDs, can output 12VDC for powering cameras, generate a test signal, and have pass-thrus for your camera signal. Those tend to be a bit on the pricier side, though ($300+ range)... for just starting out, you can get a cheap portable DVD player with A/V inputs for well under $100. The screen resolution isn't as high, but they're sufficient for probably 99% of the work you'll do. Another option, especially if you'll be working with IP cameras, is a small-ish laptop and some sort of video-capture add-on (or better yet, a laptop with built-in video capture, although those are rare). I have an Adaptec GameBridge (cost about $30) that I use with my laptop to input analog video via USB, and it works great for tweaking cameras... and with a retractable network cable with crossover switch, it's good for configuring and adjusting IP cameras as well. Also useful (actually, damn near indispensable): - A set of fiberglass "glow rods" (or "fish sticks" as we like to call them). - A good multimeter (with or without the rest of the kit, although the electrical testers can be handy at times). Audible continuity test is important! - A pair of GOOD cutter/crimpers (Channel-Locks or similar)... you'll be crimping other wires besides just coax (power runs, spade terminals, etc.) and something that operates smoothly and has long handles for good leverage will really make life a lot more comfortable over time And in the nice-to-have category: - Signal tracer - Cable tester (network or coax, or find one that does both in one unit) (Many cable testers also have signal-tracer functionality, although you may still need the seeker wand). Note: I've linked to Sears pages, since you're already shopping there, but there are plenty of other options out there! For example, I use a LanRoamer network tester kit and highly recommend it - it doesn't just do continuity checks on the cables, but will tell you what sort of wiring faults it finds (if any), as well as where breaks and shorts are in the line, and the total length of a run. It, too, has a signal-tracer function that I can use with my regular tracer's wand, and the kit I went with has 8 remote modules for helping identify runs (the base module will tell you which of 8 it's connected to).

Until then, the whole concept is "RSN", isn't it? One can make grandiose promises of what's "just around the corner" until the proverbial cows come home... don't mean squat in the real world until it's actually available for purchase. Well, you can run component over Cat-5e with baluns... or you could put HDMI outputs into your cameras, but your distance would be pretty limited without expensive extenders. Hence the question above. Hope we all agree that if the "analog HD" is not one in the SMPTE book, then you are cooking something that is far worse than IP transmission if I need to use new cables and interfaces at the DVR side just to capture the bits. And please articulate how you go above 1080p (1920x1080) which the current broadcast standards support. That's my main concern as well.

Therein lies the other problem: how long will it take this technology to get to market? Not prototypes or demos or brochures, but to actually be available for purchase at a reasonable cost? BTW, if you "don't have space" for IP infrastructure, I don't see how this would be any better. Storage systems won't take any less physical space - you still need a ****load of drives. Cabling certainly won't take less space; in fact, it would probably take more cabling as everything would have to be home-run. The only additional equipment needed for IP is the switch(es)... 24 ports in 1U is pretty compact. Make it a PoE switch and you don't even need a separate power supply for the cameras.

That's so silly, because all your arguments against IP can be made just as readily against your analog HD. Low-light problems aren't caused by the IP transmission medium; cheap NTSC/PAL cameras have low-light issues as well, and your HD cameras could just as easily. The platform itself isn't proprietary - IP protocol is a well-established standard, as is ethernet. While a number of different video encoding methods are used, all (or most) are standard as well - H.264, MJPEG, etc. The streams and control protocols may be manufacturer-specific, but those can easily BE standardized if the manufacturers agree - the issue there doesn't lie with the design. And if you want to remain non-proprietary, you still run into the same problem you have with NTSC/PAL, and that's limited resolution within the standards. Once you hit 1080p, then what? Your existing specs hit the ceiling again, and do so far short of what IP can provide, which is the main reason for going to IP in the first place. You have to go proprietary again, or define a whole new set of standards (add several years for them to be ratified) and hope that everyone sticks to them.

You need it to hang down LOWER than the ceiling?

Just off the top of my head, probably 150'? Not a problem if you're using 24V to a camera that's designed for "12VDC/24VAC", as it handles any drop just fine. Actually, since we normally use station wire (22/4) for power runs, and just double that up, I have had occaision, where a client wanted another camera added to a remote location (actually, to a gas-pump canopy, where all the conduits are sealed before the station goes online) to "borrow" a pair off the station wire to run video with baluns, and then used the other pair to power BOTH cameras... WITH heated enclosures. It was a bit ghetto... but it worked (and is still working, over two years later). Distance there was probably 90-100'. I've done something similar... 500' total run from a server room to a camera tower, with a couple splice points along the way, I added a 10/100 switch at the splice point nearest halfway (which is also by a gate where network-based access controls are planned to be added at a future date), to act as a network repeater (since ethernet maxes out at about 300' per run). To give the switch its required 5VDC, I added a run of 18/2 from the camera power supply beside the tower, back to the switch, and then threw a small board regulator in the splice box, and dialed it down to a nice even 5.04V

Some setups would use it it trigger a VCR to a faster (and thus higher quality) record mode... ie. the VCR normally operates in 24, 48 or 96 hour mode, and switches to 2-hour recording when there's an input trigger.

Depends on the particular job, but usually I'll run one camera per Cat-5, using one pair for video and two pair for power. This is based on the standard practice of home-running all the power, though. Four cameras per wire is good in theory, but only really practical if you're not running power along with it... like you might in a really long run. One of the other big advantages to a single Cat-5 vs. coax-and-power, for me, is not having to pull two separate, different wires to each location - especially if you have to stage out a bunch of wire for multiple pulls, the different sizes and stiffnesses of coax vs. 18/2 or station wire can mean easy kinks and tangles, and layout of boxes for a number of simultaneous pulls can take up a lot of floor space, which is a problem if you're working, say, inside an active store. A single wire to each camera makes for less trouble and a cleaner job overall. GEM makes a balun that splits out an RJ45 jack to a BNC and a pair of power pigtails, and another that splits out a pigtail for data/serial as well, that makes this type of install very clean and straightforward.

...and I did try it. Worked like a champ, too! Little slow, since the router is only an 802.11b (11Mbps, half-duplex) but it worked great! In fact, I initially hooked the router up to the switch I'm running the DVR and five IP cameras into on this site - it was awesome being able to just wander around the store with the laptop and view and adjust all the cameras But just for testing, I plugged a camera directly into the router, and that worked great too. Now all I need to do is make this whole thing more portable. Router's a little on the big side and needs power... thinking I might strap it to my 12V gel-cel and stick a small board regulator to it to knock the voltage down to 5VDC. But that's for later - meantime, IT WORKS!

I'm thinking there's GOTTA be a way to do this, I'm just not clicking in... It would be really handy to have something (battery-powered ideally) that one could plug into a standard wired IP camera, that would provide an ad-hoc network for a laptop to access the camera. There are times that a direct cable connection is impractical at best, impossible at worst. I suppose one could use a "spare" wireless router but that seems a bit overkill (and it wouldn't be battery powered)... something small and portable that I can just toss in a laptop bag would be ideal.

You're not likely to get a signal through that concrete (which isn't JUST concrete - remember there's a nice rebar mesh in there too). You COULD look at something in an ethernet-over-power system, it MIGHT work, depending on how the electrical is laid out in your building. Something in-car might be the best way to go, though. Take a look at Memocam's products - covert cameras with built-in recording to flash (SD) cards. There are others as well, that's just one that came immediately to mind

Hmm, have you considered just a couple good old-school camcorders? I know it's not as sexy, but they're probably a lot more robust. Or you could do what a friend of mine did in his race car, and just mount a small digital point'n'shoot camera up between the seats... one that has a good video mode and supports really large SDHC cards should give you tons of recording, and they aren't bothered by a few bumps. Pick up two or three older used cameras for cheap and you're good to go!

Yeah, was thinking about doing that with an unused DI-614+ I have here... only problem I could think of is, would I still need to connect the camera to my laptop via cable to either assign it an IP or enable DHCP? IQEyes come with neither selected, so I'm not sure if the IQFinder utility would find it via the router. Guess the best way to find out is just to try it