Soundy

Since none of the documents Panasonic has online list Pelco protocols, I would suspect not. It would require a serial connection, which it doesn't appear to have. The spec sheet has a diagram that shows an "I/O connector" but nothing specifies exactly what its purpose is. http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=207163&catGroupId=15568&surfModel=WV-NW964&displayTab=R

If it's manufactured for sale in the US, it should have an FCC ID number on it... you can look it up at www.fcc.gov

Lot of times I find it easier to get it "close" with the focus ring, then fine-tune focus using the zoom ring - generally seems to be less "sensitive" on most lenses.

Does the 964 have serial (RS-232/422/485) connectors? If not, I'd expect it doesn't support Pelco D/P.

You've never seen a bunch of gamers all running on WiFi then, or someone running a bunch of torrent uploads/downloads... where lots information is being exchanged constantly. Still not the same analogy. If it were, you couldn't have two households using the same type of cordless phones (be they 900Mhz, 2.4GHz, 5.8GHz, or DECT 6.0) in any proximity to each other. Same frequencies, different channels. The bigger issue with wireless, or at least with WiFi, is range. It's so limited under most conditions, there's little point to it - most distances covered would be close enough to run a wire. There are exceptions, of course, like if you need to cross a large open area, but in general, wiring within those distances is probably far more efficient.

I stand corrected. Florida, among many states are two party states. There have been some attorneys who have taken their client out of Florida, and to a One party state, and recorded phone calls using this "loop hole". This is why I posted the link: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ If you click on the link to the left titled State by State it will list all 50 states, and you can click on your state to get the info that you need. Got one for Canada? Anyway, the important thing is, wherever the law is concerned, ALWAYS CHECK YOUR LOCAL LAWS. The great thing about the internet is how it allows discussions like these to cross international boundaries... but that's also one of the great dangers when it comes to this sort of thing.

Google image search. http://images.google.ca/images?q=smv116&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enCA280CA280&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

That's all well and good, but none of it addresses the points I made above about the costs and issues of hi-def analog CCTV. You poo-poo IP for being more expensive than analog, but that only applies to standard existing NTSC/PAL analog. Sorry to say, but my experience completely disagrees with this. I can outfit a restaurant, liquor store, pub, convenience store or gas station with fewer than half the number of IP cameras and still get better coverage and clearer video than would be possible with analog, and since the IP cams are only about twice the price of the analog equivalents (of sufficient quality - I'm not talking about $50 offshore board cameras), I can do it for lower total cost (especially once you factor in cabling costs, since I'm now running less cable as well).

Umm... I'd say that's the start of your problem right there. I found a picture of that MUX - you should find it has four connectors beside the camera loops: a MAIN MON that goes to the monitor's input; a VCR OUT that connects to the IN jack on the VCR a VCR IN that connects to the OUT jack on the VCR and a CALL MON that's used for a secondary monitor (this is pretty much universal to all multiplexors, BTW, although some will have slightly different labels). The proper VCR connections are crucial: because since the VCR can only record one video signal, the MUX has to take all the cameras and generate an output for the VCR that basically consists of - wait for it - flipping quickly from one camera to the next, a view you're probably familiar with by now When you playback the VCR, the MUX then has to take those flipping pictures and replay them properly depending on the view you select - split-screen, single-screen, etc. When you go to playback, you'll want to hit the TAPE PLAY button (in the MODE box) - it will give you a flipping image as well until the tape actually starts playing. Again, you DO NOT connect the monitor and VCR directly together - the MUX has to do the job of creating the proper video stream for the VCR, and then of "descrambling" it again to send to the monitor. And as I said before, there's a chance that you won't be able to view anything recorded before... so be ready for that to NOT work once you hook everything up properly. The "acid test" will be to record some footage once the connections are right, and then play that back, and see if it works. Don't trust any existing connections - just unplug everything and start clean

Ermmm... better advice would be to check your local laws, as they vary in this regard. In these parts, you can record all you want... but audio evidence is inadmissible in court unless there's notice given (oddly, the same doesn't apply to video evidence). As far as phone conversations, only one party has to be informed... so if YOU know you're recording your own conversation, the law is satisfied (the law is designed more with third-party wiretapping in mind).

I assume you're talking about WiFi? Ever used multiple computers with a single WiFi router? Same thing... no problem. The walkie-talkie analogy doesn't apply. A bigger concern with WiFi is the limited range and interference from other sources.

That should work just fine.

How is that? Gigabit switches cost nothing these days. And 100 mbit/sec can give you superb video (Blu-ray disc video runs at 48 mbit/sec). Add to that, running analog-HD-over-singe-wire, you're taking a step back to needing an individual run from each camera back to the DVR. Using IP gives you the option (desirable or not) of using existing network infrastructure, especially between separated locations. Example: I have to two buildings on opposite sides of a property (this is a real-world example, BTW). To use analog, I either have to have a separate DVR in each building, or I have to pull a wire for every camera in the remote building, over to the DVR location, and if I want PTZ, I have to run data lines as well. With IP, I can just pipe all the cameras in the remote location into a switch, and use a single run to get all that data back to the DVR/NVR. If I want backup recording, I can also drop another NVR - or two or three - anywhere on my network (be it existing infrastructure, or a dedicated network); I don't need to split out or chain-through video signals or pull a second set of wire to another location. Things like that make IP VERY attractive even without the HD resolution. Their market share is no doubt due to high costs. ...and that's becoming less of a factor as well - a 1.3MP IQeye is barely twice the price of most decent 1/3" analog box cameras. As far as quality, remember too that "HDTV" resolutions max out at 1080 vertical pixels. A measly 1.3MP IP camera is already near that at 1280x1024. Go to a 2MP camera and you're at 1600x1200 and already beyond HD spec... meanwhile 3 and 5MP camera are already common. If this "new analog system" is going to even hope to match that, it will have to be working under a whole new range of video specifications, because existing HDTV doesn't measure up. That means all new capture hardware as well... If the knock against MP IP cams is the cost, it's only because the technology is relatively new, and we've already seen prices drop by 1/2 to 2/3 in just a couple years. It wasn't that long ago that even 4CIF/D1 capture was costly and esoteric, and now you can almost get it at any corner store... and it had the benefit of 50 years of an established, common video spec. And IS there an established, published video spec for this new system, that all the manufacturers will adhere to? Or will we end up with a spate of incompatible systems as different manufacturers decide to tweak things to their own benefit? HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray, anyone? Beta vs. VHS? Anyone remember AM-stereo... and the four or five different, incompatible formats? In light of all that, I don't see a new spec, with all new hardware, remaining anything but costly and esoteric... by the time the technology even reaches market, megapixel IP cams will be only fractionally more expensive than NTSC/PAL, and as amirm suggests, you'll see some pretty substantial improvements in the issues listed above.

Well, if your TVs have VGA inputs, you could always just use a VGA splitter to split out the signal from the DVR to its own monitor. The downside to that is needing to either run VGA cables to each TV, or pull Cat-5e and use a pair of VGA baluns for each (not cheap). That would give you the best quality, but you'd be limited to the TVs having the same display. You could also either find a DVR with a separate composite output that will give you a split-screen display (best option), or use something like an AverKey to generate a composite signal from the VGA output (most models have VGA pass-thru). I know a number of PC-based DVRs that will do the job (most that use a XECAP card have the composite MUX output), but they're a little beyond your price range.

The ASUS looks like it would be ideal! I thought afterwards about maybe a gaming adapter like the Linksys, but I know I've heard of problems from people that have tried to use those (gaming adapters in general) for anything BUT game consoles.

Hmm, my Vigil system lists Sony and Panasonic network cameras in the setup... it doesn't have that specific Panasonic model listed, but you could check with 3xLogic; if they don't have it, it probably wouldn't take much to have it added.

There are a number of different ways to do this, depending mainly on what you want to spend and whether you're set on a standalone or a PC-based DVR. What's your budget for the DVR?

Sounds like you're trying to view the VCR output directly... make sure it's properly connected to the VCR jacks on the MUX. If it's been recording while improperly hooked up, you likely won't be able to view that footage. Some MUXs also have a setting for the specific VCR you're using; if memory serves, this should include ROBOTs. Check the settings for something like that.

Yeah, I'd expect a lot lower power consumption for flash-based storage vs. HDD-based storage...

Might be a silly question, but are you sure the dome works properly? I don't suppose you have a joystick controller or something to test it with? Have you tried another protocol, like Pelco P? Ummm.... what else? Hmmm... have you tried foregoing the 232/485 converter and just wired a straight RS-232 connection to the dome? Get a female DB-9 connector (or hack the end off a serial cable), and connect pin 5 to ground and pin 3 (TX on the sending end) to the RX connector at the camera. Oh yeah, and that's the other thing... you probably already know this, but it's one of those silly little things that we sometimes just don't think of: you don't connect TX-to-TX, you have to connect the TX at the DVR to the RX on the camera (even I've done it a couple times, just working in brain-fart mode and not really thinking about it).

Polarity of the wiring is correct, I assume? Same address set on both camera and DVR? Sure the proper serial port is selected? If it's one of the PC's onboard ports, is it enabled in the BIOS?

How do you have the camera connected? What serial communication protocol are you using (RS-232/422/485)? What command protocol are you using (Pelco P/D/etc.)?

Oooh yeah, manuals in Engrish, my favorite!

There are a number of sites that will tell your your "outside" IP, but the one I always use - mostly because it's easy to remember - is www.ipchicken.com

Once again, support of guest accounts would depend on your specific DVR and whether it provides that feature. I don't think most routers support that sort of access (some provide limited access to their own configuration pages for user accounts, but that's all I've ever seen).