Soundy

Possible your browser security settings are blocking ActiveX content? I assume this is using Internet Explorer - have you tried a different browser, like Firefox? You could also try changing the DVR's IP and then try connecting to it again - if you just missed the ActiveX prompt before, this might cause the browser to re-request it, as it will think it's connecting to a different site (I get this all the time with IQEye cameras - anytime I connect one with a previously-unused IP, IE wants to reinstall the AX plugin).

Well, the only "analytics" being dealt with in most of these cases are carbon-based optical-brain interface... ie. people looking for detail in video playback Absolutely. In fact, I try to wire Cat-5e whenever possible on new installs, rather than using coax, specifically for "futureproofing". If they just want analog cameras for the time being, a pair of video baluns will do the job nicely, and they're ready to upgrade to IP at any time! Sure, but where do you find 1.3MP analog cameras?? If this particular site wasn't an hour away with no internet hookup, I could do that. Not worth going out of my way to prove a point in an internet debate, though

What sort of detail would you like me to engage on? I put cameras on fuel service sites. One 1.3MP camera, depending on mounting location, can easily replace three analog cameras for monitoring pumps. This is my experience. On a cost level, that's three *good-quality* analog cameras, along with lenses and the requisite wiring. Camera, lens and wiring together can easily run upward of $500+, each. That's $1500 worth of cameras, replaced by a single camera that, with lens and installation, runs barely half that. Your calculations are not inaccurate... but they're not the whole story either.

Low shutter speed. That camera probably doesn't let you change it, so your only solution is more light.

Sorry, but my experience disagrees with your calculations.

Thanks Soundy! Very cool. READ ME FIRST - No Ads, No Promotions, No Sales Pitch 1) Welcome to the CCTV Forum. If you are a new member please read the forum guidelines first before posting: http://www.cctvforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=3324 2) This is the forum to introduce yourself, not your company; anything other than an personal introduction will be removed without notice. 3) There is no advertising of any kind allowed in any of the forums. For advertising options please see this link: http://www.cctvforum.com/advertise.php Since when is it "Advertising, Promotions, or Sales Pitch" to say, "Hey, I use these products and they're great!"?

A *quality* analog camera will easily run $250-$500 on its own. Cameras do fade and fail over time, so if you're talking about replacing an old system, factor in that it may be time to replace their cameras anyway. If you can get four times the resolution at less than twice the price... that's a pretty easy sell. It's still better than a 2:1 ratio - one IP cam can often replace *three* analog cameras. Speaking specifically from fuel services experience, I can cover 3-4 pump lanes (both sides of two islands) and read license plates easily with a single 1.3MP IP camera... the same thing with analog cameras would take up to four cameras, each with fairly tight focus, so there's less ancillary coverage. The IP cam is an easy sell in this case. Once again... more data per camera, but fewer cameras required. It's as much a non-factor as cabling costs. I've found a really easy way to sell IP cameras: show them the picture. One pub/liquor store customer we have, I was in talking to the owner, was telling him about another nearby job we were doing, and showed him a set of stills from the IP cams we'd just put in there. His immediate response: "I want that!" He ordered two for that store and one for another of his stores, and I subsequently added another to the first store. Once customers see these things, there's just no going back for them.

Yet again, I'll second Erron's recommendations... I've been using 3xlogic's (formerly CAMACC's) products for years, they're a bit pricier, but worth the cost.

I'll second all that... 3xlogic makes some really nice DVR/NVR systems that I've used in some high-demand applications. Biggest one so far is a restaurant with 23 analog cameras and five 1.3MP IQ-511 cameras, along with a grand total of almost 10TB of storage.

There is no problem with the cable. Yes a amp will make a big difference. The problem you're experiencing results mainly from low signal. I've split video feeds with standard splitters and had no problems in some cases. I think together you've hit on the problem: splitting the signal *combined with* the (somewhat) long run. I've split signals many times, with only minor drops in picture level. Another part of the equation might be the TYPE of coax you're using - RG/59, RG/6, RG/58, or otherwise. I'm assuming by "combined power and video" you're referring to either "siamese" cable (separate coax and 18/2 wires connected by a web) or "bundled" coax/power where both run inside a common sheath, as is often provided with cheap cameras? Either way, the fact that power and video are "combined" in one run is probably irrelevant. The cable impedance, factored with the length of the run, AND with the splitting, is what's really giving you headaches.

CRTs don't really "adjust" for different resolutions... they just display pixels differently than LCDs (and plasmas and DLPs and LCD-based projectors, for that matter). With LCDs, there are very sharply-defined edges between pixels, and each "hard" pixel can display the full range of color in itself. With CRTs, each "display pixel" is made of three discrete "hard pixels", one each for red, green, and blue. If an image covers more than one pixel, the color components tend to blend together, rather than being separated by hard edges. Are you sure? I've set up some VERY CHEAP, VERY CRAPPY off-shore standalones, that had selectable VGA resolutions (granted, limited to 640x480, 800x600, and 1024x768). Another thing I've found with some cheap standalones is their "VGA output" isn't really VGA... their internals are outputting a composite signal at MAYBE 420TVL, but they have an internal card that converts THAT to VGA... and does a very poor job of upscaling it. Their internal software isn't actually creating a VGA/XGA/etc.-resolution image direct to the VGA port.

In theory, that shouldn't matter, as the power tranformers isolate the cameras from the DVR power ground. unless, of course, the camera chasis is attached to an earth ground...

Umm, sort of... some 9-channel-or-higher MUXes will have an option to display one large image at the top-left, and 5 more across the bottom and right side. picture a 3x3 grid, with the top-left four squares combined to one large square. Or do like Scorpion suggests and feed something else to the other inputs. Problem is, there's no way to evenly fit six images in one frame of the same relative dimensions (ie. 4:3) without stretching them pretty horribly.

Try putting the two rolling ones each on its own power supply.

The Capture OmniScape is another... same basic principle, just using a really wide fisheye lens.

That's a good start, but oscar wants to view BOTH cameras on the TV. That means either a TV with two available composite inputs (and then you have to switch them using your TV remote), or some sort of switcher, quad, or multiplexor. Since many (most?) of these devices allow you to daisy-chain the video through them, you won't need the BNC T-adapters (which, BTW, degrade your signal). In this case, you'd run the cameras into the channel IN jacks on the switch/quad/mux, then connect cables from each channel OUT jack to the DVR... then run cable from the switch/quad/MUX's MAIN OUT jack to the TV.

Your cameras will only be feeding composite video into the multiplexor (aka MUX), so there's no benefit to S-video out from it. MUXes typically come in 4, 9, and 16-channel versions, so if you want six cameras, you're probably looking at a 9-channel model. Since you're only viewing, you can get away with a "simplex" type MUX; if you can find a duplex or triplex type for the same price, that's fine, but you don't need to pay and more for the extra functions.

My best guess is that most business buildings and even some homes have exsisting network infrastructure to support the IP cameras. I know that's the reason I'm moving to using them in our upgrade. With a large plant layout (20+ acres) that has ethernet / fiber everywhere, I'm not keen on pulling cable for analog cameras. So IP is the way I'm going. It also has the benefit of not requiring additional/specialized hardware. Analog cameras, you have to have a capture card of some sort, and the more cameras you want, the bigger and more expensive it has to be. Adding more cameras once your card is full means either adding another card (which not all systems support) or replacing the card... With IP, you can simply plug into existing infrastructure, you can record it to any computer on the network (or multiple computers, if you want the redundancy), no other hardware is required on the recorder(s), and the cameras can be viewed remotely by any system with a web browser, without the need of additional hardware or specialized software. Given all that, other data-streaming methods would be largely impractical, as they'd also require additional new infrastructure and custom hardware and software, with little real benefit. As others have pointed out, the problems described in this thread are not caused by deficiencies in the IP-video concept, but in the quality of the cameras themselves. As even cheaper analog cameras improve in quality, the capture process has hit a wall, so the difference becomes less noticeable between the cheap and the expensive cameras, particularly once the signal is digitized at a measly 720x480 pixels. But now that you've got the ability to transmit much higher resolution and quality, the variation in image quality becomes obvious again. Motion blur isn't a factor of framerate; it's caused by low shutter speeds. Try opening up the iris on your lens to allow more light, use a "faster" (wider aperture) lens, and/or use a "light booster" mode if the camera has it. If possible, manually set a shutter speed of 1/100s or faster, and see if that helps your motion blur. Also, set reasonable expectations for your frame rates. I've found in almost all of my installs, I don't need any more than 5fps, and for a lot of them, even 1fps is sufficient. You don't usually need *full-motion* video for *surveillance* purposes. Full-motion is 30fps, but most people would be hard pressed to see a difference at even 15fps. With any cameras, the main key is getting the most light possible into the camera. Sufficient shutter speeds is important for avoiding motion blur. However, higher shutter speeds mean less light gets in, so you need to allow more light with a wider opening. That often means a better lens. All these factors are inter-related - skimping on one usually means you need to compromise on another. Cheap cameras will have cheap sensors that don't do well with less light. Try testing the cameras with a dedicated network - just your camera(s) and NVR or viewing system, and a switch if necessary. Chances are, you won't notice it's any better, and if not, then changing up your whole network won't help either. As others have already said, look at the quality of the camera itself as your main suspect. Check some of the other recommended brands.

Are they 12VDC or 24VAC? Do they both run off the same power supply? I've seen ground loops cause weird problems with 12VDC cameras using a common power supply.

The term "digital zoom" is used more often with point-and-shoot digital cameras, and is generally regarded as little more than marketing BS, as you can do the same job in software later, usually with better results. It's also usually limited to the center area of the frame. This would probably be better termed "simulated PTZ", since it's not JUST zoom.

Most IP cameras do something like this... means that it lets you digitally zoom in on a portion of the total recorded image. Basically it just crops a small area of the picture and expands it to fill the original full frame (the "zoom" part), and then lets you move the crop area around (the "pan/tilt" part). For example, take a look at this 1.3MP (1280x1024) original (NOTE: I've drastically increased the JPEG compression on these images to keep the sizes down, but the quality will suffer somewhat): Now this is a 640x512 crop, resized to 1280x1024, which is effectively a 2X zoom factor: And this is a 320x256 crop of a different area, again resized to 1280x1024, which makes it look like a 4X zoom. When you're doing in in-camera, the software allows you to adjust the crop amount and move the cropped area around in real-time, thus simulating "PTZ" functionality.

Realize, wireguys, we're not saying this is a BAD camera... just that aside from all the gimmicky stuff, it's nothing SPECIAL. At least from what you've shown us so far, there's nothing about it that makes it worth the extra cost.

I would friendly suggest that u remove pix from your website http://www.camacc.com/Gallery/GasPumps2.htm I hope u know why I save copy for reference Are you the cab driver in that picture?

Sorry for the delay. I am getting the answers to your questions and will respond as soon as I have the info. Thanks. Looking at a Vigil 5.x server here, it supports: ACTi Arecont Axis Bosch Canon VBC50x HikVision IQEye JVC Merit-Lilin Messoa Panasonic NM100 Panasonic NP1004, NP244 Panasonic NW47xS, NS32xm NP472 Sanyo J2K Sanyo PanFocus Sony Toshiba Vivotek And there's an option for "HTTP", which I gather provides at least some level of generic access through the web interface most cameras have.

And another consideration: if you're "retrofitting" an IP-cam setup into an existing building, you can't always be sure of the quality of the existing network wiring. Pulling your own allows you to control the quality yourself. Naturally, this may be less of a concern with new construction... or not, depending on who's wiring the LAN.