Soundy

Just one other thought: powered, remote-controlled optical zoom is also a "neat toy" but it's useless with recorded video, because you can't zoom it after the fact. With live, real-time, manned surveillance, it's great, but still of limited advantage without pan/tilt as well, because your field of view becomes extremely limited. In both the video examples, if I were specing cameras for *recording* surveillance video, I'd far prefer a high-megapixel fixed-zoom (or manual varifocal) that will capture a large area at very high resolution, so I can zoom in a small area of the recorded footage.

We have to be. We make a living on this stuff. We can't allow ourselves to be easily swayed by glitzy marketing. It's easier for me to sell a client an IQ511 for $800 than a lower-resolution Axis for $1500, unless the Axis really offers something EXTRA. Aside from what appears to be powered optical zoom in that second video, I don't see anything that makes it worth the extra $700. I can make out the plates in the first video, if I pause it in VLC. But that's not the point - any 1.0-1.3MP camera should give at least the same results. Digitally freezing and zooming won't be any better than you already have, because there's motion blur in the recorded frames. That's a drawback of slower shutter speeds, which is common with most cameras in lower light. The only things particularly unique there, at least compared to what I'm used to, are the optical zoom and autofocus, the SD, and the component output. SD is of questionable usefulness in many situations - I mostly put IQEye cameras into environmental housings above gas pumps, and in one recent job they went into a 35-foot-high ceiling in a restaurant lounge. In either case, they're largely if not entirely inaccessible, so being able to record to a card in the camera is pointless. Component output in a surveillance camera is about 99.999% useless, mostly for the reasons frank3 mentioned. I can't record it to a DVR without a highly specialized (and thus very expensive) capture card. It's nice for the gimmick factor, but not practical in most security applications. I'll grant you, it's a neat toy... but for CCTV, the toys aren't really worth paying double the price.

This is a key point: both of the examples given so far are under "good" to "excellent" lighting conditions. Get into low-light situations, and you really start to see the differences. The one Avigilon camera I saw, the sensor was, I would have to say, the same physical size as the ones in my Canon DSLRs. Most "normal" IP cameras as 1/2" sensors at best. With 4 times the surface area or more, even with the same pixel count, a larger sensor can collect far more light, and thus (all else being equal) provide far better low-light performance. And as you noted, that goes back not just to clarity, but MOTION clarity, as most cameras will compensate for low lighting by either boosting the signal, which increases noise, or reducing the shutter speed, which results in blurred/streaked/torn images when you try to get stills from them. Even a 1.3MP camera like the IQ-511 is close to 1080, at 1280x1024. As far as I'm concerned, that Axis camera is wasting available resolution for the sake of marketing - why would you crop your camera at 16:9 1280x720 instead of using a larger 4:3 1280x1024? Because people expect "HD" to be widescreen, so you chop off vertical data?

"HD"? HD is a buzzword. HD is a marketing term. Any camera a megapixel or higher is going to qualify as "HD". IQEye cameras are "HD". Avigilon cameras are HD (actually, far beyond HD). It's not bad for $1500... but it's not great by today's standards either. At least, the picture isn't - the other goodies/features/flashy-lights on the camera might be, but the picture quality alone isn't a $1500 IP camera. 5MP IP cameras can be had for $1500.

So which is that? Cuz that ain't no 16MP.

I think it's not bad for just barely 1MP. Maybe marginally better than the 1.3MP (1280x1024) IQEye 511s I normally work with. Standard 1/2" CCTV lens I assume? Do you have the same angle with a 16MP camera looking through Canon L-series glass? It's kind of pointless to attempt a "comparison" without both side-by-side.

Not if you want the quality. By that argument, the problem with Axis is the price... compared to a $60 offshore-built 1/4"board camera.

It would be great to see capture cards using PCIe, especially cards with onboard hardware encoding... would take a huge load off the rest of the system!

We do this regularly as well, using Camacc's "HD Viewer" software and a PC with two or more video cards. Most cards these days, even the cheap ones, are dual-head, with one DVI and one VGA output. We typically use DVI-VGA adapters as necessary and run VGA over Cat-5e using VGA baluns. Keep in mind that you'll probably want (or need, depending on the software) to dedicate one head to your "back-office" monitor, the one that shows your standard desktop and allows you to configure the other outputs. Also remember that even if the motherboard in this machine has on-board video, most will also disable that onboard chip if you plug in another video card... so if you want four separate displays, you'll probably (again, depending on the software) need a total of FIVE video heads, including one for the desktop. That means three cards total. Where it gets tricky is that PCI video cards are hard to come by... dual-PCIe motherboards are common and putting in two PCIe video cards works great, but it gets a little more involved if you want or need three cards. You then either need a board with three PCIe slots (preferable), or you need to find at least one PCI video card. But anyway... yes, it can be done, and quite easily, with a variety of different software.

There should be a "network" or similar section in the DVR's setup menus (sorry, I've never dealt with one of the ones you have, and I don't have a manual, so I can't be any more specific), that will allow you to either assign an IP address, or allow it to "obtain IP automatically", or words to that effect. DHCP (or Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol) is the method by which systems obtain IPs "automatically". Well again, without a manual, I can only guess at your problem... are you sure that's the correct address for your router?

Correction to both: you can use EITHER with any NVR *that supports its stream format*. I know of at least one DVR/NVR manufacturer (I can't disclose who, yet) that's working on adding Avgilon support. I've heard Pelco will have support in their systems soon as well. Same with the Axis: the NVR itself has to support the camera to at least some degree.

You'll probably need to set your DVR to obtain an IP through DHCP, and allow your router to assign it the IP... then set the router up to forward the necessary port(s) to the DVR's IP.

Have you looked at some of the many ready-made themes available? On the board I did recently, I just downloaded one from here and made some minor tweaks to the colors and the banner. This is the current phpBB3 board: http://bloodredmetalheads.com/phpbb3 ; this is the old phpBB2 board: http://forum.bloodredmetalheads.com/index.php

Well, if you have a Windows Mobile phone, you can try several different browsers - a free version of Opera 8.65 (what I mainly use), a beta version of Opera 9, MiniMo (a Mozilla port), and a Java-based version of Opera Mini, are all on my phone, and as noted, different ones work better for different things. If you're using a non-PDA-type phone with a simple WAP browser, though, you're on your own

Er... perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "power box"? Because the one they show in that video would not operate during a power outage - it takes AC in, steps it down and regulates it to 12VDC, and splits it out to a number of fuse-protected outputs... if the power goes out, that box does too. If could PROBABLY run it all off a 12V battery, since DVR and cameras are all 12VDC, but then you need a way to keep the battery charged while the power is on. Your "power supply box" would need to be able to supply enough current for the DVR *and* cameras when the power is on, as well as enough to charge the battery. The PDF you linked doesn't state what the DVR's current requirements are, but I'd expect it to be AT LEAST 3A... estimate up another 500mA each for the cameras, and you're up to almost 5A... and then allow another 100-200mA for charging current (resistor-limited) for the battery. In the end, you may find it simpler to just plug everything into a standard home-office type (350-600VA) UPS (uninterruptable power supply, not the shipping company) to keep the power up during brief outages.

Try googling "offset terminal plug" - there are several different sizes, you'll need to determine which you need. Try here for an example: http://www.altronics.com.au/index.asp?area=prod&grp=616

This sort of thing?

Are you maybe thinking of http://www.cctvcamerapros.com ?

That would be my main concern.... unless the DVR can support widescreen resolutions (1440x900, 1680x1050, etc), I'd stick with standard 4:3 aspect LCDs.

Really depends on the DVR. Last time I tried to set someone up to view a VideoInsight DVR, there was nothing we could do that would make it work on his MotoQ (at least not with the default browser), while it worked perfectly on my Treo using the Blazer browser. I've also had varying success using IE Mobile, MiniMo, and Opera on my Windows Mobile 6 phone - different browsers handle it very differently.

If the cameras are 12VDC powered and use the jack pictured above (top pic), then all you need is a small "wall-wart" adapter for each one. They may not be as "elegant" as the "Power Distribution Box", but they're a lot cheaper and easier to find. You know the type: 99% likely that those cameras are 12V, tip-positive, and won't require more than about 300mA (maybe 500mA if it has IR LEDs) - those sorts of power supplies are almost literally a dime a dozen. http://www.rpelectronics.com/English/Content/Items/RP-1250-P.asp for example...

Most likely, the yellow is video and the red is power, but a description of the actual connectors would help... "Y/C separated" would normally refer to S-video signal output, but that would be VERY uncommon for surveillance cameras. If the connector on the camera looks like this, it's probably power: If it looks like this, it's probably video, or possibly audio: BNC is 99.99% likely to be video.

Two words: gel cell. Also handy for powering 12V cameras!

Put it all together, and you get the same thing: it's ultimately a balancing act between quality, retention, and price. Or to coin another old phrase: "good, quick, and cheap; choose two." People want to be able to buy an eight-camera DVR system for $600 from Costco, and have it do all the same things they see in the movies and on CSI - go back to six months ago, find a clip of the bad guy taken from behind in the dead of night, and draw out a perfect image of his face from his reflection in a door knob. You can't always make them understand why that's just not possible. Storage may be relatively cheap these days, but when you're looking at the need for 10TB or more, it can add up pretty fast at ~$200/TB. Add to that the need for some sort of enclosure and interface for all those drives, and the cost spirals. It's easy to say "space is cheap", but when you get to that level, it can start ramping up pretty fast. And then there was the old Diebold DVR we pulled out of a site a couple years ago... built on a P166 with a whopping 128MB RAM, running NT 4.0 and a plethora of custom frame-grabber and other cards. Thing took a JPEG still something like once per second, but only one camera at a time, and only at 1CIF... and had over *six months* of footage stored on an 80GB drive. Quality, though, left something to be desired - it was about comparable to VHS at 24-hour time-lapse speed.

That covers it pretty well, I'd say... but as Scorpion's other links show, there's a lot more involved in the final quality of the video, primarily the type and level of compression used, and the quality of the camera/lens system itself. Scorpion's hospital client, for example, should probably keep in mind that the DVD's he's thinking of were probably created using cameras worth at least a hundred-grand *each*, as well extensive post-production image processing... while he's probably using cameras and lenses that combined are worth maybe $300 each. As to adjusting your DVR settings, try looking for settings for compression type and amount (without knowing exactly what DVR is it, it's hard to say where to look).