Soundy

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.

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.