Soundy

Wow... that's a bit steep for housings, I'd think - I've been putting IQEye 511s (1.3MP) outdoors in basic little Pelco EH3512 housings, they run barely $100 apiece... a little more for the versions with the glass heaters for cold locations. Well if it was me... I'd give the CCTV setup a physically separate network (ie. not using and of the corporate network's wiring or hardware) with its own router and internet connection. Once the router is configured for outside access, home and work computers would access the system the same way. All the PC-based DVRs I deal with will handle numerous different PTZ serial protocols from software as well, for analog cameras. Axis' website doesn't say right off the top, but I would expect the 214s would use their network link for their PTZ control - it would make sense to not run a separate wire for it. Well, what are you using as DVR software, to record the video? Does it support the Axis PTZ? VideoInsight's IP Server software says it supports the Axis PTZ protocol and Axis cameras (http://video-insight.com/Support/Supported-IP-Cameras.aspx) One other thing, it appears the 214s don't support PoE, so you may want to save some money using a non-PoE switch for those. The 211s do have PoE, so you could use another switch for those with just enough ports for those cameras. Again, the other main consideration would be that whatever switches you use have at least a couple gigabit ports for connecting them together, and connecting the DVR. It may or may not be cheaper, you'll have to compare what pricing you can get, but from my experience, PoE support adds quite a bit to the price of a switch.. so if you could get away with, say, a 16-port PoE switch for the 211s and another 8 or 16-port for the rest, you may save a bit. You've been a TON of help to me. Thank you.

Okay... just remember that a large number of cameras like that are potentially going to take a LOT of bandwidth, and that may affect your office network traffic. One option here is to look for a managed, QoS capable switch, where you can control the bandwidth used on individual ports. Run all your office machines through it as well, so you can assign priority to their data (IF it turns out to be a problem). Question: what resolution are these cameras? If they're fairly low-ref (4CIF or so) it won't be so bad... I'm used to dealing with IP cameras that start at 1.3MP up to 5MP, which obviously move a TON of data. Sounds alright. Hmmm, no DVR card should be required for IP cameras; those are for capturing analog video. One switch may be simpler, but it's also more costly in the short term - if you only "need" 20 ports for now (for example), there's no point in getting a 48 - start with a 24, and add another later as the need grows. That said... Well keep in mind, that one is gigabit on every port. The cameras are probably not gigabit-capable; even the 5MP IQEye cameras I've used are only 10/100. The gigabit is really only critical for the DVR connection, where you're "funneling" all the cameras into. Something to consider in your shopping...

Remember too that ethernet is limited to 100m (300') wire runs, so long runs direct from distant cameras to the server area may be an issue. Running the cameras, say, 150' to a comms closet that's only 200' from the server bypasses that problem. That shouldn't matter - as I say, you really want the camera traffic to have its own physically separate network, if possible. If the existing network uses managed switches, you're probably okay, but still, dedicated wiring for the CCTV network is preferable. I like D-Link myself, they have some good business/enterprise-level stuff. Only reason you'd need a router, though, is if you do isolate your CCTV network from your corporate network, but still want to access it from the corporate network. PTZs may need their own power, yes, you'd have to check the specs on the cameras themselves for that... but PoE-enabled switches are designed to supply the necessary power to each port - power is not "robbed" from device operation. It's all part of the spec. These switches, for example: http://www.dlink.com/products/?sec=0&pid=644 and http://www.dlink.com/products/?sec=0&pid=631 20 10/100 ports sufficient for cameras... four gigabit and two fiber ports for uplinking to another switch... up to 15W available on each port for PoE.

http://video-insight.com/Products/IP-Server.aspx

There are certainly high-capacity switches like that, though most max out at 24 ports. For network structure and location you may find it more convenient/efficient to use multiple smaller units (16 or 24-port) anyway - for example, if you have a large number of cameras at one end of the building, it may be easier to locate one switch near them, another near the DVR, and just use a single line to connect the two. A couple considerations: you're talking about a pretty hefty amount of traffic here - it would be a good idea to make sure your DVR has a gigabit ethernet port, and at the very least, that your switch connecting to it has at least one gigabit port (or if using multiple switches, that they have at least gigabit uplink ports). You certainly want to look at business/enterprise-level hardware, not basic little SOHO-grade stuff, if you want to avoid problems. Managed/QoS-capable units are a great idea, but probably overkill for this. Do keep the cameras all to their own network, rather than running them over the corporate LAN or anything. Also, if your cameras support Power over Ethernet spec, look for switch(es) that can provide PoE, and you won't have to run separate power feeds to the cameras.

Alright, let me just get this out of the way right off the top: I don't want anyone trying to sell me anything, I don't need anyone telling me how crappy this camera is, or any recommendations on something different to sell the client on. We've tried to tell him numerous times how... unworthy these things are, but he gets them cheap from China and insists on bringing them in and continually trying to sell them to us. Everyone got that? Now here's the thing: he's brought in this little beastie that looks like any standard 1/3" camera, but with a built-in zoom lens (spec sheet says it's actually only a 1/4" Sony chip). It does powered zoom (22X, 3.9-85.8mm) and autofocus. I've got the power hooked up and the camera running - image quality is mediocre at best (for what purports to be a "Sony Super HAD CCD"). Autofocus operation is... well, practically useless, I have to fine-tune anything it does manage to lock in on. Zoom and focus can both be controlled through buttons on the back of the camera, or through wires in the combined remote/power connection (5-pin mini-din). The connector's pins are labeled +12VDC, GND, ZOOM, COM, and FOCUS. What I'm trying to determine is how to use/connect the external zoom/focus controls via this wire, and hoping someone might have run into one of these things and/or have some documentation for it that's NOT mostly in Chinese. I've tried connecting both ZOOM and FOCUS wires to COM, as well as giving them +12 and GND, with no response at all.

Hawking cheap Chinese equipment aside, he's been a pretty good client - pays his bills on time, doesn't try to chew down our prices, etc. We've had a LOT worse time dealing with some way bigger companies (don't get my boss started on the major contractor that took four months to pay us for a large job, telling him that since he was a "small company" he didn't understand how these things worked...).

That's the same thing I do every time this guy calls up spouting about the new "great" cameras he's got in, wanting to "help" us by importing them so we can re-sell them.

Too much work to be worthwhile. Frankly, I plan on trying to convince the guy to pass on this idea: he wants to use this camera to replace a decent (1/4" 420TVL name-brand that I can't remember right now) dome watching the paypoint in his store. Despite looking like a typical 1/3" camera, it's actually a 1/4" chip - I suspect, without having opened the thing, it's just a simple board camera - with a power zoom in front of it. He has no need of the zoom for this purpose, and the autofocus doesn't work right (always focuses a bit short and requires manual tweaking). Even the manual focus is barely usable there, as is no way to physically move the lens to fine-tune it; you're limited to the steps available by the powered focus drive. The image quality itself is mediocre at best (due largely, I expect, to the lens being of mediocre quality). Problem is, he thinks that he's got a really great camera here, because it cost him $200+, compared to the $30-$50 for the little cheapie domes he brings in (which he also thinks are really great quality). Considering even a MID-GRADE Panasonic CP-244 runs almost $200 *without* the zoom, autofocus, or lens... I think that says a lot for the actual quality of the thing.

The guy has no idea what he's doing, he just knows that he has some contact in China that gets him these things for cheap, and tells him that they're some kinda hot $#!t. Actually, someone on alt.security.alarms came up with the answer for me: connect COM and the desired control wire (ZOOM or FOCUS) to the power and ground - one way around zooms in, the other way zooms out.

Okay, wanting to know if anyone knows of a CCTV-style video camera with actual HD output that could feed (preferably in 1080p) directly into an HDTV receiver, whether it be component, HDMI, etc. - basically something that's JUST a video camera, relatively compact, no recording. Only option I've been able to come up with so far is ONE Sony 'handycam'-type unit with HDMI output - most HD camcorders only only seem to output standard composite/S-video for monitoring and HD is just transferred to the computer via Firewire. Hi-res IP cameras are an outside option, but that requires a computer to get the picture onto an HDTV - sort of unwanted extra complexity and expense.

That's 570 TVL at best - not even close to 720i. Some reason you can't use normal URL links?

I've seen that, but it's still only outputting standard NTSC/PAL video. As we've already covered, client spec was (before we blew them off) for 1080p.

Still need a camera that outputs component, which I was never able to source, and AFAIK component will only handle up to 720p. These guys INSISTED that the system use the full 1080p capabilities of their existing display. It's moot now anyway, since we blew the whole thing off - the client was just being too difficult with constantly changing/adding features, stuck in a pre-existing mindset of what kind of equipment they wanted, etc.

Just recently picked up a portable DVD player with video input and a 10" screen. Works great.

That's pretty much what I figured. The boss had someone asking about hooking up a surveillance cam to his HDTV - not sure what the purpose was, but like I say, all we've found that would really do it is a particular Sony cam with HDMI output. Thanks.

Well, I dunno about "unique"... it's very similar to the cases I've seen the Vigils built in. Granted, those may also be made by Chassis Plans, I don't know where CAMACC sources theirs.

Any given lens will produce a specific field of view. The smaller the sensor you put within that area, the smaller the portion of the image you will get, and thus the narrower the field of view.

I've installed several Vigil DVRs that use these types of cases. They're pretty bulky, but they're very solid server-quality cases, with lots of cooling and fully-filtered airflow, which should help keep the machines running well for a long time. Drives are all shock-mounted, cables all enter the "outer" case through rubber "weatherstrip" to help maintain the air cleanliness. There's a standard ATX rear panel on the "inner" case. No idea who makes the cases, although I could probably find out. I found some similar designs at www.chassis-plans.com: http://www.chassis-plans.com/wallmount_chassis.html The W5Chassis case is similar to the Vigil's, but not identical: http://www.chassis-plans.com/offtheshelf/w5-wallmount-eatx-computer.html

Should work just fine... from my experience, most third-party Radeon drivers are based directly on the original ATI drivers, just tweaked and modified. One thing I have found with ATI drivers in general though: they're a lot happier if you completely remove the old drivers (using ATI's uninstall utility) before installing the new ones.

Yeah, there's theoretical differences... that aren't going to even be noticable to 99% of users, let alone significant enough for most to care about.

FUD. DSL all has to run through a single point eventually as well; everyone on your segment of the network is limited to the bandwidth of that point.

Well... your video signal MIGHT interfere with the internet stream... IF several hundred feet ot your internet cable and video cables were all wound up together in a REALLY BIG coil... you could get a little crosstalk there... But I'd say it's more likely the "tech" doesn't have a clue.

Cable FTW, DSL is nothing but headaches.

Using two routers that way is just asking for complications. I'd have gone with one of two options: 1. Yank the Siemens and just use the LinkSys. 2. Keep your DVR plugged into the Siemens rather than chaining it through the LinkSys (I assume the LinkSys was added primarily as a WAP). 3. Another option would have been to just get a dedicated WAP rather than another router.