Soundy

Sounds like a typical ground-loop issue that you'll see using baluns along with cameras that have a shared power/video ground. What make and model cameras are these?

I doubt either end use baluns - on a cheap system like this, they're probably just straight-through connections. The three wires on the camera will be video, +12V, and a common power/video ground. You'd need to determine the same pins on the DVR and create custom cables or adapters to match up the appropriate lines. And even then, there's a chance it won't work. Honestly, these types of systems - using RJ- or DIN connectors to put power, video and audio on one connector, are nothing but trouble in the long run and should just go away. From what I can find on that Samsung unit, it goes for around $1000 with cameras - this unit (http://www.nellyssurplus.com/servlet/the-1594/Dahua-ESDV-dsh-FULLD1-dsh-16-16-Channel/Detail) has better specs, sells for $650, and will work with pretty much any cameras out there, so you can select the proper camera for each location, rather than trying to force their generic cameras to fit.

I'm a fan of PC-based systems overall, but I've been testing a four-channel Dahua and been really impressed by its performance and features. Definitely give the Dahuas a look. The remote client allows you to connect to, view and control multiple units so it would be easy to integrate the operation of two separate systems.

Best solution: lose the IR cams, get good day/night cams, and use motion-activated security lights if you need extra lighting.

My experience... these things are AVAILABLE for server racks, but they rarely come included.

That depends on the DVR. If it supports mouse control, you could just extend the monitor and mouse cables from its location to your desk or wherever you want to control it from. Some allow full control from their remote client as well.

800-1000' is pushing it a bit for coax, especially if they're cheap cameras. You may need to go to UTP with baluns.

If your DVR uses port 80 for initial HTTP connections, you might want to try a different port for that, as some ISPs block incoming connections to port 80.

Outdoor outlets should all be on GFI anyway - electrical code.

Hey Dave, long time no see - way to bump an ancient thread I've used and installed a few of these now, BTW - neat little machines, and aside from the form factor, someone sitting at the console wouldn't know they weren't using anything from a cube to a big 4U rackmount system.

WV-CW484 (SDIII) for $175: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28458&start=0 You'll probably get better results by tightening up the shot on the door, too.

Pretty much, yeah. The transports work in identical ways, they're just designed to run a lot slower (I've seen some that do 96 hours - four days - on a T160 tape).

If memory serves, LightGrabber is mainly a slow-shutter system (like "Sens Up" on many other cams). It allows the sensor to collect more light, at the expense of more motion blur. Thanks for the info.. In your comment above, is a 'slow-shutter' system not so good for low-light areas The whole point of it is for low-light... what it's not so good for is low light with a lot of motion. This is just a factor of the camera, nothing to do with the rest of the system. However, there's more to the equation than just the shutter speed. Some cameras will get better picture in low light by using different processing (I believe LightGrabber uses some additional processing in addition to the slower shutter). In general, a lower-resolution camera will have better low-light performance than a higher-resolution model, given the same sensor size, because the individual pixels are larger and thus can collect more light. A lens with a wider aperture will allow more light as well - f/1.2, for example, allows twice as much light as f/1.8. Yep - this is what's known as "motion blur".

Hey Larry! Liking some of the latest changes (especially the mobile theme)... with the system now hosting posted images, it appears storage and bandwidth aren't major concerns... could we maybe see an increase in the size of the Inbox from 50 messages? I've received so many PMs in the last month, info I wanted to keep has now cycled out. I wanted to make some more folders for messages from specific people, but there's a three-folder limit too...?

Sure they can, they just need to go in the appropriate environmental housing. The IQ7xx series DO have IR cut filters. They're true day/night cameras, which means they have movable IR cut filters - in front of the sensor in day (color) mode, moved aside when it goes to night (B&W) mode. If memory serves, LightGrabber is mainly a slow-shutter system (like "Sens Up" on many other cams). It allows the sensor to collect more light, at the expense of more motion blur.

Wicked, thanks!

"He is complaining that the camera is no good" - what does that even mean?? How does he define "good"? Sounds like one of those customers that's more trouble than he's worth...

?? Or you mean you're trying it in the PC's browser in the first instance? Again, if it's doing the same thing on the PC, then it's nothing to do with the OS... in this case I would suspect something with the GV's webserver.

If it's doing the same thing on a PC as well as a Mac, then it has nothing to do with the OS that the client is running on. What if you run a remote-desktop app on the DVR (something like Teamviewer, which has a Mac server and client as well)? Does the desktop display smoothly? If so, then it's probably an issue with GV itself not streaming smoothly. If the desktop display is painfully slow, then it's a connection issue somewhere... maybe a problem in a router, or even the GV machine's own NIC. What happens if you view it directly on the same LAN with the GV?

Try a packet-monitoring-and-logging tool like Wireshark?

Lenses don't have "resolution" in the same way a camera does... the closest relevant spec would be "resolving power" and it essentially refers to the overall optic quality of the lens. The reason for "megapixel" lenses is that most standard CCTV lenses are simply made to a lower level of quality... well... because they can be - the low-resolution sensors won't see the higher detail granted by higher-quality optics so there's no need for that extra expense. Megapixel lenses are designed and built to produce higher detail, and rated "in megapixels" as more of a reference to maximum resolution the camera can be before the lens's own deficiencies are noticeable, rather than a direct 1:1 pixel count.

"Performance" is a pretty nebulous concept - what sort of "performance" does the customer want to see? Bandwidth used? Display latency? Color accuracy? Image sharpness? Acceleration from 0-to-60?

99% chance the problem is the upstream bandwidth of the system. I assume this is remote viewing over an internet connection?

For that camera... yeah, that may actually be a little on the lower side. As I said, $150-$200 is pretty low-end of the scale for multi-megapixel cameras. You might find something in a 1MP-1.3MP Acti or Vivotek in that range, but I'm not familiar with either brand, so I couldn't give you and specific models. You can get some decent analog cameras in that price range, but that would require either home-running a cable for every camera, or adding IP encoders to plug them into the network.... which in itself will add $200 or more to each camera location. Honestly, I don't see any way to achieve the coverage you need for the price you want, and maintain any level of image quality. You could get really cheap VGA IP cameras for probably <$100, but those will likely come with fixed 6mm lenses or so, which will give you a fairly narrow field of view - you'd probably need three of them to cover an entire room, which negates all your cost savings tight there.

How many times has this been asked now? Both the balanced line created by the baluns, and the twisted-pair design, work to reduce induced interference, and Cat5+'s design of different twists in each pair is there specifically to reduce cross-talk between pairs. The only real concern is that PTZs tend to draw significant current and two pairs of Cat5 may not be sufficient to supply it over longer runs... however, if you can power the cameras locally from available AC, then that's not a problem either.