Soundy

are you on something ????? you spit your dummy out over the size of your clips ... you was given a good reason why...... if you have all that info.... mmmmmm he has your ip address i think its a good idea to make it vanish from the forum i hope he does. SHOULDN'T be hard to get my name, since it's right there in my signature... hope he didn't expend too much energy figuring it out. Kind of amusing, though, seeing as I don't have a criminal record (have passed CSIS security checks, in fact), or a social security number. Yeah, finding a rough location from an IP is easy - google will give you a couple dozen sites that will do it. But you know... I'd think someone working in a job that gave them access to that kind of information, would also make it easy to find out if the government was monitoring a property.

You'll pretty much be limited to an actual CCTV monitor, rather than any sort of consumer monitor or TV... you'll have have to check the specs to find one with the mirror option. I never actually looked for that function, I just know I've seen it once or twice in the menus of some monitors, and it's been quite a while, so I can't really say which ones they were... might have been a NANOV or AG Neovo, or maybe the usual big names like Panasonic or National Electronics. Most monitors designed for CCTV will have loop-through inputs as well, so you can run the camera straight into the monitor and then out from there to the DVR, avoiding the signal degradation you normally get by splitting the signal.

Put your meter on AC to confirm, but yeah, there is no polarity with AC (well, there is, in one respect, but nothing you have to worry about for this).

I've seen a few monitors with "mirror" switch, but they're rare... Couldn't tell you any names off the top of my head.

Good point - we don't. We know if there were other cameras in the hotel room itself, for that matter. We only know about the ones we're told about by the articles and book. For all we know, in fact, that box could be a decoy itself, to distract attention from another nearby covert camera. It's possible. But there was a regular 16 camera CCTV system installed in the hotel and a monitor at the front desk that showed all 16 screens at the same time. Wouldn't this system cover all the hallways. Why would it be necessary to have a covert system in the hallways? It could have actually been a 16-channel system with only 16 displayed. There could have been an entirely separate system with a number of covert cameras. There could have been self-contained covert units installed as part of the investigation. Someone might have had their own "nanny-cam" installed for another purpose and caught some useful footage. There simply is no way to know for sure beyond what the book and new articles tell us. There are infinite possibilities that may have been omitted, or may not have even been revealed to the authors. There may be lots of evidence that wasn't used in court because it wasn't necessary. Too much speculation based on too few facts.

Good point - we don't. We know if there were other cameras in the hotel room itself, for that matter. We only know about the ones we're told about by the articles and book. For all we know, in fact, that box could be a decoy itself, to distract attention from another nearby covert camera.

My Google-Fu is strong today If you have a TV that has HDMI in and analog audio outs, you could always decode the audio that way... but it would have to be on all the time for this to work. Frankly, I think a $20 DVD player would be preferable.

Comcast Cable in Arlington Heights, IL, based on the OP's IP. (yay, acronyms!) Fairly small 'burb of Chicago, could probably find the house on Google Earth relatively easily.

Yeah, pretty much - just figured, depending on what you were doing with it, there might be an easier/more efficient way of streaming the DVD player. Well, the first thing that comes to mind is, I don't see an audio output on that DVD player (I'm assuming this is an all-in-one home theater system?). The audio jacks on the left are labeled "AUX IN 2", which means that's an audio input... the three on the right are video outputs. Unless there are audio-out jacks elsewhere on the unit... Hmm, going from the AH64-03822Q part number on that unit, Google tells me it's a Samsung HT-WX70 home theater unit... from what I can find, there is no analog audio output on that unit; it appears the ONLY way to get audio from it is via the HDMI OUT port (and that would be PCM digital audio). So short answer is: you can't do it with that DVD player. The good news is, any cheap $20 home DVD player SHOULD work

You could use ethernet extenders for the farther cameras... or if some of them are closer to each other, you could put a second switch at some mid-point location, plug them all into that, and then link that switch into your main switch. Similar to this: To simplify things, you could use a PoE switch for the midpoint so you don't need to power the cameras separately. I'd run Cat5e to these cameras as well and use baluns for the video. Passive baluns will let you easily run video 200-300m over Cat5e. If the cameras support 24VAC power, you can use three of the four pairs to run power over that distance as well. Since an NVR is a *Network* Video Recorder, you'll need analog-to-IP encoders to digitize your analog cameras for recording. Several manufacturers make eight-channel encoders.

Are you just using the DVR as a stream generator? If so, why not use something designed specifically for this purpose, like a Slingbox?

+1. +2.

The problem isn't with it being a computer power supply, it's a simple matter of voltage loss running 12V over that distance. Assuming a 500mA draw and 18 AWG wire, you'd lose over 2.5V at 120m.

^Then you're definitely looking at an active solution, at additional cost.

Image linking works fine, that was just the OP being pissy. I've removed all the embedded image links, so the first page now loads smoothly. The OP's direct links will take you to the full-size versions he insists on... if you have the time to waste. I'm on high speed as well - 50Mbit service, in fact. Still takes time for all that download, and even longer to render on an Atom processor. As I noted before, I was trying to read the thread, and every 10-15 seconds, when the next image downloaded and displayed, the page would jump, and I'd have to scroll back to where I left off... just in time to read another four or five words and then watch it jump again. 19 pictures, 10 seconds each to load... that's over three minutes just waiting for the page to fully display.

It's a gorgeous house. I'm a photography nut as well and like photographing all kinds of things. TEN photos of the house have nothing to do with the purpose of this thread though - hell, he's only got NINE photos posted of the cameras and sensors. One would have been more than sufficient... and there's absolutely no need for THAT to be full resolution either.

Soundy, The photos will remain unaltered from their original copy. I want people to see high definition photographs of what the thread is talking about. Why? Everyone can see what they are at the displayed size just fine. Full-res versions don't give any better idea of what cameras are inside the housings. And if everyone else is having the same problem, then everyone else will leave the thread, and there will be nobody left to answer your questions. Kinda defeats the purpose, no? And I see that I'm NOT the only one who finds them annoying. But okay... it's not JUST my problem. As you may have noticed, the board auto-imported all of your links and then hosted the full-size images from the board account... that's about 4.5MB per image, times 19 images, or 85MB that a person has to download to their computer just to view the first page of this thread - that's going to be slow on just about anyone's connection. Now multiply that by the number of times the thread is viewed (58 so far)... that's FIVE GIGABYTES just to display your images, in less than six hours, all on THIS system's dime. I don't know what kind of hosting plan this board is on, but at this rate it's probably going to be hitting a cap really quick. Then if someone quotes an embedded picture, it's downloaded again. If I hit reply, it goes to a new page, and ALL the pictures are downloaded again. It would be a simple matter for you to embed smaller images (even just re-compressing them at a lower quality level at the same resolution would greatly reduce the file size), but no, you have to be selfish, don't you? But hey, problem solved: I removed the board-hosted embedded images from the posts - if someone wants to look at your pictures, they can just use your links and eat up YOUR hosting bandwidth. If you want to post embedded pictures, RESIZE AND/OR RECOMPRESS THEM FIRST to a manageable file size. And be reasonable with the photos you select to post - TEN PHOTOS of the house are IRRELEVANT to identifying the cameras. What the house looks like has NOTHING TO DO with anyone being able to tell you type of cameras or their purpose. By the way, this is NOT a request.

Still insufficient information. What was the upgrade - the card, the software, the drivers, the PC itself? Is this a generic card used with different software? If so, what software? What cameras are being used? What type of wiring? Lots of things that can have an effect on image quality. The more information, the better.

Okay, I'm not coming in this thread anymore until those pictures are made a reasonable size... every time one loads, the screen jumps, and I lose what I was reading.

If the house is abandoned, how is the porch light on? You'd think the electricity would have been cut off... Anyway, highly doubtful they're government cameras... I'd tend to suspect, if they're on the road to the house or anywhere near they house, they're something installed by previous residents to warn of anyone approaching. BTW, you should resize your pictures to something smaller - they're huge (both in resolution and in filesize) and with the number of them, my poor little netbook has problems displaying this page. And we really don't need 10 pictures of the house.

Post video to YouTube, post the link here.

Without knowing what DVR card and/or software was being used before AND after, it's impossible to even start guessing at the problem. You've provided no useful information at all.

Impossible to tell what sort of cameras they are, as the cameras are in housings... the first is a Videolarm housing, the second is a Pelco housing, but that really doesn't tell you anything. The Videolarm box is on a cheap plastic mount, though, and with the two different housings, and the sloppy wiring, it just smacks of something that someone slapped together out of spare parts.

You could use an IP decoder, but good luck finding one that will work with a Foscam. Not sure how you'd get composite video out of the router, either (it would have to have a similar decoder function). If the TV had VGA input, it might be possible to take a VGA output from the Mac... or HDMI/DVI, if both support that. Or use a "Smart TV" box - LG, Asus, and several others have them for around $100 (similar concept to AppleTV).

Hmmm, I'd have to look at the DVR to figure out exactly where to find it, but there should be a "pre-buffer" option...