Soundy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch#KVM_over_IP_.28iKVM.29 Video over IP can totally be done... check out some of these: http://www.avocent.ca/products/HMXDesktopOverIP.asp http://www.avocent.ca/products/solution-server.asp http://www.aten.com/KVM-Over-IP.htm http://ca.startech.com/Server-Management/KVM-Switches?filter_KVMPORTS=8&filter_KVMINTERFACE=USB+and+PS%2f2&filter_KVMIPCONTROL=Yes I haven't used any of these specifically, but I have used a number of other ATEN and Startech products, and both have been solid and effective. I'd recommend either brand.

Welcome aboard! If I remember my Spectra IIIs (it's been a couple years since I worked on one, but I have installed several of them), there's a BNC tail for the video, a set of screw terminals for power, and some plastic screw-terminal connectors for control data.

Oh... and most mic selections will be either omnidirectional, or cardioid (aka unidirectional)... go with the latter, so it doesn't pick up excessive noise from the back (it will have a little more sensitivity toward the front). These aren't SUPER directional, they'll still pick up more than a 180-degree arc in front, but it will be a bit more effective than an omni.

Nothing fancy required - for simplicity, just look for any dynamic mic. Most basic ones will have a 1/4" T-S plug on them, so you'll need something to adapt that to the DVR's input (probably an RCA jack)... other than that, it shouldn't require any sort of amp. BTW, the warning about legality goes beyond just admissibility: in some jurisdictions, it IS actually illegal to record "surveillance" audio in public places.

It is a bit of an oddity... Boolean operators are usually less-common characters, like | for OR, & for AND... a ! before a term would normally be NOT, but in this case they're using the -. It would seem to make sense that they should at least look for a space in front of it, specifically to deal with hyphenated words. Maybe I'll check with the phpBB forums and see if there's a patch to deal with this. BTW, if you're familiar with Boolean phrasing, you should be able to customize your searches, even from the dropdown box.

Pelco is hardly dominant. As with all the other names, they have their gems, and they have their turds. If I was looking for a kick-arse PTZ, I'd go Esprit or Spectra IV... if I was looking for a basic indoor or outdoor dome, Pelco is one of the last places I'd look. Unfortunately, most technology companies, once they CAN start to get by on their name alone, seem to start TRYING to get by on their name alone. CNB is mentioned around here a lot because they have SOME really good cameras... doesn't mean ALL their products are up to that same standard. I have no experience with Dahua (yet) but I expect they're the same.

I saw the price there before Chris edited it... suffice to say, it's better than a 50% drop.

You should be able to power it at that distance with sufficient sized wire, maybe with a 28V power supply... I'd suggest powering it much closer to the camera though.

You don't have to do all of it in one pull, hopping building to building. You could, for example, do one pull from each of buildings 8, 10 and 11 into building 9, terminating in a patch panel or BIX block. Then from building 9, do another pull to with enough capacity for all the runs into 7 (so if you do two runs each from 8, 9, and 10, do eight runs - two each for 8, 9, 10 and 11). Terminate into a patch panel or BIX block there... then pull 10 runs from 7 to 6. Terminate again there, then take 12 runs from there to 5. And so on.

Try it with "Search for any terms" selected instead of "Search for all terms" and you get this: Must be something with the way it's parsing the hyphen; with an "any" search, it's finding the two terms separately. Looks like it's seeing the hyphen as a Boolean operator:

Yeah, a specific example would help... you might have some options set wrong.

Hello David When you say Cat 5 with baluhns, I did look in to this, but is there really any advantage in doing so on a small cctv home system? Size of the system is irrelevant; there are plenty of advantages: The cable is cheaper. The cable is easier to work with. You only need the one cable (vs. power and video cables with coax). Upgrading to IP cameras later is easy. In a pinch, you can run two cameras with power on one cable (not always recommended, but nice to have sometimes). Baluns cost a bit more than BNC connectors, but as you get into longer runs, the difference in cable cost means the total cost starts to even out... and of course, if you want to swap in an IP camera later, the cost of IP-over-coax adapters is a LOT higher).

Can you suggest any devices for transmitting Ethernet over single wire pair? Can't think of any off the top of my head. I know GEM has a unit for extending up to 1.2km over Cat5e, but not a single pair. They also have a couple that run over coax, but you're less likely to find available coax between buildings. I know others here use such devices though, so someone else should step in with some suggestions

There are a few ways to do it, although with this many different machines, depending on how the DVRs do it, it could become a logistical nightmare... or at least a logistical pain in the arse. For starters, most DVRs with web clients use at least two ports: HTTP on port 80 for the initial incoming connection, and a second separate data port that the web client actually communicates and receives video on. Setting up unique forwarding for the HTTP ports is easy - personally, I'd leave the DVRs all on 80, and then set the router to handle the forwarding as necessary... for example, "public" port 81 might forward to "private" port 80 for L1's DVR; port 82 for L2's DVR, etc. Then from the outside, you'd use "http://shrenik.com:81" to view L1; "http://shrenik.com:82" for L2, and so on. Where it gets tricky is in forwarding the data ports: you would need to make sure the client allows you to specify a different data port(s). If it uses, for example, port 8000, and there's no option to change that in the client, then you'll have no way to make the remote client route to the proper system. With that many machines (and I'm guessing a buttload of cameras to go with them) you really want to be careful to control outside access, because your internet connection could get saturated really fast.

You shouldn't need to worry about any port forwarding if you're only viewing things from a client PC in the CR location. Port forwarding only applies if you need to provide outside access in through a router.

One other thought: presumably these buildings are already interconnected in some way, probably for phone, cable, intercoms (entry gate control, that sort of thing?). With the appropriate devices, you can run ethernet a few hundred meters over a single wire pair, which would give you a hardwired option between buildings. I wouldn't think it would be hard to find a single wire pair between each building or set of buildings.

Sounds reasonable. You could also look at giving L1 its own wireless link directly to L4, and even another one between L1 and L7, and possibly L2/L3 to L7 as well. L3 could also have a direct wireless link to CR in addition to L4. With redundant paths, you'd have greater overall reliability (providing it's all set up properly, of course) - something of a MESH network. Basically, anywhere you have a line-of-sight between groups of buildings, you'd add a wireless link, so if one link fails for whatever reason, there's another route for the data to take.

Ethernet on UTP is limited by spec to ~100m so at least some of those connections will have to use either extenders or some sort of directional point-to-point wireless. Hardwired is ideal, but that will depend on whether you have or can install conduit, or fly the wires between buildings. You'd probably use extenders where needed, and "daisy chain" the connections through switches in each location. If wireless were the only option, I'd think the best bet would be if you had line-of-sight from each location to CR and set up a direct wireless link back, rather than "daisy chaining" between the other locations.

Any of those should be fine. The one with the battery will run the cameras for an hour or so if the power goes out (although that's not very useful if your DVR isn't on a UPS or something). I'd go with the online store before buying from eBay...

This is why fog lights on cars are mounted as low as possible - more direct light on the road, less reflecting straight back to the driver.

Mine's supposed to be 50Mbit down, 5Mbit up... Speedtest doesn't do it justice though, because of all the traffic we have going all the time.

AWG stands for "American Wire Gauge".

There are plenty of 1/2" megapixel cameras out there, but they won't be cheap, and most are CMOS... which REALLY IS NOT A PROBLEM. Take a look at IQEye's 700-series cameras.

With only three 1.3MP cameras, you should have no problem using only a 10/100 link to the NVR. The three cameras together shouldn't add up to more than 10Mbps max, even using highest-quality MJPEG. So yes, a 10/100-only PoE switch in the garage should suffice nicely.