Soundy

So what is the make and model? Or does it not have one?

It's not a question of "these four" because the four are not the same types of layers. When you forward ports in your router, almost all routers will give you the option of TCP, UDP, or Both, for every application-layer port you set up. This defines the type of transport it uses for that specific port. Which application ports you need depends on the DVR. Most that use a web-based interface require at least port 80 for the incoming HTTP connection (most also allow you to change that port in case there's another webserver behind the router). Most of those will then load an ActiveX client app that will use a different port to communicate, so you'll need to open up that port as well... but I can't tell you which one because I don't know what DVR you have. The ones with a standalone client app will usually have one or more ports you need to forward, but again, that will depend on the exact model. I haven't seen one yet that required RTSP, but you might use that if it's an H.264 DVR and you want to stream it to VLC or something. For all of these, your manual should tell you specifically which ports you need to forward. Unless otherwise specified, you should assume all are using TCP. If the manual doesn't list it, or if you don't have the manual, the DVR settings should display the default ports, so you'd forward all of the ones you find there. Again, without knowing the make and model of the DVR, NOBODY can tell you for sure what ports you need forwarded.

TCP and UDP (transport layer) are not the same thing as HTTP and RTSP (application layer) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite. HTTP is typically used for webservers and browsers to communicate, and uses TCP port 80 by default; RTSP is used for streaming media and normally uses TCP port 554.

Can you post pictures or a video clip showing the noise? Power and video together like this is fine since the power is very low voltage, and 30M really isn't that long a run. However, you do want to avoid running your cables near any other source of electrical interference, such as lighting (especially fluorescent lights), or motors (A/C or other high-current devices, especially). It's also possible if a camera is mounted to a metal surface, or if a mounting screw goes into a steel stud, that it's getting a ground loop that way. And ultimately, it could just be the fact that you have a cheap, no-name, junky DVR (and I'm guessing the cameras are something equally cheap?)

I'd be more concerned with the fact that that cable has a foil shield and a very thin, apparently (from the image) non-copper braid, rather than a good 90-95% all-copper braid... but for only 15m, that shouldn't be a problem. You wait until you get the camera, open it up, and look at the actual chip. Other than that, buying gear on eBay, ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.

This is fine - ask away!

Distance isn't a factor as much as the area covered - how large an area will these people be in? If you're covering a door, gate, gap in a hedge, or some other area where you can limit where the person is (aka "choke point"), you can zoom in tightly on that area and get recognizable faces with pretty much any analog camera. If you're needing a wide lens to cover a larger area, then higher resolution may be needed. Axis has a really good article on the topic here: http://www.axis.com/edu/identification/resolution.htm

Well that would kind of defeat the low-cost aspect... Really, there are as many different ways to do it as you can think of. Once site, I just put the PSU and DVR close enough together I barely had to split out anything. One site, I split out by the DVR and used 18/2 to extend the power runs. Another time, I split out by the PSU and used a few more lengths of Cat5e to extend the video runs to the DVR (four video feeds per Cat5e = four UTP runs from PSU to DVR for a 14-camera system). A couple sites now, we've run the cable past the DVR to the PSU, then just split a bit of the jacket by the DVR, extracted the video pair, and tied the baluns in right there - lotta work, but really clean. Last two sites, we've used rackmount combined PSU/balun units like this: http://www.easterncctv.com/accessories/big_icon/ev16p-vps.jpg These are working GREAT, and really helps keep installations tidy. Most jobs, I'll use the blue pair for video, orange/orange-white together for one side of the power (+12VDC or 24VAC "hot"), and green/green-white together for the other side of the power (ground, or 24VAC "neutral"), leaving the brown pair as a spare. The PSU/balun combo unit above uses wires 1 and 2 for video (orange pair if you wire T-568B); 3, 4 and 5 for power ground (green/white, blue and blue/white), and 6, 7 and 8 for +12V (green, brown/white, and brown). As to why: the thinner a wire, the less current it can carry, and the higher resistance it presents to the circuit. If the camera requires too much current (such as an IR camera), or if the run is too long, you get voltage drop that can lower the voltage at the camera end below its operating voltage...so for example, the camera might drop out when the IRs turn on. Using two or even three pairs for power gives more capacity and less voltage loss. Whether this is an issue depends on the cameras, the source voltage (it's less of a problem at 24V) and the length of the run.

"Good enough" - that's the maximum you can get with analog, one would hope it's "good enough". And like Tom says, it's overkill most of the time.

What if Rory is incapable of thinking outside the box?

What if you're too far for WiFi? Or have too much structure in the way? Or the DVR isn't connected to a network? Or is on a corporate network that doesn't allow wireless? Or doesn't support remote PTZ? What if you're trying to troubleshoot PTZ communication issues? Determining if the DVR's control port is or isn't working? If the wiring to the PTZ is intact and connected properly? LOTS of reasons this can be a VERY useful tool.

"Very handy to have on your service laptop for testing PTZs in the field"

Depends where you shop, but Cat5e tends to be slightly cheaper than coax. Cat5e can carry video and power in one wire (or video, power and audio; or video, power, and PTZ control; or two video and power; or up to four video). With coax, you need a separate power wire (sometimes this comes attached as "Siamese" cable), at an additional cost. With Cat5e you need baluns to "balance" the signal at both ends, which adds a small cost (anywhere from $3 to $50 per camera, depending on the baluns you use). Standard everyday Cat5e is smaller and much more flexible than coax; don't forget to add the thickness of the additional power wire with coax, and if you're pulling several runs through tight places, the two different-size cables (coax and power) can make for a real hassle.

Not usually... my experience, most of them will just charge you a bunch of money to install the same kind of cheap package systems. You're already on it. viewforum.php?f=54

Keep in mind that most standalone DVRs won't have a native widescreen output, so the display is going to be "stretched" on a widescreen TV. You'll have to use VGA or HDMI if you want any kind of clean display; using analog out to an A/V input will look terrible, especially at that size. Also, if you want all 10 cameras to display, you'll need to find a DVR that will output a suitable split-screen: equal-size "boxes" will only work in four (2x2), nine (3x3) or 16 (4x4) layouts. The only way to fit 10 with no empty boxes is this:

I've recommended that one numerous times here. It's not a "virtual" PTZ, but a software PTZ controller. Very handy to have on your service laptop for testing PTZs in the field (most laptops will require a USB-to-serial adapter; built-in serial ports are extremely rare these days).

Wind chill has nothing to do with it - it's a method of rating how cold it FEELS to exposed skin, but the actual temperature doesn't change.

The only cameras I've ever had fail in direct sunlight have been a couple of Pelco IS-100 outdoor-rated domes. I have dozens of sealed housings in direct sunlight, mostly EH-3512s, a few older EH-2512s, most with analog cams, a few with IP cams... none have ever had a problem. One installation is a 50' tower with two FLIR SR-19 thermal cameras (sold for around $15,000 each at the time, built in the EH-2512 housing), and a Pelco Esprit PTZ (EH-3512-based housing, running around $5,000), out in direct weather 24/7/365 - they've all been running flawlessly for close to five years now. Unless you're putting an already-hot camera in these things in the Arizona desert, I really wouldn't worry about it. Probably helps that these housings are all white powder-coated, so they probably reflect sunlight pretty well.

1. What about analog cam in enclosure, enough heat? Probably. Other than ICR, most cameras have few or no moving parts anyway; the only thing to really be concerned about might be the iris in the lens. Unless you're hitting -20C or so (around 0F) it shouldn't be a problem. Not the ones we use - primarily Pelco EH-3512 and EH-3502. Aside from the wire entry holes, they're completely sealed, and we'll usually run the wire in through a sealed grommet and close the other hole with a blank plug. Keep in mind, one drawback to a vented housing is that it can let bugs get inside. It can also allow moisture in on particularly humid or foggy days. The idea of the blower is the move air across the glass, thus enhancing defogging/defrosting... in a sealed box, a fan won't cool things at all, as all it's doing is circulating the hot air.

Anyway... the heater in most enclosures is attached to the front glass - the primary purpose is to keep the glass from fogging/icing. Most cameras - especially IP cameras - generate plenty of heat on their own when operating; if you use a SEALED enclosure, it should retain plenty of heat, and if it's not super damp out when you close the housing up, you shouldn't have much problem with fogging... again, as long as you use a SEALED enclosure. Unless you live in the far north, you probably don't need heaters in the enclosure for the sake of keeping the camera warm.

Oh yeah, duh.

Right there in the first post

No. http://www.connectworld.net/syscon/support.htm

Just to clarify: you want a *megapixel* camera for higher resolution. IP is just a different transport mechanism; many cheap IP cameras are only VGA resolution (640x480) and won't give you any better picture than an analog camera. Be sure to check the resolution specs when shopping! That is correct. However, you'll still need to record it somehow, which would normally mean some kind of software on your PC. Also, remember that no camera is TRULY wireless - you still have to get power to it.

Oh yeah, I was only suggesting that TYPE or unit, not that one specifically. That was just a good picture I found