Soundy

I did not say that. Read again: "There's no "standard" for connectors pinouts for cameras that use RJ11/12 and mini-DIN plugs; thus, there can be no standard adapter. With a four-pin plug, there are at least 24 different possible pin configurations; with a 6-pin plug, there are 720 possible configurations." It's not "too complicated" - because of the number of possible combinations, it's NOT POSSIBLE TO CREATE A SINGLE STANDARD ADAPTER. You'd have to make a different one for every possible combination of pinouts, and then the potential customer would have to know which one his system used; using the wrong adapter would mean that at best the camera doesn't work right; at worst the camera gets fried. Possibly. The adapter would still only be specific to that machine and any others that use the identical pinout, and yes, I have seen the connectors and pinouts vary even between different models of the same brand. At that point, why wouldn't they just use industry-standard connectors on the DVR in the first place? Nobody's warning against DIY systems; we're warning against the ones that use proprietary camera connections like RJ or mini-DIN plugs. You're effectively locking yourself into that one manufacturer's equipment.

Does the old NVR not support the new encoder? If it does, just replace the encoder. Or spec a different NVR for the new installation, something that DOES support the old encoder. See, it IS possible to use two encoders, but it will cost an extra $100-$200 to do it properly... and the thing is, once the signal (both video and PTZ) is on the network via the encoder, you can have as many DVRs, NVRs, or remote viewers/controllers as you want WITH NO EXTRA HARDWARE NEEDED. Using a second encoder is an unneeded expense and additional complexity.

Why can't you just have both NVRs connected the same encoder then? The encoder is already providing your RS-485 control, so why duplicate the effort?

Do you already have your cameras selected? Some cameras can be viewed directly in a web browser and easily embedded in a web page. IQEye cameras have an MJPEG stream that you can view in any browser independent of a control interface, and the control interface runs using both ActiveX and Java, making them compatible with just about any browser out there.

Wow, that is a little spendy... the units above can be found for $100 or less and give you a 12V output as well as jump-starter AND they include the battery!

The TV will always report 480i, for any camera, because all analog cameras use existing analog video standards for transmission - 480i for NTSC (North America), 576i for PAL (most of the rest of the world). In your case, if you're viewing the camera directly on the TV, the artifacts you're seeing are because the TV up-scales the image to fit the full screen (720 lines or 1080 lines, depending on the TV). Not only that, it's also stretching the image horizontally - NTSC/PAL video are 4:3 aspect ratios, while your TV is 16:9. If you change the display setting to 4:3 (some TVs also call this "Normal"), you should see a much cleaner picture. With "digitization and compression" I'm talking about recording the cameras on a DVR: the analog video signal has to be digitized and then compressed for storage.

Pixelation is a result of digitization and compression... in general, it has very little to do with the camera itself. This one is a Panasonic WV-CW504 camera (lists around $800): These are CNB VCM-24VFs (can be found online <$200):

One of the biggest drawbacks to the pre-packaged "Costco systems" for situations like this is that they tend to have cameras with middle-of-the-road fixed-focal-length lenses that don't really give you wide OR tight coverage. For the types of things you want to view, you're probably looking at needing a mix of really wide lenses to cover large areas for general activity, and a couple of tighter lenses to get higher-detail views of some smaller areas. That usually means varifocal (adjustable-zoom) lenses, and/or picking specific lenses for each location. Edit: BTW, here are some samples of different lens lengths and their respective fields-of-view. Keep in mind your average package system is probably going to have either 4mm or 6mm lenses. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=24549

I don't know most of those units, but... yes, generally, the tighter the beam, the more powerful - and potentially more damaging - it will be. This applies to any sort of electromagnetic radiation, as well as things like sound waves (I DID take a bunch of theory in shaping sound coverage and calculating throw distances and whatnot, many many years ago... inverse-square law applies to pretty much any sort of wave propagation).

Don't go JUST on brand names - many brands have their own range of quality as well. For example, I've been using CNB's "Monalisa" line of cameras for some time now and been very happy with them for the price... many of their other models aren't as good though (not terrible, but not as good).

There are all kinds of meme generator sites that will create them for you... like this one: http://www.says-it.com/churchsigns

No such thing. A more "portable" option is something like this:

If I follow this correctly... You have PTZ cameras that connect to an IP encoder that supports RS-485 control output as well as video input. That encoder is then being recorded by an NVR on site. You now want people to be able to view and control the cameras from a remote location over the internet. If this is the case, you DO NOT need a second NVR *or* encoder - you just need to give the remote users access to the existing NVR and/or encoder via the internet connection. If the existing NVR has an internet connection, then all you need to do is set up the proper access controls and/or port forwarding - everything else is already in place.

Sysprep isn't new to Win7 either - I've been using it since at least Windows 2000... probably came out with the initial introduction of Windows NT.

The SENSORS in both cheap and expensive cameras may be the same, and thus the same price... There is a contradiction in this sentence "cheap and expensive cameras " vs " thus the same price" There's no contradiction. $50 camera, $250 camera, both may use the same $10 sensor, but the $250 camera will perform better because it has better design and better processing. May be. It depends what do you imply on the"actual performance ". But I speak here not about indefinite " actual performance". I speak about real defined parameter - SENSITIVITY (same exposure, same resolution, same signal/noise ratio, same lens aperture). This sensitivity will be the same with the same sensor. Yes, the sensitivity of the sensor will be the same... that doesn't mean the output of the two cameras will be the same. A good camera can take the low sensor output and get a better image through processing. Thus, sensor sensitivity does not directly correlate to image quality or low-light performance of the CAMERA. This goes directly back to the OP's question and the reason that specs given by manufacturers can be all over the map.

You MANAGE SURVEILLANCE, for a CASINO, where MILLIONS OF DOLLARS are raked in daily, and you're using the CHEAPEST CAMERAS YOU CAN FIND and LOOKING FOR CHEAPER?!?!

You've plugged multiple cameras into the same input and it consistently shows signal loss. This means that the input is faulty. Yes, I've seen it before on cheap DVRs with poor quality control.

Faulty input on channel 1, probably a loose connection on the BNC jack itself.

WAN (Wide Area Network) port connects to your cable or DSL modem, or whatever sort of internet device you have. The rest of your equipment plugs into the LAN (Local Area Network) port(s).

Who is "requiring" this? If the new encoders do something the old ones don't, then ditch the old ones and just use the new ones.

http://www.datalinkcom.net/rs232_converters/DL-232PTC9.htm

This is true... however, few cameras actually run on line voltage. Absolutely. It's also okay to run the 24V on the Cat5. As Tom notes, the heater should not be needed. Depending on the current requirements of the enclosure, there should be no problem powering everything via the Cat5. Either way, there's no issue with running low voltage along with the UTP. As we've covered before, the baluns create a balanced line that inherently rejects induced noise.

The SENSORS in both cheap and expensive cameras may be the same, and thus the same price... the actual performance of the cameras themselves will tend to vary greatly with how well the resulting signal is processed. And so yes, price IS often a good indicator of a CAMERA'S image quality ("camera" referring to the complete unit, NOT JUST THE SENSOR.

It's not a "waste of time" necessarily, camera quality depends on a lot of factors besides just TVL. I normally use CNB cameras that list as 600TVL, but I spec them because they're a versatile design with good low-light response, not because of OR in spite of the TVL. They look like an "okay" camera for the price... nothing special, probably not much better or worse than what you have. There is the "weakest link" theory, of course, that your overall image resolution will only be as high as the highest part of the chain, so there's certainly no harm in having cameras that are higher resolution than the video standard supports.

And so we come back to the three most reliable indicators: reputation, experience... and yes, price.