Soundy

If you want to move to IP/megapixel, I'd suggest your first step be to upgrade your DVR to a hybrid system - you could then plug in your existing cameras, and either upgrade those to better analog cameras later, or add IP cameras as budget permits, or a combination thereof. Others should be able to suggest some good "starter" hybrids that might fit your budget... the ones I'm familiar with start around $3000.

Welcome aboard!

Have you considered just putting a PC near the TV (even a basic laptop or netbook would do) and networking the PC and DVRs all together, then accessing them via the remote client? It would be far easier, probably far cheaper, and certainly more flexible.

It's not just that... the root of the problem is, there IS NO defined standard for measuring and publishing camera light sensitivity specs in the CCTV industry. Fiona and Stanislav could have the best, fairest, most accurate test methods in the world, but there's nothing that forces the camera makers to use those tests, or any tests. As it stands, a camera that claims ".01 lux" could be referring to the level at which it gets a usable image... or the level at which the sensor gets measurable output. There's no standards body that requires them to say what kind of output they're looking at. This really reminds me of when I was working in car audio in the early 90s... coming from a live/studio audio background, I was used to seeing power output specs for amps, that fell under various industry bodies and specifications for testing and reporting output numbers. Power specs were supposed to include information like the test frequency used and the total harmonic distortion produced at given power levels, and maximum power was supposed to be measured at a maximum level of THD (once the THD hit that point, that was assumed to be max rated power). Even home audio fell under the same guidelines for testing. In car audio, all that was out the window. The industry had no standardized testing, and nobody to enforce it if they did. Same problem: a manufacturer could literally make up their numbers, even if they didn't make any sense. One $50 amp a friend bought claimed to be "200W" output, with nothing to back it up (it had a 10A fuse on its power line... even the most basic math for that is impossible: 10A @ 12V provides a maximum 120W, PERIOD, even before you include losses). Meantime, my car's subs were powered by an amp that was rated 30W/channel, yet came with a 20A fuse... and new, sold for around $500. And it SHOOK my car, with only two 8" subs. I blew the output transistors on it once, and there was NO noticeable distortion before it went (after I repaired it, I put a fan on the amp... never fried it again after that). One of the biggest problems we saw, was that the cheaper manufacturers that DID measure their amps, would measure them while powered with 14.5-15V (which car electrical systems usually output while running with no load), which allowed them to generate more output power for a given input signal... and thus stamp the amp with a bigger number, since a design that gave you 120W output (for the sake of easy math) with a 12V source, would give you 145W output with a 14.5V source. The GOOD ones, the trusted competition brands, used regulated power supplies, and measured with a solid 12V source, which at least gave you CONSISTENT numbers, and gave you the same output whether they were getting 15V or 10V. The best indicator we found, other than reputation, was actually price. It was (and probably still is; I've been out of it for years) very much an industry where you got what you paid for. CCTV is very much the same, especially when you look at the range of analog cameras, from the craptastic $15 IR bullets, to the likes of the Panasonic SD5s that retail for close to $800, but do everything except make your toast in the morning.

LOVE IT!!

Yeah, but if Rory bailed, then he wouldn't be able to tell us on a regular basis how rough he has it (especially when he's tormenting our Northern Alberta members with his 28-degree temps in the middle of winter).

Try these - clicky clicky!

Were these cameras in color previously? The LEDs will normally only turn on when it gets dark out, and if it's a color camera, the camera should switch from color to B&W at that time... if the LEDs aren't coming on, that could mean the driver circuit has failed, or the light sensor has failed (sometimes SOME of the LEDs will fail, but ALL the LEDs themselves failing is highly unlikely). If the camera is staying in night mode, that could also point to a failure of the light sensor. Either way, your best bet is probably just to replace the cameras.

I've more than once run power and two video over a single Cat5 with no problem - these are CNB VCM-24VF cameras with about 185mA current draw at 12V. The difference is, these are dual-voltage cameras with internal regulators that separate the power and video grounds, so I don't get two different ground-path lengths. It's hard to be certain without knowing the make and model of your cameras, but I'd still be willing the bet the problem is a ground loop caused the cameras using a common video/power ground. This is what clinches it for me:

Yes, I have tried 2 pair for power, 1 pair for video for 1 camera and it corrects the problem (in my first post). Everything I read online says 1 pair is enough for power though? You'll always get voltage loss over a wire run. The longer the run, the smaller the wire, and the higher the current draw, the greater the loss. For example, a camera that draws 300mA, over a distance of 100', will see a loss of about 1.54V over a single pair, or 0.77V with two pair. So if the power supply outputting a regulated 12VDC, then at the camera end, you're only getting 10.46V with one pair. Keep in mind that doubling the cameras on a run also doubles the current, so with two cameras on the above example, even with the power wire doubled up, you're getting 600mA draw, which brings you back to 1.54V drop. Now if the power supply is unregulated, it's probably pushing out around 15-16 volts with no load, so the loss may not be affecting it. You're using Altronix CCTV power cans though, so I'd guess the chances it's regulated are about 99.9999%. A quick test whether it's voltage or a ground loop might be to leave the second camera connected to power, but disconnect its video feed. That would maintain the current draw (and subsequent voltage loss), while breaking the ground loop. If that eliminates the problem, then that's your answer. The best solution to a ground loop problem like this is to replace the cameras with cameras that have an internal regulator, which usually means 12VDC/4VAC dual-voltage cameras. The workarounds are a separate power supply for every camera, or ground-loop isolators.

Looks almost identical to the Capture, yep. I have a couple of Fastrax IIs on a site, the older one of which refuses to be controlled from a PC, but works great with a Capture keyboard/joystick.

This is your problem - use only one pair for video, otherwise you don't get the noise rejection and balanced line function working properly. I am not sure if it was clear- but I am only using one pair (power/video) for each camera. There are two power/video pairs within 1 cat5 because I am powering 2 cameras. I am not using 2 pairs for one video feed which is what it looks like you are saying? One a side note, within testing, I have disconnected the second camera (on the cat5 line) from the power, dvr, and camera end completely and the problem persists. Basically eliminating any possible cross-talk/interference with the second camera. Okay, guess I missed that part. Ummm... at a guess, I would suspect ground loops, which is common when using baluns with cheaper 12VDC cameras that share a video and power ground, and a central power supply. It's a little work, but one way you can test this is to use completely separate pairs for each camera, one video and one power, and then power each camera with a separate wall-wart power supply via the Cat5. Powering each camera separately at the camera end will accomplish this same end, but that won't differentiate whether it's a ground loop issue or a problem with voltage loss over the long run. Assuming that powering the cameras directly clears up the problem, giving each camera a separate power supply over its own pair *at the head end* will determine whether it's a ground loop issue, or a voltage-drop issue.

"Fastrax"? I've used a number of Capture Fastrax PTZs... does that mean HiTron = Capture?

RJ12 connectors are perfect for the average DIY home/SMB owner. Except you're stuck with that brand of camera if you want to add or change any in the future. Proprietary video connectors aren't good for anyone (that includes mini-DIN connectors as well). You're wrong. 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. Despite this thread being six months old, the advice is the same: RUN SCREAMING from any DVR/camera system that uses RJ or mini-DIN connectors for the cameras. For that matter, avoid all-inclusive package systems as well.

This is your problem - use only one pair for video, otherwise you don't get the noise rejection and balanced line function working properly.

Can you post pictures of this "crackle"? My first thought would be interference of some kind - "crackle" sounds like the interference you'd get from something like an engine with bad spark-plug leads.

This is the problem, though: low-grade manufacturers often DON'T BOTHER TESTING. They DO use the on-paper, theoretical specs... or publish specs "inspired by" other similar cameras. IR ranges are calculated based simply on the number of LEDs they can cram in, with no accounting for how well they're aimed, how even the output is of the individual LEDs, how steady the drive current is (20%-tolerance current-limiting resistors can cause a lot of variance), and so on. Manufacturers fudging the numbers IS an important consideration as well: a "minimum lux" number may be the lowest level at which an image is detected, rather than the lowest level at which you get a USABLE image, for example. You can make a lot better profit margin when you DON'T do the testing for a camera you're trying to sell in part of a $200 package.

Stop it, you're scaring me.

Yes, you CAN use the same lens. No, it does not HAVE to be classified as a "megapixel" lens. For best results however, a megapixel camera SHOULD have a megapixel lens.

I wouldn't say it's too complicated to be understood, but there's more to a camera's low-light performance than just its sensitivity to photons. Lens aperture directly affects how much light is collected. So does shutter speed. Electronic gain processing can have a major effect on a camera's actual performance under different lighting conditions. So can electronic noise reduction and other such processing. Even the quality (components, design, construction, QA) of the circuitry supporting the sensor can make a big difference in how a camera does with low light. Two cameras may use the same sensor, the same lens, and one will still do better with low light because of better realtime image processing - boosting the gain, cleaning up the noise, etc. Realistically, experience IS going to be your greatest ally most of the time.

Yes: it'll be infinitely simpler to do on a budget. To do it PROPERLY with IP cams and network storage, you're looking at substantially more expensive equipment.

There are two or three threads specifically about tools, and several others that include various chat about tools.

Where's survtech these days? This is right up his alley

My internet speed at home is supposed to be 50Mbps down, 5Mbps up... at the moment, speedtest.net is telling me I'm getting 7.55Mbps down and 2.69Mbps up (maybe the kid is downloading some torrents?). When you're on residential broadband, your speed won't always been the maximum that the "Up To" claims promise.

Send a PM to Larry.