Soundy

What are you talking about? I'm just answering pal251's questions... Paulson seems to be reading something that isn't there.

You know I looked around a great deal for forums on cctv, originally last year. There was really only this one and another, mostly dead forum. I'm a member of many forums, as well as an administer of my own. My opinion, this is a really good forum. It has different levels of skilled people and a number of diverse opinions, from diy'rs like me weighing in what I can from my own experiences, right or wrong, and pro installers to help set the record straight when needed. And mostly, the crap storms are minimal- but even THAT kind of thread can yield great info- much like this thread. You can try, but I doubt you'll find a more active forum than this one on the subject of cctv, for better or for worse. And this one appears to be getting more popular all the time. I'd have to agree with you there... I look around now and then for other forums (there's even a thread about links to other forums: viewtopic.php?t=14359)... most of them seem to come and go and are mostly dead; I don't think I've found any that have even a quarter the steady traffic this one does. There are a number of others dedicated to things like home theater, alarm systems, and so on, that pay a passing nod to CCTV, with the odd post dealing mostly with cheap "package" systems. The next closest thing you'll probably find is LinkedIn, but finding the USEFUL forums among all the noise is tricky at best, and most of those are "open" forums and overrun with all sorts of spam.

Maybe nobody here ever had a problem with one? Or nobody who had a problem with one never bothered asking about it here? What does this have to do with anything? So, mention them. Nobody is getting paid here. Larry gets a little bit from the Partners to keep the hosting paid for and the site running. Other than that, it's something we all do in our spare time. There are a few manufacturer reps who stop by now and then, not always tech support personnel, but they tend to be the exception, and there are specific rules about any selling or marketing of products here. I'm not sure what your point is here? You stated that there was no discussion of issues with "major brands"... I linked specifically back to my Arecont rant thread (and Arecont IS a major player in the IP market). There's an entire subforum dedicated to GeoVision, which is a very big name in PC-based DVRs, particularly among the DIYers.

Are you sure about that?

Wow, again I'm agreeing with Rory - you obviously haven't been reading around here much. (viewtopic.php?f=19&t=22353 anyone?) Or maybe it's the simple fact that "major brands" don't HAVE nearly as many problems as the cheap no-name offshore junk, and that's part of WHY they're "major brands"?

true but i have been using linux on my personal laptop for 7 months and it still runs like it did when freshly installed. even when free hard drive space got down to 100MB it worked smoothly And I have six-year-old Windows 2000-based Vigil DVRs out in the field that still run just fine, too - no network connections, no updates needed, other than cleaning out the dust periodically, they just keep chugging along. Edit: ^Agree (mostly) with rory (I know, scary, right?) - I don't know if XP is the "best OS ever", but there's really no reason it can't be as solid and stable as anything else out there, IF it's set up properly. The problem is, most versions of Windows by default try to be the "everything to everyone" solution and install tons of services and features you don't need... which is often compounded by pre-built systems that load on tons of other apps and tools and demos and other crap that has no place on a DVR. Strip away all the junk and the pretty face (ie. turn off all the fancy GUI tweaks), and most NT-based versions of Windows (2000/XP/7, even NT itself) are perfectly reliable on even minimal hardware.

There's no reason ANY camera shouldn't "work" at 10Mbps (unless the NIC is incapable of switching). It may not work WELL, if the bandwidth is too high... but there's no logical reason they should be "incompatible".

1. A camera should not be getting interference from an internal fan; if it is, it's a VERY poor overall design. 2. A ground loop isolator does not address EMI; it addresses ground loops.

There should be no compatibility issues with ethernet-over-coax adapters like the HighWires - plug the camera's network port (ir switch, or whatever) into one end, coax into the other. The device handles the media translation; the camera/switch/etc. doesn't know the difference.

that another problem ..... the BNC is tv out and spot Are we looking at the same unit? "Inputs 8 UTP Line(CH1-CH8), BNC 2 ports(CH1, CH2)"

Not according to the specs page:

Assuming the included cameras all use the RJ-45 plugs, you should be able to add two more analog cameras via the two BNC connectors. Pretty much any analog camera should work, providing it uses the right video standard for your location (NTSC or PAL).

Yep - 18/2 should suffice, or 16/2 to be safe.

Best idea is to use a 24VAC power transformer, then add a 12VDC regulator at the camera end. If that's not possible, use an adjustable regulator (such as this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-5-27V-DC-Adjustable-Voltage-Regulator-Module-Board-/200615218756 - NOT AN ENDORSEMENT of this product or seller, just what came up in a google search), then measure the voltage at the camera end while you dial it up to give you 12-ish volts. The catch to this method is that IF it's an IR camera, the voltage at the camera WILL go up when the IRs turn off. Most cameras should be able to handle that, but just be aware... the preferred solution is to put the regulator close to the camera.

No. ^^^ Wouldn't that depend on the type of cat5 & overall distance combined with the load of the cam??? No. To this question... yes, the answer is "no".

That's a definite "it depends": depends on the voltage used (12 vs. 24), the current draw of the camera, and the distance involved. You can also use one pair for video, and three pairs for power, to get extra capacity. 18/2 stranded is the most common used for camera power, but larger wire is sometimes used when longer runs or higher current are required. If I need to run separate power wire, I'll usually use station-Z, which is 22/4 (22 gauge, four conductors), just because it's more versatile wire (I've run a camera and power over this stuff too) and it helps to minimize the the number of boxes of cable I have to carry around.

No.

Never heard of them, but I can see that name giving Beavis and Butt-head fits...

I've used plenty of Computar lenses - they're a good name. Nice score on that one.

OP, you should talk to our member Hidden Mountain, he's doing this and yeah, found pretty much what dvarapala says: satellite is REALLY SLOW for remote viewing.

Absolutely.

Besides being limited to 10Mbps, 10base2 was also a daisy-chain-only topology, cable running from one station to the next to the next, with a terminator at the end. Not the most convenient setup for cameras. You MIGHT still be able to find some PCI combo cards with 10base2 connectors, but good luck finding anything that you could adapt to the camera. Thing is, your ethernet-over-coax link isn't limited to one camera - you can run a half-dozen cameras into a switch, then uplink that switch over that single coax run to another switch... and it will be far cheaper than going DOCSIS and certainly less complicated than trying to use 10base2. Almost all of these adapters are *at least* 10/100Mbit, too.

Honestly, I think you'd be better off with a standard DVR and analog cameras, in this case. You're not using megapixel cameras and not viewing them live directly over the 'net, so there's no real benefit to IP cameras and a storage drive, other than complexity. A good standalone DVR will let you record at higher resolution and stream at lower resolution/bitrate to save your data cap.

I believe so, yes.

Granted, although it's going to take a pretty big install to hit that... in any case, that's a system-dependent design consideration; my answer remains the same: iSCSI *does not* REQUIRE a separate NIC. Again, this is the load on the single NIC in a system running 28 H.264 cameras at D1, and three 2MP H.264 cameras, all recording to an iSCSI array, all with plenty of activity: