Soundy

Cost of installing pvc pipe was probably much more than the cost of a superior and earthed protector. Maybe, but the chance of damage to the wire by sun, weather, birds, animals, or other environmental factors is about a million times higher than the chance of lightning damage.

Sorry but most people live in the real world. More like, most people just buy the marketing hype and take what the salesdroid hands them, rather than planning a proper *system*.

Or better yet, just use cameras that DON'T have or rely on built-in IR.

His diagram DOES indicate the that NVR laptop is hardwired...

have you TRIED the linked drivers? Many DVR cards use the same analog/digital converter chips as tuner cards, and so the same generic drives will usually work with both.

It would require the remote client to support that function. Not all do.

You can do that with standalones today, so whats the question again? Which ones? I'm talking multiple terabytes in a RAID5/RAID6 format, mind you... name some standalones that support interface via iSCSI, SAS, or other such high-capacity interface.

I wouldn't - I'd use a PC-based hybrid DVR that I know has support for dozens if not hundreds of IP cameras, and facility to add customized camera support. Then I know it stands less chance of becoming obsolete. Otherwise, unless I'm replacing all my analog cameras with IP cameras, I either end up with two separate systems for analog and IP (which are highly unlikely to share a VMS), or I end up turning the standalone into a boat anchor and replacing it with a hybrid DVR, or an NVR and a buttload of encoders (NOT particularly cost-effective!). Really? NEVER? What standalones are you comparing to what PC systems? What feature sets are you looking at? What if I'm going to need to add a crapload of external storage? Ahhh, there's your key word: "usually". I'll put a Vigil's ease-of-use up against any standalone, any day. That still won't allow me to do something like this: Simultaneous synchronized playback of a mix of IP and analog cameras. (Yeah, the fog on the top-right camera is some bright upward-facing lighting that was added below the camera, AFTER the camera was in place... and they wouldn't let us move the camera because it would leave little tiny screw holes behind )

Is there an "FCC ID" label anywhere on the board?

Nothing that simple. I'm not aware, offhand, of a DVR that will do it. Numerous cameras contain flip and/or mirror options via their onscreen menus (some of which may be configurable via RS-485 remote control). You might be able to find some sort of video signal processor that will do it externally, but that could get expensive - might be easier to just access the camera and turn it over physically.

Does Geo even support Avigilon cameras? Maybe the h.264 cameras... but not the JPEG2000 cameras.. I don't think that is what he is asking though. Well, if it doesn't, then his question, as it is, is pointless - the user would HAVE to use the Avigilon software. Granted, by all accounts, it's far nicer software anyway, so why WOULDN'T one want to? But as a more generic question... what one SHOULD do would really depend on the individual and how the software compares - one certainly COULD simply add the proper updates and licensing to the GV software and add IP cameras alongside the analog ones, could one not? Or simply replace the analog cameras entirely and remove the card? I haven't used GV's NVR/hybrid capability, so I don't know if it combines everything in the same interface. Beyond that, it's a question of personal preference. He's dragged this so far off track, I don't even remember what the question was...

So you agree that the best thing to do if a guy had a 16 channel geovision card for years running analog cameras, and he decides to get 4 avigilon 5 megapixel cameras, that he should simply update the Geovision software to support those 4 Avigilon cameras instead of using Avigilons IP software on the same computer? Does Geo even support Avigilon cameras?

The "flip" option in a camera usually only applies when the camera passes a certain point, and wants to maintain a direction of travel.... that is, if you were tilting the camera down, it would normally stop when it's pointing right at the ground; a "flip" option would allow the camera to continue tilting back up the other direction, either by spinning the camera 180 degrees and then tilting it back up, or by flipping the image and continuing tilting in the same direction (usually the former). If there's an option in the DVR, it may only apply if the camera supports that command. PTZ controls don't typically affect the image in the DVR; they just send commands to the cameras.

actually the analog camera has a firmware too, since it is actually digital, so it can be updated. I would love for you to show use how to upgrade the firmware in your $40 KT&C bullet cameras Tweezers and a soldering iron...

This is the thing that's got me sticking with the NV5000, for all its limitations - being able to remotely manage both analog and IP, as well as viewing the recordings, all in one place. I also like the ability to VNC in to the pc to do the stuff the phone apps won't support. If I had the cash, I'd switch to all IP and not look back. It's getting cheaper and more powerful every year, though. This is the beauty of the Vigil system: DVR, hybrid and NVR, all use the same software. You don't need the card at all if you're running an all-IP setup. I don't know why this seems to be such a difficult concept to grasp.

CNB has a number of small, inconspicuous dome designs as well... we've used this one before: http://cnbusa.com/en/html/product/product.php?seqx_prod=1157 - whole thing is barely 4" across This one's about the same size too: http://cnbusa.com/en/html/product/product.php?inc=spe&seqx_prod=1159#p_v1

So did you get it sorted out?

IP is the transport protocol a network camera uses. The term is often used interchangeably with "MP" (megapixel), but you're correct, an IP camera isn't necessarily megapixel. Many manufacturers have lower-resolution (such as VGA, or 640x480) cameras that use IP rather than NTSC/PAL analog signals to send their video. There are some advantages to this, particularly if you're already using a number of IP cameras but need some advantages of a few lower-resolution cameras (better low-light performance, lower cost, etc.), but for the most part, IP is used primarily because analog video has a limit to the resolution it allows.

What would I say to him? I'd sa for $11k, he got taken for a ride. Crap gear, crap install.

THE CARD IS IRRELEVANT TO IP CAMERAS. IP cameras connect through the network; they have nothing to do with the capture card. Few hybrids I've seen work this way (only VideoInsight comes immediately to mind. Adding support for new IP cameras, with a PC-based system, is usually as simple as a software update. I can take a six-year-old Vigil 3.x system with NO IP camera support and update to the latest version without changing out the hardware.

Looking at the specs on that, it lists about 1.5Mpps (packets per second) throughput... the Ciscos I listed above state 6.55 and 38.69Mpps. So yeah, it looks like the backplane of that Etherwan switch is a serious bottleneck for the amount of data you're chunking through it (remember, the backplane in my analogy above is the main highway that connects all the on- and off-ramps together, so yes, that's a necessary part of the switch... in this case, your backplane amounts to a dirt horse trail). Ahh, good catch, I missed that. We've been using the Cisco SFE-1000P previously (eight 10/100 PoE ports, two gigabit combo ports), now replaced by the SF302-08P, and also been very happy with them. These are a full managed switch as well. AND they have far higher switching capacity than the Etherwan - 4.17Mpps/5.6Gbps.

I went to Cisco's site and compared the SF200-24P and it's all-gigabit big brother, the SG200-26P: Note the Performance ratings - 8.8 gigabits per second is the SF200's "backplane capacity", which is WAY more than enough for your needs, especially since you're not really moving data between the camera ports, but 95% of your data will all be going to the server's gigabit port. The SG retails for around $600... the SF for a bit under $400. You could spend the extra $200 for the all-gigabit model, but you really wouldn't gain anything from it.

Well the main thing is, like I said, very few cameras have gigabit ports on them, so you wouldn't get any better speed to the cameras. And again, it all comes down to the backplane. Try this for an analogy: think of the ports as highway on-ramps in the suburbs, your server is downtown where all the traffic is going, and the backplane is your highway. If you have, for example, single-lane on-ramps feeding a two-lane highway, traffic between the ramps will be limited to how fast it can go, especially as you add more traffic. On the other hand, a four-lane highway with single-lane ramps will move a lot more smoothly. If you then have a four-lane off-ramp to the downtown, all that traffic can flow steadily into your downtown. In your case above, the switch you're using probably has limited capacity on its backplane, and that's where things are choking up. Changing it to an all-gigabit switch won't NECESSARILY help anything without looking at and improving the width of the backplane.

Brand alone isn't enough, since most makers have a wide range of models capable of handling different levels of traffic. You want something that doesn't just have gigabit ports, but has a large enough "backplane" (the part that moves all the data between ports) to handle all that traffic. Realistically, you don't need something that's ALL gigabit... a switch with enough 10/100 ports for your cameras, and a gigabit port for your server, will suffice, as very few cameras actually have gigabit ports on them. You may be able to save some money that way. The Cisco SF200-24P, as shown here, would do nicely - 24 10/100 PoE ports, two gigabit combo ports (ethernet, plus a slot to plug in something like a fiber-optic transceiver). We've been using the 8+2 port version of this on a number of sites now and they work great.