Soundy

Simply setting the DVR's ports and IP as "trusted" isn't enough - you need to tell the router's NAT/firewall to forward the appropriate ports to the DVR's IP. The DMZ (demilitarized zone) option basically tells the router that, all ports that aren't specifically going elsewhere, get forwarded to the specified IP.

If your router has a "DMZ" option, try entering the DVR's IP there, and then see if you can connect remotely. A couple things to be aware of: many ISPs block port 80 on incoming connections, which could prevent you from making an initial connection to the DVR from outside; if possible, try changing the DVR's web port from 80 to something else (maybe 8000 or 8080) and try connecting to that by adding ":8000" to the end of the URL (example: http://myhouse.dyndns.com:8000) Also, many routers prevent "loopback" connections, meaning you can't connect to your own internet address, from inside your own network. You may need to try the remote connection from an outside location - maybe a coffee shop or a friend's house.

First the bad news: from your description of things, it sounds like you've bought a very low-end system that probably won't do much good when it comes to actually identifying someone... and using the types of connectors it does, it will be difficult if not impossible to upgrade the cameras later. All that aside (and ASSUMING the outdoor cameras are actually outdoor-rated), I'd tend to keep the cameras and wires as high as possible, especially as these are probably bullet-style cameras that can be easily tampered with or "re-adjusted" with a well-aimed rock. Best bet is probably to try to tuck them into the soffit or under flaps of siding or some other way to protect them as much as possible, if actually routing them into the attic isn't an option. BTW, if those connectors on the outdoor cameras are exposed, you can expect them to start failing as well before long - the pins carrying power in particular, will start to corrode, especially if you're near a coast.

It's been quite a while since I last installed K-Lite but that sounds about right. Again, it doesn't install any applications, just adds a bunch of behind-the-scenes stuff so that various media files will work with the system (and it's not limited to VLC - they'll work with Windows Media Player and most others as well... I just like VLC because it handles a lot of file types on its own, and it's small, lightweight, and I can do some cool scripting with it). "Codec ID" string says N264, which from the sound of it is probably a variation H.264, and is probably proprietary to the DVR manufacturer. I googled "N264" and found this thread: http://forum.team-mediaportal.com/codecs-external-players-55/n264-files-81708/ - it contains a link for an N264 codec that you could try (I didn't try the link myself, I don't know if it works, or if the codec will work for you... just something to try).

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=11322&start=82

K-Lite doesn't install any standalone apps, it installs a bunch of DLLs and other system files to support and decode additional media types. If you want to be sure, you could try re-installing it. But like I said, there's a good chance the DVR is using a proprietary or customized codec and/or file format. Now WHY a specific DVR manufacturer does this is anyone's guess. One brand I deal with, the video is MJPEG, but they re-compress it with their own codec that's designed to optimize compression for surveillance video that may have low framerates or only record sporadically (motion recording). Bottom line, if VLC and K-Lite still won't play the file, then it's probably not going to work, unless you can find an installable codec from that specific manufacturer.

As I said, it's very likely that the DVR is using some sort of customized/proprietary/optimized-for-surveillance codec that won't be supported by a commonly-available codec pack or player. VLC and K-Lite are probably the best chance for a "universal" player, but again, it's not guaranteed.

^Do they have one with female BNCs on one end? If not, plan on a bunch of these:

A lens of a given focal length (ie. 16mm) will ALWAYS cover the same angle of view - so a 16mm lens will always transmit the same size image regardless of whether it's designed for a 1/4" sensor, or a 35mm sensor in a DSLR. When you put a smaller sensor behind it, the image is "cropped" to just the area covered by the sensor - this is a common discussion in DSLR circles, a phenomenon known as "crop factor". Because of this, lenses designed for smaller sensors are made smaller and lighter (and thus, cheaper) and designed to only transmit that smaller area of the image that will actually be covered by the sensor. So what happens is, a 1/4" lens will project an image with a diameter that will cover a 1/4" sensor, but if you put a 1/3" or 1/2" sensor there, the image will only cover part of it and the corners will fall outside its light pattern, thus giving the "pigeonhole" or "tunnel" effect. Using the larger lens, again, should have no problems with the smaller sensor. If anything, you might get a clearer picture, as the edges of the image where distortion starts to appear, will fall outside the area of the sensor.

That second bundle would work, but it would get pretty messy as well, with the numbers the OP is talking about. Problem is, that has five connectors... the DVR inputs have eight. Pretty soon you end up with a mish-mash that's hard to keep track of... or a bunch of left-over cores.

You'll typically see this "pigeonhole" effect if using a lens designed for a smaller sensor, with a larger sensor (eg. a 1/4" lens on a 1/3" camera). Using a larger lens SHOULD, in theory, have no detrimental effects on a smaller sensor.

I doubt those would work - they look to be just VGA baluns, which really is just a three-channel balun, one for each signal line. These types of breakout cables don't conform to standard VGA pinouts, so something designed to transmit VGA wouldn't work.

The other thing you could do to reduce the cable count is use some multi-channel baluns or passive hubs on both ends, and use Cat5e to run between the rooms - will be cleaner and quite possibly cheaper in the long run (especially if you factor in the time to terminate all those coax runs). Something like this, for example: http://www.nvt.com/content.php?type=product&key=3213s&cid=root - each Cat5e run can carry four video signals, so each DVR would require only four Cat5e runs, rather than 16 coax runs.

Hi George, welcome! You are correct, of course: almost all DVRs use different file and video formats for their exports, and it's virtually impossible for one piece of software to be able to play them ALL. One of the most versatile I've found is VLC Player (www.videolan.org); combined with a good codec pack like K-Lite, it will handle a very large number of video formats. Some DVRs use their own proprietary codecs, however, so they can have something optimized for surveillance purposes (most readily-available codecs are designed to facilitate crushing movie DVDs down to CD-sized files, and so on). In fact, usually when a DVR exports video in its own format, it will include a player of some kind on the disc... or at least, it will include a codec installer that will allow your existing video player to read the files. Unfortunately, this is not always the case either. Ultimately, it comes back to the customer knowing how to properly use their systems, to be able to either export in a more common format, or having the system properly configured to include the necessary player/codec.

I've used VGA extensions (and DVI extensions, for DVRs that use the big DVI-type connectors for 16 inputs)... it will work, SOMETIMES. It depends entirely on the pins used by the particular breakout cable - it's worked for me on Vigil DVRs, but not GeoVision, because they use different pins on the HD15 connector for different things. Keep in mind that some of the pins *on the VGA spec* are grounds, and may all be tied together in the extension cable. This could then potentially short of some the wrong pins together for the DVR breakout cable. I'd suggest picking up ONE, SHORT extension cable first, and try it to see if it will work. Also, instead of (or in addition to) the expensive shielded cables... try one of the thin ultra-cheap types, as those are more likely to have all the pins just connected straight through.

Thanks, John... I did find the second link via Google... oddly, I don't recall it offering the FirmwareLoader file that's so prominent on the first one.

Like I say, a lot of times, messes like this are the result of multiple separate installs, compounded by multiple moves and changes, by multiple different installers or trades, over multiple years... at first things don't look so bad so nobody bothers to rip things out and redo it... by the time it really starts looking nasty, the time and labour involved to clean it up becomes excessive and fall outside the budget. Doesn't help that such work usually has to be scheduled for after hours, so taking systems and networks offline for de-tangling won't affect productivity. Until the customer decides it's worth paying for the time required to fix ALL of it, PROPERLY... it doesn't get fixed. It also doesn't help that such spaghetti bowls are usually a mix of different systems' wiring, each system overseen by a different tech, company or trade, and cleaning it up properly involves booking and coordinating several different people to work in conjunction. Case in point: with one of our customers, several of their sites have CCTV, data systems, POS systems, and A/V gear all in one rack. Cleaning up my wiring and equipment layout can't be done without making changes to someone else's equipment (which was installed later), and if I do that, there's a risk that something of theirs won't come back up properly, which results in a panic call for one of their techs to come out... so a lot of times, the mess is best left alone until the customer decides they want it dealt with, and everything can be coordinated.

M12 is a standard thread for fixed-lens board cameras - most any board camera should do. You can use the existing lens (swap out whatever the camera comes with), or order one with the appropriate lens. According to this calculator: http://www.isorainbow.com/lens_calc.htm For a 1/4" sensor at 4.5' distance, you'd need a 7.2mm lens to get a 2' wide view. Your camera probably came with a 6mm lens, which would give about a 2.4' wide view at that distance. 6mm would not be an uncommon lens length to ship with that type of camera.

AHAHAAHAHA that's awesome - one of the oldest 'kitteh' memes http://www.ceilingcat.com/

Yes, this was brought up here weeks ago...

Wow, it just gets better and better... One of my AV3100DNs on a site isn't showing up in Vigil, but it IS online and working... I want to remote-reboot the camera, but there doesn't appear to be any way to do that: nothing in the camera's web interface, nothing in the setup software. STOOOOOPID. Thought maybe I'd check for a new firmware, but ARECONT DOESN'T APPEAR TO PUT FIRMWARE UPDATES ON THEIR WEBSITE. LAAAAAAAAME! I hate these cameras so much...

Avoid these "kits" like the plague. They're the lowest-grade cameras with the lowest-grade recorders, and the middle-of-the-road lens lengths most of them use are generally pretty useless for any sort of viable coverage. Give some more information on your house, your layout, your areas of concern, and your budget, and the friendly-or-knowledgeable folk here can help you come up with the right equipment to address each specific need... then if necessary, seek out a local professional to (help you) install it all.

Just a few things off the top of my head... Analog: Benefits: Cheaper (in general - there are some pretty f'n expensive analog cams too!) Plentiful, lots of selection All recorders compatible with all cameras (well, 99.99% of the time) Easy - truly plug'n'play Drawbacks: Limited resolution (D1 = 0.33 megapixels) Point-to-point home-run wiring limits installation options Complete lack of standards in specifications allows "junk" vendors to over-sell their products' abilities IP: Benefits: More flexible wiring options means more versatile installations Capable of higher resolutions (from CIF up to 16MP currently available, up to 25MP announced) Saves the cost of separate capture hardware (DVR card, etc. not required) Health monitoring of the cameras themselves is possible Remote control/configuration of any cameras (only a few analog cameras support this via RS-485, which requires separate wiring) Drawbacks: Individual cameras cost more Requires a modicum of smarts to setup and configure (DOES NOT require a rocket scientist!) Possible compatibility issues between some cameras and some NVRs This is not necessarily the case. In its most basic form, and NVR simply receives a data stream from the camera, and writes it to disk... in that case, the ability to play those files on "any PC" depends entirely on the camera itself, and the stream format it uses. An NVR may also break recordings into multiple small files for management and search indexing - on a Vigil DVR/hDVR/NVR, for example, a video file contains at most, one minute of video... the file is named as 'ccmmss.mjp' where cc is the camera number (starting at 00, just to further confuse things - 00 for camera 1, 01 for camera 2, etc.), mm is the minute of the hour that the file starts, and ss is the second of the minute that the file starts, and stored in a folder numbered for the time (on a 24-hour clock), which is in a folder named for the date (in yyyymmdd format). So for video from camera 5 recorded at 5:34:20pm on November 8, 2011, you'd have to go into the folder x:\Data\20111108\17\ and find the file 043400.mjp (last two digits might be something else if that clip didn't start exactly at 5:34:00). So with the above system, if you DID find the right file, you'd be able to play back that minute... then you'd have to go to the next file. So while it IS technically possible to watch the video without exporting it via the VMS, it's not very friendly or convenient - the file structure is done to accommodate the software, not the operator. Oh, and in this case, while it IS an MJPEG file, it's a normally a proprietary codec (unless you change the configuration otherwise), and you have to install their Windows-only AZTECH codec on your PC to play these files. Not difficult, but something else to consider. Anyway, the point of all that is, you CAN'T NECESSARILY playback IP camera video on just any computer without other considerations. Sometimes you can, but it's not something I'd count on as a selling point. Again, it will depend on the camera used, AND the NVR.

As already noted, despite claims from proponents, HD-SDI (and its name-branded variants such as HDcctv) is turning out NOT to "just work" with "any existing coax" - from all real-world reports, good-quality cable and terminators are a must, especially if you want full 1080P. Once you have to re-run cable, there's little advantage to pulling new coax vs. new Cat5e or Cat6, especially as UTP is far more versatile in the long run. Besides, you can use IP cameras over existing coax using Highwires or similar devices... and they're not nearly as picky about the cable quality. In fact, on one site where the DVR was downstairs from the main area with the cameras, and running new cable was nearly impossible, I just put a new switch upstairs for the cameras, then used a set of Highwires to feed them all downstairs via a single old coax run. Like Brian says, the "issues" with IP are greatly exaggerated. And consider that while current HD-SDI designs are limited to 2MP (1080P = 1920x1080, or approx. 2MP), IP cameras are already FAR beyond that - 3MP and 5MP cameras are common now; 2MP is entry-level stuff.

Do all the cameras work on channels 3 and 4? Do the cameras on 1 and 2 power up at all? (You should be able to tell by looking for the glow of the LEDs when you turn the lights off). Are these using mini-DIN connectors to plug the cameras into the unit? If so, check the sockets on the unit to see if there's anything (broken pin) stuck in them.