Soundy

Yes, but the catch here is, do they also include serial control? Good to know... I thought in retrospect that 1000' seemed a bit too low.

Wow... 1000', maybe fiber WAS a good idea. Video over UTP using active baluns would cover that, but that's pushing it for coax, and for RS-485. Definitely well beyond the range of 10/100 ethernet. Well, I guess the first place to start would be with some of the manufacturers listed above. Googling "ptz and video over fiber" will get you even more. I've found with this type of thing, it's usually best to actually contact the mfr. and describe your specific needs, and see what they can suggest... believe it or not, sometimes the sales guys actually have a clue What you'd probably be looking for is a video-and-serial-over-fiber solution with a transceiver for the camera end, and a hub or mux of some sort for the DVR end (would likely be cheaper than a stack of individual xcvrs, and definitely cleaner). Or if you do go with IP cams, you'd want a single-channel fiber transceiver for the camera end, and a fiber hub/switch at the DVR... going straight to somewhere like Cisco might be the trick there. As for PTZ IP cams, I think Axis makes some... I deal mostly with IQEye cameras and I'm not aware of a PTZ model in their lineup. I know D-Link has a few consumer-grade models, but with what he's laid out so far, that would make about as much sense as putting 13" steelies with 155/80R13 summer tires on an F1 car... you know, just to save money As far as software, you might look at a Vigil system from 3xlogic - they make NVRs and hybrid DVR/NVR systems with standard PTZ support, and may also have support for IP PTZs (another good time to talk to one of their sales guys), and if not, they're usually pretty good with updating their software to support new stuff.

Yeah, most DC-output transformers I've seen, the white-striped wire is the positive... but that may not always be the case. A multimeter is your friend! But as scorpion says, if you're extending the wire, as long as you match the colors at both ends of the extension, "real" polarity doesn't really matter.

Wait, you're running alternating current on unshielded pairs next to the video pairs? And this works without lots of interference? Do it all the time, no problem. The whole point of a balun (or part of it, anyway) is that interference induced equally on both wires of the signal pair is "canceled out" at the receiving end. Check out these gems (pardon the pun): http://gemelec.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=238&category_id=40&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1

How about never having to climb up a ladder focus or zoom a camera ever again With very, very few exceptions (maybe 0.1%) the only times I've had to re-zoom or re-focus a camera (ladder or not), it's been as a result of first needing to re-aim the camera. Power-zoom/auto-focus analog cameras have long been available as well, at an additional cost for those functions... it's never been useful enough to us to be worth that cost. I put one in for a customer once, because he insisted on it... he changed the zoom twice, just because he could, and ended up with it back at the original setting I gave it, and hasn't touched it since. Again, it's a gimmick that serves limited real-world purpose without also having pan/tilt.

Wow... he musta got a bulk deal on the fiber, because it seems to me running that would be far more expensive up front that running copper... and now he's looking at a ton more for the necessary hardware. Yes, you'd need some sort of transceiver setup - you can't just have one end send and the other receive. The DVR end would have to transmit the control signal and receive the video; the camera end would then receive the control and transmit the video. Fiber is rare enough for networking that the hardware for it is still pretty expensive (no economy of scale there yet); for this purpose, I'd imagine it's even more expensive - I'm sure someone's build something to make this possible, but I've never heard of it being done this way, so I'm guessing it's not that common and thus such hardware would be rare and accordingly expensive. Hmm, well, I googled "serial over fiber" and got a LOT of hits... but so far nothing (at least in one box) that will do serial AND video over fiber. These guys might have something - http://www.phasebridge.com/fiber_optics - but nothing I could see in a cursory scan. Ah, here's something.... googled "ptz and video over fiber" and got this: http://www.versitron.com/fiber_optic_video_transmission.html No prices on any of these, as they're manufacturer sites, but again, I'd expect it to be expensive.... most of these, the idea is to take a number of signals (multiple cameras, etc.) and move them over long distances (talking KILOMETERS here)... it's the kind of thing you'd normally use where you have to go beyond the range of ethernet (100m) and standard RS-422/485. And of course, you'd need a pair for every camera (or one for each camera and some sort of hub or multiplexor at the DVR end)... it could add up fast. I'm thinking it would probably be cheaper to go with IP cameras, as fiber-based ethernet gear is probably cheaper and more readily available... but that's just a guess too. Even most switches that have fiber support are usually 16+ ethernet and one or two fiber uplink ports. Or it might be cheaper and easier to just re-wire with standard copper Use the fiber to fish through some Cat-5e and use cheap and readily-available baluns to send video and serial (and power, if you want) over that

This may be of some assistance: http://activex.moonvalley.com/register_activex_control.htm It occurred to me, ActiveX plugins aren't likely to be stored in Temporary Internet Files, because they generally aren't considered "temporary"... thus, clearning the cache won't help.

Well, if you're attending to this on-site, you can always use a portable version of Firefox off a flash drive, if just for the sake of testing.

But unless you have a pan/tilt on the camera as well, you can only zoom on one fixed point. Limited usefulness.

That IP is a "private network" address and only exists (for you) "inside" your router. To reach it from an outside location, you need the WAN (wide area network) address of your router. Easiest way to obtain this is to fire up a browser on your home system and go to http://www.ipchicken.com - that will tell you your "outside" IP address. Plug that address in at work, and you should be good.

Possible your browser security settings are blocking ActiveX content? I assume this is using Internet Explorer - have you tried a different browser, like Firefox? You could also try changing the DVR's IP and then try connecting to it again - if you just missed the ActiveX prompt before, this might cause the browser to re-request it, as it will think it's connecting to a different site (I get this all the time with IQEye cameras - anytime I connect one with a previously-unused IP, IE wants to reinstall the AX plugin).

Well, the only "analytics" being dealt with in most of these cases are carbon-based optical-brain interface... ie. people looking for detail in video playback Absolutely. In fact, I try to wire Cat-5e whenever possible on new installs, rather than using coax, specifically for "futureproofing". If they just want analog cameras for the time being, a pair of video baluns will do the job nicely, and they're ready to upgrade to IP at any time! Sure, but where do you find 1.3MP analog cameras?? If this particular site wasn't an hour away with no internet hookup, I could do that. Not worth going out of my way to prove a point in an internet debate, though

What sort of detail would you like me to engage on? I put cameras on fuel service sites. One 1.3MP camera, depending on mounting location, can easily replace three analog cameras for monitoring pumps. This is my experience. On a cost level, that's three *good-quality* analog cameras, along with lenses and the requisite wiring. Camera, lens and wiring together can easily run upward of $500+, each. That's $1500 worth of cameras, replaced by a single camera that, with lens and installation, runs barely half that. Your calculations are not inaccurate... but they're not the whole story either.

Low shutter speed. That camera probably doesn't let you change it, so your only solution is more light.

Sorry, but my experience disagrees with your calculations.

Thanks Soundy! Very cool. READ ME FIRST - No Ads, No Promotions, No Sales Pitch 1) Welcome to the CCTV Forum. If you are a new member please read the forum guidelines first before posting: http://www.cctvforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=3324 2) This is the forum to introduce yourself, not your company; anything other than an personal introduction will be removed without notice. 3) There is no advertising of any kind allowed in any of the forums. For advertising options please see this link: http://www.cctvforum.com/advertise.php Since when is it "Advertising, Promotions, or Sales Pitch" to say, "Hey, I use these products and they're great!"?

A *quality* analog camera will easily run $250-$500 on its own. Cameras do fade and fail over time, so if you're talking about replacing an old system, factor in that it may be time to replace their cameras anyway. If you can get four times the resolution at less than twice the price... that's a pretty easy sell. It's still better than a 2:1 ratio - one IP cam can often replace *three* analog cameras. Speaking specifically from fuel services experience, I can cover 3-4 pump lanes (both sides of two islands) and read license plates easily with a single 1.3MP IP camera... the same thing with analog cameras would take up to four cameras, each with fairly tight focus, so there's less ancillary coverage. The IP cam is an easy sell in this case. Once again... more data per camera, but fewer cameras required. It's as much a non-factor as cabling costs. I've found a really easy way to sell IP cameras: show them the picture. One pub/liquor store customer we have, I was in talking to the owner, was telling him about another nearby job we were doing, and showed him a set of stills from the IP cams we'd just put in there. His immediate response: "I want that!" He ordered two for that store and one for another of his stores, and I subsequently added another to the first store. Once customers see these things, there's just no going back for them.

Yet again, I'll second Erron's recommendations... I've been using 3xlogic's (formerly CAMACC's) products for years, they're a bit pricier, but worth the cost.

I'll second all that... 3xlogic makes some really nice DVR/NVR systems that I've used in some high-demand applications. Biggest one so far is a restaurant with 23 analog cameras and five 1.3MP IQ-511 cameras, along with a grand total of almost 10TB of storage.

There is no problem with the cable. Yes a amp will make a big difference. The problem you're experiencing results mainly from low signal. I've split video feeds with standard splitters and had no problems in some cases. I think together you've hit on the problem: splitting the signal *combined with* the (somewhat) long run. I've split signals many times, with only minor drops in picture level. Another part of the equation might be the TYPE of coax you're using - RG/59, RG/6, RG/58, or otherwise. I'm assuming by "combined power and video" you're referring to either "siamese" cable (separate coax and 18/2 wires connected by a web) or "bundled" coax/power where both run inside a common sheath, as is often provided with cheap cameras? Either way, the fact that power and video are "combined" in one run is probably irrelevant. The cable impedance, factored with the length of the run, AND with the splitting, is what's really giving you headaches.

CRTs don't really "adjust" for different resolutions... they just display pixels differently than LCDs (and plasmas and DLPs and LCD-based projectors, for that matter). With LCDs, there are very sharply-defined edges between pixels, and each "hard" pixel can display the full range of color in itself. With CRTs, each "display pixel" is made of three discrete "hard pixels", one each for red, green, and blue. If an image covers more than one pixel, the color components tend to blend together, rather than being separated by hard edges. Are you sure? I've set up some VERY CHEAP, VERY CRAPPY off-shore standalones, that had selectable VGA resolutions (granted, limited to 640x480, 800x600, and 1024x768). Another thing I've found with some cheap standalones is their "VGA output" isn't really VGA... their internals are outputting a composite signal at MAYBE 420TVL, but they have an internal card that converts THAT to VGA... and does a very poor job of upscaling it. Their internal software isn't actually creating a VGA/XGA/etc.-resolution image direct to the VGA port.

In theory, that shouldn't matter, as the power tranformers isolate the cameras from the DVR power ground. unless, of course, the camera chasis is attached to an earth ground...

Umm, sort of... some 9-channel-or-higher MUXes will have an option to display one large image at the top-left, and 5 more across the bottom and right side. picture a 3x3 grid, with the top-left four squares combined to one large square. Or do like Scorpion suggests and feed something else to the other inputs. Problem is, there's no way to evenly fit six images in one frame of the same relative dimensions (ie. 4:3) without stretching them pretty horribly.

Try putting the two rolling ones each on its own power supply.

The Capture OmniScape is another... same basic principle, just using a really wide fisheye lens.