Soundy

Seems to me IP would reduce your initial infrastructure costs, assuming there is no existing wiring in place to feed the cameras back to your central location, as it would allow you to use existing internet connections - even from different ISPs - close to each location. The main drawback of this idea would be the varying, and probably often limited, bandwidth available in the different locations. Wireless (RF video, no WiFi) still tends to be quite expensive for good quality, and may have limitations on locations and positioning - you may need repeater antennas in some cases, which would further increase the cost. More "typical" camera systems would have the disadvantage, again, of requiring the cabling be installed, which depending on the area could be a major capital expense. As for which is "preferable", that would really depend more on the exact location and situation... you'd very likely be looking at more of a hybrid system using a variety of the discussed technologies, and quite possibly multiple DVR/server locations. It's hard to say much else, though, based on what you've given - generic questions can only receive generic responses.

Back to the original question, I've used a number of different outdoor/weatherproof-type domes in walk-in coolers and freezers. As long as it's fully sealed, just about anything should work - where you run into problems is if warm outside air can get in and condense on the inside. As long as your wiring path is sealed properly to prevent that, it should be fine.

Dealing with both Vigil and Video Insight systems, I can tell you they use nearly identical hardware as well - HICAP and XECAP cards, mostly. However, each maker's software is specifically coded to only work with that manufacturer's cards - I can't run the Vigil software on one of Video Insight's cards, and vise-versa.

Costco should have a number of options in between those extremes - if they don't have them in stock at your local store, they should be able to get them in. Checking their website, they show this four-camera Q-See system for $500: http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11298383&whse=BC&topnav=&browse=&lang=en-US&s=1 And this four-camera Lorex for $800: http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11228996&whse=BC&topnav=&browse=&lang=en-US&s=1 They also list four-camera systems with a capture card you can add to your own computer: http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?ec=BC-EC25149-ProdID11228996&pos=0&whse=BC&topnav=&prodid=11273790&lang=en-US The downside with these is that you need quite a bit of free drive space, and you ideally want to use a computer dedicated to that task. Lots more stuff in their Security & Monitoring section - again, your local store should be able to bring in anything they don't have in stock... worst case, you just need to order it online.

You can't really get much more than 4CIF out of standard NTSC video, is the point, so capture resolutions higher than around 720x480 are next to meaningless until you move into the HD (720i/p/1080i/p) realm. At that point, the cameras get much more expensive, the analog capture devices get much more expensive (and hard to find), the wiring requirements get much MUCH more expensive, and you're far better off just going to megapixel IP cameras. If you DID go above 4CIF on standard analog capture, it would also get much more expensive, because you no longer have the economy of scale: cards these days benefit from a glut of mass-produced digitizers, like the Bt848, so they're cheap to build and easy to support (generic drivers, etc.). Building cards that capture above that would require different, more expensive, non-mass-availability components and probably more hardware, driver, AND software development cost... and only up to the maximum capabilities of the cameras (max 520TVL for most NTSC cameras). For the relatively minimal improvement you'd see, it really wouldn't be worth the additional cost to the end user, especially not with megapixel IP cameras getting so cheap. And BTW, HikVision is far from "the best" available right now...

Hi, I have learned about Megapixel IP Cameras, definetly HD. There are IP megapixel cameras which produce higher quality than 1080i. The best i've seen is the 16Megapixel Avigilon Pro IP Cam. IQ Invision is also good Megapixel CCTV cameras aren't technically "HDTV", despite this overused buzzword being tossed around all the time. I'm just saying... Anyway, the key phrase above is "capture card" - ie. hardware that takes analog HD video input and digitizes it. Yes, they exist for "consumer" markets, but I've never seen one designed for CCTV use (particularly not multi-camera).

^Good points, rory. Another thought: if the cameras support progressive-scan, you might try using that as well. I've put in some Pelco cameras with this option, and depending on the codec, progressive-scan video can also be compressed a lot more than standard interlaced video.

Is it the one pictured about 1/3 of the way down this page? http://www.global-view.com.tw/dvr.html

You simply may not be able to do what you want with the equipment/budget you have... that's a problem we all run into, the people paying for it want the kind of things they see in the movies and on TV, and they think they can get it all for next to nothing... and then they get upset when you tell them they'll have to spend more money just to get something marginally acceptable. You didn't list the make/model of your DVR - have you looked into upgrading its storage space to allow you to increase your recording quality and still keep the desired 30 days? What other adjustments have you made to the record settings? You may be able to reduce the framerates, or go from constant to motion-detect recording, to save some space while increasing resolution. More details on your complete record settings would help as well.

They are like any other camera in that they are a tool. Sometimes they are the right tool for the job, other times they aren't. Well put. There are several POTENTIAL benefits to IP cameras; not all designs will take advantage of them: 1. NTSC analog video capture is limited to about 720x480 pixels. IP cameras have no such limitations as they don't have to transmit analog video. Cheaper ones may not be higher resolutions, but the potential is there. 2. Easier future upgrades: start with low-cost, low-resolution cameras if budget dictates, but as the technology of megapixel cameras gets cheaper, you can simply plug in better cameras as the budget allows. 3. Because they're network devices, they can be attached like any other network devices. Say, for example, you have a half-dozen cameras in the opposite end of the building from your DVR - with analog, you typically have to run a separate video cable from each camera back to the DVR (unless you're using some sort of multiplexor solution, which can be very expensive). With networked cameras, you can run all the cameras into one network switch nearby, and then have a single network cable to connect that back to the DVR. In a pinch, you can even use an existing network (although the cameras can take a lot of bandwidth, so it's generally recommended they have their own physical network). 4. If the cameras support it, you can power them using Power-over-Ethernet, with an appropriately equipped switch or PoE "injectors". This eliminates the need for a separate power wire/supply for each camera - all that's required is a single Cat-5/5e/6 cable to the camera. 5. Direct network viewing: many (most?) IP cameras have built-in webservers so that you can view them from any browser on the network. In fact, if all you need to do is view them, you don't even need a DVR or NVR. As Thomas notes, they may not be the RIGHT tool for every situation... but with the cost of technolgy dropping, they become a more attractive solution in a lot of instances.

True story!

For what that type of software costs, you'd be better off to go with megapixel IP cameras and just get better quality right from the start. Advanced software may be able to do impressive things with the image, but they're still generating data that doesn't exist in the image - better to simply get all that data in the first place. The main part of your problem is likely that your DVR is recording at low resolution, such as 320x240; some even default to 160x120. Bump that up to the maximum, likely 640x480 or 720x480, and it will help a lot.

You don't, not with that cable - the five BNCs are for the video component signals: red, green, blue, horizontal sync, and vertical sync. Your DVR's BNC is outputting a full composite signal. You need a composite-to-VGA converter. I've used some before, can't remember what brand they were though. This one is kinda overkill, but it's along the lines of what you need: http://www.nti1.ca/vga-converter.html Another example: http://leosecuritycctv.com/shop/item.asp?itemid=638 And a whole series of examples: http://www.nextag.com/video-to-vga-converter/search-html

^Ah yes, I see that now! Good thinking I hope you added a hefty "annoyance surcharge" to the no doubt already steep hourly labour charge on their bill...

Maybe a stupid question, but can you not just plug the DVR into one of the other "clean" outlets? Specifically, I'd pick the one farthest away from the DVR in the room, and run a big thick gaudy orange extension cord to it. Right across the middle of the floor. Make a point of the fact that this is required for stable operation of the DVR, and the only fix for it is to have the other outlet properly repaired. Once someone with some clout trips over it, it should get fixed in short order

Actually, almost every router I've seen has DynDNS.org support built-in... the really good ones have a few different services supported, or even allow you to configure your own (like the latest D-Link DIR-series).

1. Yes. It's not cheap and doesn't accept standard cameras. Also the pricing I saw for such systems put it in an extremely high price range. When something makes putting megapixel cameras in look cheap....that's pricey. I've never seen an HDTV surveillance-type capture card... could you provide a link (just for morbid curiosity)?

For ANALOG capture, not really. It could be done with an HDTV setup, but those aren't really designed for multi-camera surveillance-type use. For that size, you need to go to megapixel IP cameras, which connect via ethernet and don't require a capture card. Realtime, uncompressed video takes a LOT of space to store. For most purposes, DVR users want to store a lot of footage (most sites I deal with want 30 days' worth). The way to achieve that is by using lower framerates (regular video is 30fps) and high-ratio lossy compression. And with cheaper units, it's partially due to crappy capture cards as well. If you really want the "best" picture, go with megapixel IP cameras. That may require a different DVR, though, as I don't know if GeoVision supports IP yet (a friend's company just lost a big account because they use GeoVision and they couldn't supply the IP-cam support the client wanted... we could, so we got them). You really don't need to run 30fps - even at 15fps, most people would have a hard time telling the difference. 10fps should be more than enough for perfectly usable surveillance video. And if you do go with IP cameras, remember that they take a LOT more storage space than analog - some four times the space at 1280x1024 vs. 640x480, depending on the compression used. I dunno where you've been reading about RAID, but your information is incorrect: the whole point of RAID 5 is to avoid data loss due to disk failure. The catch is, you have to be on top of it if and when a disk in the array does fail. If you use all individual disks, one disk dying will destroy all the data on that drive. If you use RAID 0, striping the data across all drives, one disk dying will destroy ALL your data. With RAID 5, you won't lose and data if one disk dies, but you need to replace that disk to maintain the redundancy. If you don't replace it, and another one dies, THEN you lose everything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID_5#RAID_5 for more details. We just set up a RAID 5 system for a client: 32-input, 480fps VIGIL system, 23 analog cameras mostly running a 640x480 and 3fps, and five 1.3MP IP cameras, initially running at 5fps. The machine itself has 3TB storage and was barely keeping three weeks (closer to 19-20 days). We added an 8-bay Enhance RAID case with eight 1TB drives in a RAID 5 configuration, giving an additional 6.5TB, for a shade under 9.5TB total. That gave them about 82-83 days' worth... they wanted 90 days, so they dropped the IP cams back to 3fps as well. The other trick to saving space is to configure it to only record on motion, rather than recording constantly. In low-traffic areas, and after-hours, that can save a TON of storage.

Your system has to have some sort of support for offline storage... without knowing what DVRs you have, it's impossible to say how or even IF it's possible with your current setup.

I have used a Pelco DX8000... wasn't impressed. Interface seemed clunky and convoluted. The site it was going into was previously running a Vigil... after about a week we ended up pulling the Pelco out and putting in a new Vigil. My two bits...

BTW, there are cheaper ways to do it... RAID controller card for your machine (most onboard controllers only do RAID 0 and 1), or a smaller/cheaper external array (Enhance makes four-channel units as well), and they certainly don't have to all be 1TB drives. I just linked to the R8S as an example - it's a beautiful system, but in itself is probably overkill for most people. RAID 5 itself, though, isn't.

I'd see if your router supports reserved DHCP - many will allow you to lock a given IP to a give machine's MAC address with their DHCP servers, so that IP is never given out to another device.

It's not "bad" - it's actually a good thing (RAID 6 is even better, by that token, because it uses dual-parity and you can suffer TWO failed disks without data loss). Whether it's the RIGHT thing, FOR YOU, is the only question. For most people it's not worth the added cost, but if your data integrity is important... Used to also be a question of whether it was worth the complexity to set it up, but new systems like I linked to above make it downright simple. Cost of disk space also used to be a big factor, given the "loss" of one disk's worth of space for parity, but disk space is so cheap these days (1TB drives for $200, 1.5TB drives on the way), that's not really a factor anymore either. If you're storing that much data, what's an extra 10-20% to ensure it's safe?

A couple: Swap your VCC4s for VCC4Rs, or... Mount the dome upside-down.

Not exactly... RAID 4 dedicates one disk to backup "parity" data; RAID 5 uses the same amount of parity data (one disk's worth) but stripes it across all the drives in the array. This way, any one disk can fail, and the array can still be rebuilt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID_5#RAID_5