Soundy

Thanks, I'll give that a look.

Just as a point of interest, this particular length restriction is specific to *ethernet*. I've seen token-ring networks operating over Cat-3 shared with a phone line, pushing 500' without issue. One site that I worked on many years ago, we were switching all their T-R systems over to 10/100 as part of a new system rollout. All the existing lines were Cat-5 and routed through BIX-blocks in the server room before terminating at the patch panel. The client ends (mostly at user desks) typically had two or four runs into boxes with interchangeable jacks, which made things SO easy - want a phone there, punch down the appropriate jumpers on the BIX block, and drop in the appropriate jack at the desk. Want to switch from T-R to ethernet, just change one set of jumpers at the BIX, change the patch from the T-R hub to the new ethernet hub (switches weren't very common then), and drop in the appropriate jack at the desk. We did this in the building super's office at the far end of the building from the server room... and it worked... at first. Connection kept dropping out... so we pulled the jack sockets out of the wall to find... Cat-3. Then we traced it up the wall and out the top where it went up to the ceiling of a service bay... and into a splice point. Then it zig-zagged across the ceiling to another splice point... right beside an open 220V three-phase junction box. Then it zipped off into the ceiling of the office space. We estimated the actual length to be somewhere near 360'... Cat-3 all the way... at least two open splices (and we're talking, ends twisted together and taped up), one of them by an electrical junction... no wonder the new 10/100 connection didn't work! And yet the T-R handled it all without so much as a whimper. We actually put that one station back on T-R (the sites were using routers - REAL enterprise-level routers - and hubs, rather than switches, so it was possible to leave the T-R hub connected to the router and keep the guy online) and called someone else in to make new Cat-5 runs to the office... without the zig-zagging!

You didn't put any cost constraints on it, so... have you considered satellite internet? Lots of providers out there: http://www.google.com/search?q=colorado+satellite+internet

For a good, low-cost router, take a look at Belkin. I got a half-dozen wired broadband routers at a computer-superstore sale once for $10 each, and another store had some wireless ones for $15 each at a sale a couple years ago. They work well and are easy to configure. Everyone's high on LinkSys and I don't understand it - every client site I've ever run into that has one, I've ended up having to give their DVRs static IPs if they want remote access, because the router's DHCP server is constantly changing the DVR's IP (even if the DVR is never restarted), and it buggers up port-forwarding. I've always been a fan of D-Link and I've only ever had one bad one over the years - a DI-524 which even the store clerk admitted (when I brought it back) that that was a really poor model. Even my old DI-604+ is still running strong at a friend's place. As far as broadband routers go, Netgear's configuration pages drive me nuts. Very poorly organized, and unless you deal with them enough to find your way around blindfolded, many of the links to other sections are far from obvious.

Look at the VideoInsight DVRs - they'll handle up to 32 cameras on a single DVR as well, using a single card with a daughterboard.

Well the same advice applies... the most basic troubleshooting is to swap the suspect camera with a known good camera and see if the problem moves with it. Pretty simple, really, I don't understand why it needs to be repeated so many times.

Here's a good way to simplify it: "You get what you pay for." A lot of bullet and dome cameras I've seen all use the same type of basic small board camera. The basic design is the same; what really affects the final product is the quality control in the construction and component selection. Some better designs add a voltage-regulator board that can help increase the life of the camera, as the small components tend to be a lot more sensitive to voltage variations. Heat is also the enemy of electronics - I've seen one particular line of high-end dome cameras with a very high failure rate, because the dome for some reason retains heat, and the camera boards they use (including voltage regulators) seem to generate and excessive level of heat. Ultimately, though, the image quality of any camera depends on the lens. The sensor can only reproduce as good an image as it's given.

I've put a number of CRT-based rear-view systems in garbage trucks. Nothing wrong with them, really, the CRT just isn't as "sexy" as an LCD. Functionally they're the same, possibly even a little clearer without the LCD's pixelization.

Yup... and the only time I've seen the term applied to cameras is when a board camera is concealed in a (fake or operational) PIR motion sensor. I guess a camera with IR LEDs would technically be considered "active infrared".

Try the Diskspace Calculator here, it should give you a rough idea. Generally I'd say go for the most drive space you can afford - you can never have too much.

Wow... that's a bit steep for housings, I'd think - I've been putting IQEye 511s (1.3MP) outdoors in basic little Pelco EH3512 housings, they run barely $100 apiece... a little more for the versions with the glass heaters for cold locations. Well if it was me... I'd give the CCTV setup a physically separate network (ie. not using and of the corporate network's wiring or hardware) with its own router and internet connection. Once the router is configured for outside access, home and work computers would access the system the same way. All the PC-based DVRs I deal with will handle numerous different PTZ serial protocols from software as well, for analog cameras. Axis' website doesn't say right off the top, but I would expect the 214s would use their network link for their PTZ control - it would make sense to not run a separate wire for it. Well, what are you using as DVR software, to record the video? Does it support the Axis PTZ? VideoInsight's IP Server software says it supports the Axis PTZ protocol and Axis cameras (http://video-insight.com/Support/Supported-IP-Cameras.aspx) One other thing, it appears the 214s don't support PoE, so you may want to save some money using a non-PoE switch for those. The 211s do have PoE, so you could use another switch for those with just enough ports for those cameras. Again, the other main consideration would be that whatever switches you use have at least a couple gigabit ports for connecting them together, and connecting the DVR. It may or may not be cheaper, you'll have to compare what pricing you can get, but from my experience, PoE support adds quite a bit to the price of a switch.. so if you could get away with, say, a 16-port PoE switch for the 211s and another 8 or 16-port for the rest, you may save a bit. You've been a TON of help to me. Thank you.

Okay... just remember that a large number of cameras like that are potentially going to take a LOT of bandwidth, and that may affect your office network traffic. One option here is to look for a managed, QoS capable switch, where you can control the bandwidth used on individual ports. Run all your office machines through it as well, so you can assign priority to their data (IF it turns out to be a problem). Question: what resolution are these cameras? If they're fairly low-ref (4CIF or so) it won't be so bad... I'm used to dealing with IP cameras that start at 1.3MP up to 5MP, which obviously move a TON of data. Sounds alright. Hmmm, no DVR card should be required for IP cameras; those are for capturing analog video. One switch may be simpler, but it's also more costly in the short term - if you only "need" 20 ports for now (for example), there's no point in getting a 48 - start with a 24, and add another later as the need grows. That said... Well keep in mind, that one is gigabit on every port. The cameras are probably not gigabit-capable; even the 5MP IQEye cameras I've used are only 10/100. The gigabit is really only critical for the DVR connection, where you're "funneling" all the cameras into. Something to consider in your shopping...

Remember too that ethernet is limited to 100m (300') wire runs, so long runs direct from distant cameras to the server area may be an issue. Running the cameras, say, 150' to a comms closet that's only 200' from the server bypasses that problem. That shouldn't matter - as I say, you really want the camera traffic to have its own physically separate network, if possible. If the existing network uses managed switches, you're probably okay, but still, dedicated wiring for the CCTV network is preferable. I like D-Link myself, they have some good business/enterprise-level stuff. Only reason you'd need a router, though, is if you do isolate your CCTV network from your corporate network, but still want to access it from the corporate network. PTZs may need their own power, yes, you'd have to check the specs on the cameras themselves for that... but PoE-enabled switches are designed to supply the necessary power to each port - power is not "robbed" from device operation. It's all part of the spec. These switches, for example: http://www.dlink.com/products/?sec=0&pid=644 and http://www.dlink.com/products/?sec=0&pid=631 20 10/100 ports sufficient for cameras... four gigabit and two fiber ports for uplinking to another switch... up to 15W available on each port for PoE.

http://video-insight.com/Products/IP-Server.aspx

There are certainly high-capacity switches like that, though most max out at 24 ports. For network structure and location you may find it more convenient/efficient to use multiple smaller units (16 or 24-port) anyway - for example, if you have a large number of cameras at one end of the building, it may be easier to locate one switch near them, another near the DVR, and just use a single line to connect the two. A couple considerations: you're talking about a pretty hefty amount of traffic here - it would be a good idea to make sure your DVR has a gigabit ethernet port, and at the very least, that your switch connecting to it has at least one gigabit port (or if using multiple switches, that they have at least gigabit uplink ports). You certainly want to look at business/enterprise-level hardware, not basic little SOHO-grade stuff, if you want to avoid problems. Managed/QoS-capable units are a great idea, but probably overkill for this. Do keep the cameras all to their own network, rather than running them over the corporate LAN or anything. Also, if your cameras support Power over Ethernet spec, look for switch(es) that can provide PoE, and you won't have to run separate power feeds to the cameras.

Alright, let me just get this out of the way right off the top: I don't want anyone trying to sell me anything, I don't need anyone telling me how crappy this camera is, or any recommendations on something different to sell the client on. We've tried to tell him numerous times how... unworthy these things are, but he gets them cheap from China and insists on bringing them in and continually trying to sell them to us. Everyone got that? Now here's the thing: he's brought in this little beastie that looks like any standard 1/3" camera, but with a built-in zoom lens (spec sheet says it's actually only a 1/4" Sony chip). It does powered zoom (22X, 3.9-85.8mm) and autofocus. I've got the power hooked up and the camera running - image quality is mediocre at best (for what purports to be a "Sony Super HAD CCD"). Autofocus operation is... well, practically useless, I have to fine-tune anything it does manage to lock in on. Zoom and focus can both be controlled through buttons on the back of the camera, or through wires in the combined remote/power connection (5-pin mini-din). The connector's pins are labeled +12VDC, GND, ZOOM, COM, and FOCUS. What I'm trying to determine is how to use/connect the external zoom/focus controls via this wire, and hoping someone might have run into one of these things and/or have some documentation for it that's NOT mostly in Chinese. I've tried connecting both ZOOM and FOCUS wires to COM, as well as giving them +12 and GND, with no response at all.

Hawking cheap Chinese equipment aside, he's been a pretty good client - pays his bills on time, doesn't try to chew down our prices, etc. We've had a LOT worse time dealing with some way bigger companies (don't get my boss started on the major contractor that took four months to pay us for a large job, telling him that since he was a "small company" he didn't understand how these things worked...).

That's the same thing I do every time this guy calls up spouting about the new "great" cameras he's got in, wanting to "help" us by importing them so we can re-sell them.

Too much work to be worthwhile. Frankly, I plan on trying to convince the guy to pass on this idea: he wants to use this camera to replace a decent (1/4" 420TVL name-brand that I can't remember right now) dome watching the paypoint in his store. Despite looking like a typical 1/3" camera, it's actually a 1/4" chip - I suspect, without having opened the thing, it's just a simple board camera - with a power zoom in front of it. He has no need of the zoom for this purpose, and the autofocus doesn't work right (always focuses a bit short and requires manual tweaking). Even the manual focus is barely usable there, as is no way to physically move the lens to fine-tune it; you're limited to the steps available by the powered focus drive. The image quality itself is mediocre at best (due largely, I expect, to the lens being of mediocre quality). Problem is, he thinks that he's got a really great camera here, because it cost him $200+, compared to the $30-$50 for the little cheapie domes he brings in (which he also thinks are really great quality). Considering even a MID-GRADE Panasonic CP-244 runs almost $200 *without* the zoom, autofocus, or lens... I think that says a lot for the actual quality of the thing.

The guy has no idea what he's doing, he just knows that he has some contact in China that gets him these things for cheap, and tells him that they're some kinda hot $#!t. Actually, someone on alt.security.alarms came up with the answer for me: connect COM and the desired control wire (ZOOM or FOCUS) to the power and ground - one way around zooms in, the other way zooms out.

Okay, wanting to know if anyone knows of a CCTV-style video camera with actual HD output that could feed (preferably in 1080p) directly into an HDTV receiver, whether it be component, HDMI, etc. - basically something that's JUST a video camera, relatively compact, no recording. Only option I've been able to come up with so far is ONE Sony 'handycam'-type unit with HDMI output - most HD camcorders only only seem to output standard composite/S-video for monitoring and HD is just transferred to the computer via Firewire. Hi-res IP cameras are an outside option, but that requires a computer to get the picture onto an HDTV - sort of unwanted extra complexity and expense.

That's 570 TVL at best - not even close to 720i. Some reason you can't use normal URL links?

I've seen that, but it's still only outputting standard NTSC/PAL video. As we've already covered, client spec was (before we blew them off) for 1080p.

Still need a camera that outputs component, which I was never able to source, and AFAIK component will only handle up to 720p. These guys INSISTED that the system use the full 1080p capabilities of their existing display. It's moot now anyway, since we blew the whole thing off - the client was just being too difficult with constantly changing/adding features, stuck in a pre-existing mindset of what kind of equipment they wanted, etc.

Just recently picked up a portable DVD player with video input and a 10" screen. Works great.