MaxIcon

If you're looking for inexpensive, Blue Iris will timestamp and do motion detect, and is only $50. You can download a trial version that's identical to the full version except for a watermark across the video. Others will have to recommend the higher priced spreads.

Well, it sounds like the camera works, but if the camera's POE port doesn't handshake with the switch, it'll never power up, so it's still not a definitive test. Here's a simple, inexpensive $17 POE tester. If you're going to do a lot of POE work, it may not be a bad thing to have on hand, but it's really just a go/no go tester. http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Microsemi-PoE-Tester-PD-Tester-/380461273723?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item589542527b

Among the reasons this type of camera is both better and more expensive is that it uses 3 2/3" CCDs - one for each color - and they're designed for low noise and stable imaging. Throw in an expensive lens with great quality and light transmission, and you've got excellent low light performance. Now, to handle all this high def data, you need fast data paths, which makes for expensive electronics. The software, especially the compresson algorithms, is also much more finely tuned than on mainstream cameras. Throw in the build quality you'd expect from a $30k camera, and it all adds up, but it's the light path and sensors that are the heart of it.

Sounds like the port's not recognizing that it's plugged in. I'd try a different cable, if you haven't already. Next step would be a different POE camera or a POE tester to see if the port works, or plugging your cam into a POE switch.

One sold on ebay recently for $990, new with power supply, stand, and 1 year warranty. Seems a bit pricey to me, but I don't play in these waters.

There's a huge range of M12 board cam lenses out there, and it's a jungle. Here are a few things to consider: - Make sure you get a 1/3" lens. If it doesn't specify the size, it's probably 1/4", which will both give a different field of view than you expect, and may cause a dark halo around your image. 1/2" will work too, and will give better image quality since your sensor is further away from the edges, but the field of view will be different than the same focal length in a 1/3" lens. - Since that's an IR camera, you want an IR lens. There are 2 kinds of IR coatings on lenses - one blocks IR (which you don't want), and one corrects the focus of IR so that IR and white light spectrum have the same focal point (this is the one you want). You can also use a non-IR lens, but the focus will be fuzzier with the IR filter out. - A good quality MP rated lens is a good idea. The cheapest board cam lenses have mediocre image quality, especially around the edges. Now, lots of vendors call their lenses MP rated, and you won't know if they're right until you install it. You'll probably want a lens in the 2.8-3.6mm range, but it's hard to know until you install it. Dahua has an optional 3.6mm lens for this cam, so you might be able to get one through a vendor. If you look up the various web demos for this cam, you may be able to find one with the 3.6mm lens to see how it will look. Name brand lenses are most reliable, but can be expensive. Otherwise, it's a matter of finding a web site or vendor who sounds like they know what they're talking about and allows returns. Can't say about the screw, unless it's a Torx or something. When I replace board cam lenses, I leave off the locking screw and put a wrap of teflon tape on the threads to keep them from shifting.

This has been a problem with Aver cards for some time. They're not very good at identifying the differences between model changes, and googling is often not very helpful. You might want to send an email to Aver tech support. I've found them to be pretty responsive.

The non-C has a slower lens with longer focal range - 8-16mm, F1.6. This is pretty zoomed for a CCTV cam, and wouldn't allow a wider-angle view, which is most popular for people starting out. Looks like this one could be used for license plate apps, as those often want a longer zoom with narrow field of view to get lots of pixels in the plate area, but that's just a guess. It also appears to be a standard mount, while the C version has a fixed mount as part of the housing. There are also differences in the IR design and specs, and the non-C only goes to 1/30 sec, while the C goes to 1/4 sec exposure. Generally, the 3.3-12mm f1.4 lens will be much more useful than the 8-16mm lens for typical CCTV apps.

Depends on the camera and software. My Vivoteks let you assign any of the first 3 streams to any resolution and encoding. There's a 4th stream as well, but it may be limited to lower res - I don't recall.

Yeah, I find BLC to be mostly useless except in specific situations - it moves your problem from one area to another. Low contrast can help, but unless you can set different contrast settings between day and night mode, I find low contrast decreases the nighttime picture quality, since greyscale is already lower contrast than color. The WDR demos I've seen here have been pretty impressive, though it always takes running it in real life to know if it fixes your problems.

Heh! I believe one or more members were recently banned for shilling Dahua, which may have been related to the PM you got. That doesn't mean that Dahua's no good, of course, which is what the OP was saying - shilling implies bad camera. I've seen both here - people who really believe Dahua is a good solution, and the shills drumming up business. Anyone with much IP cam experience will figure out the difference pretty easily, as you did. Even the shills posted real-world video that made a pretty compelling case, though they're less likely to tell you about the warts, as Buellwinkle does. Looks to me like Dahua's an up-and-coming player in the mid-range market, with good features and decent quality for the money. Long-term reliability and support are still question marks, and I'm looking forward to hearing more about them from users. I've got a few 1MP Vivoteks that I could replace with the 1080p IR bullets and give me lots better nighttime performance, based on posted vids. Once the price drops a bit, or they include WDR in the same price range, I'll probably test one out.

I've been using it for 6 months or so now, and like it a lot. When I try other NVR demos, it really makes me appreciate the BI user interface. Here are some thoughts off the top of my head. Pro: - Great performance for the cost - Lots of cameras supported, including most that use generic streams - No per cam licenses required - Good support from the developer, and good community support forum at cam-it.org - Flexible, great user interface, easy to set up, lots of nice features - Free 15 day trial of full version to figure out if it works for you, renewable as many times as you want. It puts a watermark across each video, but is otherwise identical to the full version. Con: - Bogs down with multiple MP cameras, requiring a more powerful CPU - Search is not great, and skimming through a day or two of recordings can be tedious - Frequent updates sometimes have glitches in them while fixing other issues. When I have a stable version running, I avoid updates until things are quiet at the support forum, and I always keep the last few stable versions on hand. Neutral (depending on if you care or not): - Not oriented toward commercial monitoring, like POS tracking, face recognition, etc Overall, I'd give it 5 stars for being an awesome $50 NVR program. If you want more commercial features or super strong search, you'll have to pony up more money. I don't think there's anything else that compares to it for under $100.

You'd think that updating his product to work with the latest popular cameras should be pretty high on the list of things to do to keep competetive. Sounds like he could also use a bit of SEO consulting, if his own descriptive terms don't allow Google to place his product on the first few pages of hits.

Yeah, it looks proprietary. You might be able to pull some stream links out of the web properties, or from the java applet, but it's pretty ancient in IP encoder years. Here's a link with some Videojet stream URL info, but it may not apply to your unit: http://stna.resource.bosch.com/documents/Configuration_Note_enUS_1552198923.pdf Try googling things like vcs videojet stream url, or vcs videojet download.

Also, with a Second Copy/external drive solution, it runs at whatever interval you want (minutes, hours, days), so the copying would be done when you arrived. Make sure it's not copying when you arrive, unplug the old, plug in the new, and you'd be good to go. This is also easily and cheaply replaceable in case of drive failure or loss, since your portable hardware is a commodity item. That leaves the issue of recording format, which varies depending on the nvr solution. For a complete system swap, I'd look at either a pair of laptops, a headless mini-ITX box, or a dedicated NVR. Either would require a few cables swapped - probably power, network, and maybe USB, depending on the details of the setup. You'd want to monitor the new system to make sure it was running and recording after the swap, the laptop would be ideal; otherwise, you'd need a monitor to look at the status and a mouse/keyboard in case of issues. It's all about the tradeoffs. List the pros and cons, assign each a weight of how much you want/need/care about it, and the choice should be clear.

The other option is to go with dedicated dash cams, without the PC. If you go to Amazon and search on dash cam, you'll see quite a variety, mostly with terrible reviews, but a few with better ratings. Not as flexible or powerful as a laptop based system, but probably quicker and easier to set up, with less power draw.

I've been running an Aver NV6240 in an i3-540 PC for a few weeks now, and it's been running pretty well. You could do that for under $1k, and would have the flexibility of a PC based system instead of a dedicated NVR. PCs are sometimes not as reliable as dedicated NVRs, though, so there's always a tradeoff. This would let you use existing analog cams and switch over to IP cams as your time and budget allows.

I'm not sure I see any serious problems in these links, except the usual "how do I make it do this..." and poor dox issues, which are pretty common across IP cams of different makes. What are the actual problems with the Dahua cameras? Sounding a bit like an axe to grind, but I'm still not clear why. What's CK2? Teh Google comes up with Crusader Kings II and casein kinase 2. Sounds like you're talking about software, though, so let me ask again, what cameras do you like in the Dahua price range with similar performance and no problems? Troll? Sure, I'll tilt at windmills for a little while. Maybe get some actual info at some point, maybe not.

Blue Iris is inexpensive ($50) with no per-cam licenses, and there's a demo download to see how well it works for you.

Yeah, the plus of two NVRs is that it's one complete package, with everything you need to view it offsite. If it's a mission-critical setup, you could even rotate through three of them, so you'd still be good to go if one bit the dust. If you backed up the clips, they'd either need to be natively readable via standard apps, which depends on the system. Some DVRs will record clips like this, such as Blue Iris or the now-defunct GVI AutoNVR system. Alternately, you could have a second copy of the software installed, though that could be pricy with the higher-end gear.

Looks like Bosch sells/used to sell Videojet gear, so that may give a lead. The software is called Vidos, apparently, so you might try searching on videojet vidos or bosch vidos. I'd consider buying an inexpensive encoder or capture card before spending too much time on it, but sometimes solving the problem is half the fun.

What are your specific problems with Dahua? I don't care about overly shilled if the price is right and the performance is good for the price. What do you prefer for the same price range?

Another option would be to copy the recordings to an external drive (I use Second Copy for a lot of automated file copy needs), then swap the drive out once a week. An upside of this is that the originals are still on the NVR, in case anything goes wrong with the copies.

If theft resulting in loss of data (rather than hardware) is the main concern, there are a couple of ways around that, using the belt and suspenders approach. I'm currently running 2 completely separate NVR systems, and also have several cams recording on their internal SD cards. This would give you 3 layers of redundancy - the internal recordings, an NVR in relatively plain sight, and an NVR well hidden. You could also copy your data files from one or both NVRs to an external drive, using something like Second Copy or by setting up a Windows script to execute at regular intervals. Add in things like a UPS for the PCs and POE switch, even stacked switches, and your redundant level of redundancy is only limited by your budget and ingenuity. A clever thief could figure all this out, given time and inclination, but I seriously doubt most would bother, unless you're up against the NSA or someone similar. Ultimate, as thewireguys pointed out, there's no way around your bandwidth limitations except for ponying up bucks for a high bandwidth connection (assuming such is even available at your remote location). Getting all the data from your remote location to an offsite location will be an issue.

Another thing to try would be an alternate remote software, like LogMeIn or UltraVNC. I use UltraVNC with pretty good results, though I understand Remote Desktop can be faster for graphics updates (assuming it works, that is).