MaxIcon

BI supports my Arecont AV5105DN 5MP cam, but the frame rate isn't very good, and it really chews up the CPU cycles. I haven't spent much time troubleshooting or tweaking yet, though.

I set the contrast down to -3 on the 8332 to lighten up the too-dark shadows when the sun is bright, and it works pretty well. I think they set it that way to give those bright, saturated colors that look so good at first glance.

Depending on the DVR and camera, Blue Iris might be able to talk to both, as it supports a limited set of popular DVRs. It also lets you set up generic cams that support JPEG/MJPEG streaming, if you know the strings used to get the images. It's liable to be tricky, though. It's got a free trial, so it's easy enough to check.

I chose the IQ832N because it had day/night switching, and was spec'ed for a higher frame rate at full resolution than the other 1080P models. I wanted more than 1MP (I have several 1MP cams) and going above 3MP loads down my NVR too much, so all these things made that model the right choice. Mine also came with no lens (probably from the same vendor), but I have an assortment of CS lenses, which I like for the flexibility. Some of the older models don't do h.264, so it's worth comparing the details to see if anything's missing that you care about. I'm still checking it out on the bench, and the native frame rate and video quality has been good, but Blue Iris drops the frame rate down a good bit. The low light sensitivity seems pretty good too, but I haven't done much serious testing yet. I really like how solid it is (though it weighs a ton). This is my first IQEye experience, but so far, they seem quite good.

My IQ832N uses a standard CS mount lens. It's an outdoor cam with their eye-shaped oval enclosure, and the lens has to fit in the end part of the enclosure, but any CS lens will fit on the body. The 832N is CS mount, manual iris, 1/2" sensor, so the lens would need to meet those specs, as well as physically fit in the enclosure. YMMV depending on what model you buy.

For Windows, I'm a fan of True Image, and have used it for many years, though I'm converting to WHS 2011. If it's a standalone DVR, best bet is to remove the HD, attach it to a USB to SATA or IDE adapter, connect it to a Windows machine, and use True Image/Ghost/etc to make an image. This doesn't work with all file systems, so you'd also want to do a restore to a different HD and test that it would work. Yes, this is too techie for many users. For multiple Windows based systems, I've converted to Windows Home Server 2011, which is very much lower maintenance than a bunch of standalone TI/Ghost/whatever systems. It has drawbacks, but has been quite good so far. I'm backing up 6 home networked systems now with few problems, though still running TI in parallel for a bit longer.

You might want to watch the first Final Destination movie. That'll help you sleep better at night!

Yes, you can disable it.

I've tried a couple of inexpensive ones from DealExtreme with pretty mixed results. Terrible sound quality is a common problem, and they don't handle motion well, but that wouldn't matter for your use. If I wanted to buy one for more than playing with, I'd go to Amazon and read the reviews on them, then pick the one that sounded best for the budget.

Even with decent lighting, I like IR, as it helps fill in the lighting, depending on your setup. Built-in IR works in the direction the camera is pointing, which isn't always the area you want illuminated, but it does add some flexibility. The downside of built-in IR is that many cameras provide a fine framework for spiders to build their webs on, and the webs light up very brightly, due to how close they are to the lens and IR source. It just takes a moment to knock them down if someone's there, or bug repellents mounted around the camera can help avoid this. I've tried quite a few outdoor IR cams at the lower-mid price range, and my favorite so far is the Vivotek IP8332, which is about $300. Nice daytime and decent daytime images, easy to mount, solid enclosure, 1MP resolution which will give a lot more detail than the 640x480 of less expensive cameras like the Foscams, and solid software that's reliable, easy to set up, and is updated with regularity. Downsides are mediocre night image detail (but still fine for checking out what's going on), the IR doesn't fill the entire field of view at night (not so much of an issue with extra lighting). There's also a dome version, the FD8132, for a bit less, but some people have trouble with IR reflections from the dome. I don't know of any 1MP outdoor cams with IR that give similar performance for under $300, but that field is advancing rapidly. ETA: Field of view is 56 degrees horizontally, but this could be increased with a $20 board lens swap. This will extend the image area even further beyond the IR spot, though.

I find that the IR on most cams isn't really very noticeable except in pitch dark. If there are streetlights, porchlights, etc, the IR glow doesn't really stand out that much unless you know where to look. Some people notice these things more than others, of course.

Yeah, I buy a lot on ebay, and am a bit of an expert, and still get screwed sometimes.

It comes with a 2.1x5.5mm output jack, and a short F-F power cable (maybe a foot? I'd have to check when I get home). This is what all my cams and IR illuminators use, and I'm thinking I'll try it out for driving one of my IR units from POE. You'd have to make a cable or adapter for other plug sizes. Here's a pic from a vendor - they modify their cables for Foscam, but this is what the setup looks like:

Here's a bit of background on this fascinating technology, and why it's currently useless for video. The Lytro uses micro-lenses to capture the extra data on the sensor elements. As a result, the image resolution at any given focal point equivalent is much lower than the sensor resolution, which is why they're cagey about resolution numbers. It also limits the low-light sensitivity, which is pretty important for CCTV. Finally, for a given pixel-equivalent resolution, it requires much higher processing and data bandwidth, since each viewed pixel is accompanied by multiple pixels' worth of data. This all takes time, as well. As far as I know, there are no video capabilities, and no plans for any in the near future. Reviews show that it takes a picture every 1.3 seconds, and processing and downloading each picture to a PC takes over a minute. No chance of h.264 for this puppy with the current state of the art! I haven't been able to find any specs for the shutter speed, and I'm guessing that it's because it's slow. All the demos I've seen have been of static shots rather than action shots. I could be wrong, but specs that aren't shown often tell as much as the ones that are. Here's the technical overview of the science behind it, for the tech geeks: http://www.lytro.com/renng-thesis.pdf It's definitely not real-time video ready at this point. Whether it will ever be will be clear in the next few years. It's a very cool concept, but not all cool concepts make it to street-level technology.

I've been using the TP-Link TL-POE10R POE Splitter to power an older Vivotek dome from a POE switch, and it's been working well. It lets you select 5, 9, or 12V output, and has a standard camera barrel socket. Mine draws about 1W with nothing connected, and with the cam connected runs about 10W with IR on, IIRC. It's pretty small, but not super compact. Mine fit in a junction box that I had the cam mounted to with no problem.

Yes, and I'd like to have that data available for all the streams, real-time. Frame rates and data rates are basic aspects of IP cam performance and can help with lots of things, like setting key frames, trading off compression vs CPU loading, troubleshooting network problems, NVR bottlenecks, etc. There should be a simple and straightforward way to measure them, independent of NVR software. Any OEMs reading this?

I'm definitely interested in reviews, especially of small-user software at reasonable prices. Lots of us just can't swing the $2k NVR setups that the pros like. This forum's an excellent resource, but not so big on formal reviews - more seat-of-the-pants writing and experiences. Sure, there are a few here and there, but it's really not the focus of the forum. It's not like there are so many high quality CCTV resources out there that one dilutes the other. Data that would be good to include in the reviews would be per-cam license fees, whether licenses need to be renewed, whether the software reports data rates and frame rates for cams, and how flexible they are for adding unsupported cams via generic RTSP/MPEG/MJPEG type streams.

Here's something IP cam vendors should be adding to their viewing software as a standard item - realtime FPS and bandwidth. The orphaned Rainbow IPM14 I'm testing does this, and it's very handy. You can call up a window from the web viewer and get the realtime FPS and BW, which makes comparing setting changes quick and easy.

I've had good luck with my Vivoteks, but there have been a lot of complaints about night image quality in the last handful of firmware releases. The latest 1.09 is improved, according to reports, but some people still go back to 1.04. I haven't used any of their viewer or recording software, so can't speak for that. Mine are all running pretty old firmware; 1.02 or so, and low light performance is mediocre, but still better than most of the analog cams I've replaced. I may be missing good stuff in the newer versions, but they're working well for now. I believe it comes down to price vs performance. If you want to stay at $300 or under, there just isn't a lot of choice in name brands with good support (that is, regular firmware updates, large installed user base for help, etc). I think that'll change over the next year or so, but for now, there aren't many robust outdoor MP IR cams in that price range.

I like the 8332 a lot for the money, despite the low-light limitations, and have just bought my 3rd (and hopefully last for now). I'm recording 3xIP8332, 1xFD8134 (indoor dome equivalent of 8332), a Messoa NCR870 1080P that's a mediocre performer, and an LTS D1 cam to a dedicated Blue Iris box running on a core i3-540, stretched just about to its limits. Most are running at 10 fps. I also have a couple of Arecont 5MP that I hate (awful software and frame rates), an IQEye 832N that's pretty nice and will probably replace the Messoa, and a cheap orphaned Rainbow IPM14 that's also nice for a non-IR indoor dome. The Vivoteks have about the best firmware overall and have been the least troublesome of all of them. Next plan is to improve my night coverage with external IR and motion lights, and see how that helps the Vivotek night shots.

Interesting device! Looks to me like it's got 2 potential benefits over mainstream POE switches. - High power output - 35W/port! That could be useful for driving high power devices (heater/fan enclosures, for instance), assuming the receiving end can deal with it. The POE standard is only 15.4W per device, so the extra power may not be useful for most gear. - POE input port - that could be useful if you wanted to run it as a simple remote switch; I'm assuming you wouldn't be able to run much POE gear off of it that way due to the input power limitations. Again, a bit of a limited and specialized app. As voip-ninja said, you'll only have 7 ports available for running gear. I've already maxed out my 8 port switch due to this, and am shopping for an inexpensive 24 port. Mine is 60W POE budget for 8 ports (7.5W max per port average if all are used), but I've had no problem running 7 assorted cams from it. I only have a few cams that run over 5-6W, so there's extra budget for the higher power ones. Also, none of the ports are GB and there's no spec on the fabric bandwidth, so it's possible you could have data rate problems, depending on what you're transferring over it. I like to have at least one GB port for connecting to the rest of the network. I'm also fond of managed switches, so you can monitor power usage, but I'm a data geek. For the money, I'd go for something more mainstream.

The other thing that makes a difference is whether the client runs on the same system (like it does with Blue Iris). NVR only software tends to use lower CPU, due to not having to decode and display the video. I had good luck with the free version of Milestone. It didn't meet other needs for me, but it used CPU resources lightly.

Lol! Is that you signed up as "bluewinkle" over at cam-it.org? What the heck brought that on, Yeliya? You're not related to buellwinkle, are you?

Most camera sensors are less sensitive to the "invisible" 940 nm IR, and the LEDs are less efficient as well, so you get lower performance for the same price overall. Also, analog cameras are limited in how much detail you can get in a particular field of view. IP cams are a big improvement, but are a good bit more expensive. Facial recognition on night shots is tricky, as many cameras have trouble exposing the images correctly compared to day shots, and it's not uncommon to have a person washed out if they're too close to the IR illuminator. Some models have intelligent IR that helps compensate for this. I find the 850 nm IR with the dull red glow isn't that noticeable unless the area is pitch black. In any case, if the guy knows there's a camera watching, you'd think he'd stop dumping - problem solved. Likewise, a motion detect light could help dissuade him. Another option would be to use a separate IR illuminator off to the side, away from where he'd be looking, but still pointed to illuminate him for the camera. You can get pretty decent illuminators as low as $15-20 if you don't need a lot of range, and they go up quickly from there.

One thing users find with the low-budget IP cameras is that they can have a hard time maintaining the frame rate without having network resets, and many are incapable of reaching their spec frame rate at all. If that's important to you, it's worth checking out reviews to see if it's a problem with this model.