jasauders

I run a Linux server in my basement which does many things, including CCTV utilizing the software known as Motion. I am extremely doubtful that my server has anything to do with my setup, seeing as though I see this same jitteryness whether it's on a past recorded clip or if I'm streaming it directly through the web browser via HTTP or VLC via RTSP. Either way, same results. I also thought maybe my network was being saturated since I still have a 10/100 8 port switch in the mix. However I can push 9/10 MB a second to my server without a hiccup, while this video I'm linking here is only 7MB in size and 20 seconds long. Doing some quick math should suggest I'm barely pushing this 10/100 setup that hard. The feed here is 1280x800 @ 20 fps. I know it's not that clear, largely due to the lack of IR I have in the area I'm trying to cover (work in progress), but you can at least see the basic idea of what I'm referring to. I'm not overly experienced in this area compared to you guys... I'm all ears if you fellas have any sort of suggestions or ideas as to what I can do here. Your time is appreciated! EDIT - I talked to some colleagues who are big network guys and they said it appears as if the camera is flat out dropping frames. They doubted that the issue was with the camera itself but more so in the connection involved. Some reading around different areas suggested that the issue may be stemming from my POE device, which until I can get a real POE switch in I'm just using an injector. I have another injector (granted an identical model) that I can test with for comparison. I also have an identical camera that I did not install yet that I may do some testing with tonight. First I'll run it via POE statically to my laptop (direct connection) and see how it does, then compare it vs running it on AC power. Maybe the injector I have is just very poor?? EDIT II - So I figured out the problem... and it had nothing to do with a problematic power injector or network cabling or anything like that. I realized I was actually demanding too much from my camera. I had completely forgotten that on my server (which sits next to my desktop with its own monitor so I can view live feeds from outside when I'm downstairs) that I always let Firefox sit running, streaming the direct mjpg URL of the camera. Well, that's a 30 fps stream. Likewise, the feed going to Motion is 30 fps as well. The camera was trying to simultaneously push two 30 fps feeds and it couldn't keep up. I noticed if I put Motion's fps down to 15, it would work better, but the 30 fps Firefox feed was still active since I admittedly never close out Firefox - I just let it run as is all the time. The camera supports 4 different "profiles", so I can set up specific parameters I want each stream to work at and go from there. As a result, I set video3.mjpg to be 1 fps, which is what I actively watch when I'm down here (mostly to see when visitors are at the door since I often have loud music going on, making the doorbell unnoticeable) and adjusted the Motion fps to 15 since I don't really need much more than that. Bottom line is, I wanted to get 30 fps to work since my camera was rated to work at 30 fps. I was just doing too much at once and the camera couldn't handle 2x 30 fps streams. Anyway, all is well now, and now that I have a more logical setup (1 fps Firefox live feed and 15 fps Motion recorded feed) I should be in much better shape... which is perfect timing because this weekend I'm adding a 2nd camera (same make and model) to my setup.

I can't comment on support, as (being an IT guy) my mind defaults to a network based solution utilizing my already-running-247 server as my DVR... hence why Motion and ZoneMinder were solid contenders to use. I just never give analog lines a thought because it's easier for me to run cat5e where I need to, crimp ends, and plug it right into my switch. Assign an IP, bingo bango done. Just my 2c though. The Motion mailing list has a lot of good people on it. You could try that if you can't find anything through their documentation. Here's their web site which may contain a lead: http://www.lavrsen.dk/foswiki/bin/view/Motion/WebHome @ yakky - About ZoneMinder, I ran it for quite a while using a cheap 640x480 camera with no issues. Processor wise, it was pretty taxing on my server, but having only 1 camera I tolerated it at the time. My current camera is 1280x800. The developer I spoke to said it's likely due to the fact that ZoneMinder's support kind of stalled, while cameras and everything else advanced with higher resolutions, which adds some complexity to the table. Using my camera with ZoneMinder was explained to me as if it's like using XP with an absolutely brand new printer and wondering why it doesn't work. Sure, XP's not THAT old - but it's old enough that brand spankin new gear can sometimes be a bit more painful than it is with something like Windows 7. As far as ZM issues, I had used 1.23, 1.24, and 1.25. I think I only used 1.23 for a few days before I realized an update was around - 24 and 25 were the same deal. I understand one of the devs (the 2nd highest guy, I'd assume) is working on a complete rebuild of ZoneMinder, and making fantastic process... but there's only so much he can do while Phil (the guy who started ZoneMinder) is currently "mia." Perhaps in time as it gets more eyes on the code things will pick up, but so far I'm not so sure. I do understand that some companies have forked the ZoneMinder code and utilized it for their own name branded software, such as Ubiquity Networks, but I haven't used it or seen it in the wild to comment further on it.

I'm crazy behind here with this follow up, but I'd have to somewhat disagree on some points here. I love ZoneMinder and the team I spoke to is absolutely awesome, but that program has had some quality issues lately that I'm hoping get rectified when/if a new update comes about. Last I used it, it would stop recording every few hours. I could never make sense of the logs and nobody seemed to have an idea on where I could go with it. Since I wanted my surveillance system to be as bullet proof as possible, I explored alternatives. Motion, while not as elaborate as ZoneMinder in terms of GUI, is absolutely rock solid in terms of functionality. I've had, literally, zero issues with it since I've set it up. Doesn't matter if I lose power, if I reboot the box, kernel updates, whatever. It magically starts working each time the system comes back online. I assume you suggesting Motion isn't that great for a multi camera setup is in regard to its lack of UI, which I'd absolutely agree with, but Motion *can* scale out very nicely with the addition of more thread*.conf files for each camera in use. While I love the setup I have, I'm beginning to wonder if I can get a little more accurate with it. I'm beginning to question how with Motion (or any Linux based applications) I could rig up a thermal sensor so it detects moving heated bodies vs anything at all to trigger motion detection. That way when it's fall and leaves are blowing everywhere, it's not triggering it continuously, but only triggering with Mr. UPS guy comes to the door to deliver a new laptop or whatever. If you or anybody else have any idea on that front, I'm all ears...

I have a Vivotek IP8332, which is a 1280x800 outdoor rated camera. I have it wired via cat5e right now, and it does the job just fine. I have it hooked up to my Linux server running software known as Motion. Works beautifully. My only bit of confusion comes from the actual camera settings. I wasn't thinking my camera was as clear as it should be. See the image below: http://i.imgur.com/4P3Uk.jpg That to me looks quite poor for 1280x800. I would think I'd get better images than that. My server running Motion is a quad core and shows no signs of stress. I tinkered with some settings in the web GUI of the camera, but all of them fell short. The resolution is set to 1280x800 as I wanted. The FPS was set to 30fps and I have the "video quality" option set to the highest possible, listed as "excellent." In the PDF manual it says that the "video quality" option directly refers to the level of compression used with the video feed. As a result, I'm a little confused over this. I ended up dropping the FPS from 30 to 15 to see how things go, as I wasn't sure if the 1280x800 + 30fps was too much for the camera (?) to process, even though I doubt that would be the case. That said, I'm curious if anybody knows of any tricks to getting better quality out of the Vivotek IP8332, or at the very least, have some tips on different settings that I can manually change...

Well I decided to give Vivotek a call and see what they had to say. The tech specialist I spoke to said he's heard of my issue before, but said it's rare, citing they hear of it once every few months at best. He said sometimes it's the actual lens or lens mount that's bad, or often times all of the parts are fine but the alignment of the mount is out of whack, which is causing the uneven focusing. If I had to guess, it sounded like he was leaning more towards that issue, but cited it very well could be the lens or lens mount itself. He said this issue is one that wouldn't be developed as time passes, but one that comes from the factory like this. I was looking at some previous feeds, and while I did not notice any heavy blurriness in the right side of the screen, I did notice that what was often in the lower right side was scrap wood/insulation/cardboard boxes/etc... things that my eyes wouldn't be particularly drawn to. On top of that, looking at the feeds now I feel like it was a little unfocused from the beginning... not by much, but it wasn't quite "20-20".... that coupled with the lack of interesting items on the right side of the view and perhaps that's why I hadn't noticed things being uneven. At any rate, an RMA is set up, and we'll be in good shape shortly.

Well, I took down my other IP8332 and did some comparisons. Visually speaking, they look identical. Everything is solid and everything is lined up the way I'd expect. I unscrewed the lens from each and switched them, but the issue persisted. Since I am more concerned about the back of the property than the front, I put the front camera in the back, and I figured I'd individually troubleshoot the other one. Soundy, do you have any recommendations on what to do now? I assume I'd have to replace the entire lens assembly at the front of the board, but I'm not sure. I'm kind of at a loss right now. The camera is all but brand new too (few months old) so I assume I could check in with the Vivotek warranty department and go from there, but if I can do my own 10-20 dollar fix (if that's even remotely possible) I'd like to. But if any replacement parts needed start to hike up, ehh... I figured I'd see what's on Ebay to get an idea and I found some things out there. Most are probably junk, sure, but from one auction to another I wasn't really seeing compatible models in the listing. Is that to say that a 3.6mm CCTV lens is the same form factor/mount size as another 3.6mm CCTV lens? If I'd order one, I'd of course want to make sure I'm ordering the right one... Likewise, if I get a new lens, would it even matter? After all, I switched the lens (just unscrewed it to move it to the other camera) and the issue persisted... unless if I get a new lens it comes with more "stuff" that may be a game changer for getting this camera working? Any further insight? Thanks for the help!

Yeah, I know - I thought it resized them too far down, though. Soundy, since you seem to have done this far more than I have, have you ever ran into frustration with focusing like this? I mean, if I can get it BETTER like that, I wonder if with a little more time I can focus it dead on. Have you ran into that before where the focus is a bit lopsided?

I don't have any spare parts on hand to try. I'm only getting into this field so I'm not sure what parts I can interchange, which ones I can't, where to buy them, etc. I work in IT so I get the whole part swapping thing from one system to another, but cameras I'm still reading Greek just yet. I positioned the cardboard box in our car port to use as the focal point since it has a few different sizes of text on it. I also made a point to aim the camera so the text was positioned in different areas of the field of view, so that way I could see the text clarity in the upper right, upper left, center, etc... Once done, I put the camera back on the mount, and here's what I got: (excuse the clutter, we're remodeling the upstairs) http://i.imgur.com/xdA5g.jpg I still feel as though the lower right corner is still a little soft. That said, I feel like it's better than it was before... Maybe I'm on the right track?

I'm not entirely sure it's loose. I have it taken apart now, and the lens feels very attached to the rest of the unit. I can only twist the lens to focus... otherwise it literally has 0 play elsewhere. Quite honestly, it feels like a very well built camera. Granted, I'm not in expert in the CCTV field, but I work with electronics and this board just seems solid to me. I may be entirely wrong, but just trying to explain it best I can. For what it's worth, I hooked the camera up to my laptop out here and took 2 screenshots while streaming the RTSP stream through Totem movie player. It's far from perfect, but I hope it at least gives you an indication as to what I'm seeing. In particular, look at the tall bush... When it's centered, it's clearer, when it's off to the left, the detail is a bit more blurry. On top of that, when the bush is in the center, check out how blurry the cardboard box is. I am within 3 feet (less than a yard stick away - oh yes, I measured) of the cardboard box yet its text is unreadable... http://i.imgur.com/I23xj.jpg http://i.imgur.com/nvJdY.jpg Or... maybe... just maybe... I'm a complete fail at focusing? After all with a 3-4 second delay in the active stream, it IS a bit more difficult, but dangit I thought I had it...

I can't see that being a possibility. The threads are covered in a thick liquid... it sort of feels like a weird hybrid between superglue and syrup. It actually makes it quite difficult to twist the lens to focus, but it makes me confident it's not getting knocked out of whack in the process of me re-mounting the camera. Is what I'm explaining typical behavior of a lens that's out of focus? I just want to get it back to where everything except things super far away was clear. This right side vs left side (oh, and forget everything far away, that's all blurry anyway) thing is a little frustrating... but if it's something that's typical of lenses out of focus, I'll just take it down again and try to do a better job focusing it. I appreciate the insight and quick responses, Soundy!

Well, I went through the motions of taking the camera apart twice to refocus it. I'm a little confused at something. Each time I get it focused, another area of the image gets unfocused. For example, with refocusing it, I seem to have to pick and choose which area I want clear. Before, everything was clear, everything... and things only got blurry far away. Now, it's far different. First I had things set pretty good, but I noticed on the right side things were blurry, yet the center/left was fine. I redid everything and checked it again, and now things on the left are blurry, but center/right are clear. Now, what the... When I bought the camera, EVERYTHING was clear. Something got out of whack and it unfocused itself, and now that I went through the instructions to refocus it, it's being picky in terms of which area it wants to focus?

I agree. I'm just not sure how to focus it. It's a solid bullet camera, no lens to twist to adjust the focus like a Nikon or Canon camera with a nice lens would have... The best I have, as I mentioned above (I posted an edit above at the same time you posted) is the "sharpen" feature, but to be honest, it doesn't feel quite spot on yet. I wonder how else I can focus this gizmo... EDIT - Well, here seems to be some directions (PDF): http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CGEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forum.use-ip.co.uk%2Fattachments%2Fhow-to-re-focus-the-lens-vivotek-ip8332-pdf.15%2F&ei=FTXzT8DHLOSo6wH0wNGqCA&usg=AFQjCNFVIAXBTTWCZdkpaV7b69i0sLrZGw&sig2=vsUOkHI2S9X7dNJnfX-JwQ Kind of offputting that I have to disassemble it like that, but I suppose that's what comes with the territory of IP66 enclosed cameras that are built to be outside in all weather conditions... eh?

I'm using MJPG. The camera supports MPEG4, H264, and MJPG. I'm not entirely sure if Motion (that program I use on my Linux server for motion based recording) supports H264 or not, but MJPG worked out of the box, so I just always stuck with that. Someone else I spoke to also said that it looked like JPEG compression artifacts. What gets to me is I'm not sure how to clean it up. In the web GUI of my camera, I have stream 4 selected, which is the MJPG stream. Resolution - 1280x800 Framerate - 30fps Video Quality - "Excellent" I read the PDF guide and it said Video Quality refers to the compression level. What I don't get is... why is it looking like that if it's set to excellent? Oddly, the guide confused me, saying this: A lower value will produced higher quality?? I wasn't sure if that was referring to the "Average, Good, Detailed, Excellent" value or if that was referring to the "custom" field, where I can choose 2-97 in terms of quality. I assume that it would mean custom, as Excellent clearly suggests that you're opting for the best quality feed. I know it's kind of a vague question as it simply suggests, oh hey, durp durp, set to excellent and you're good, etc., but I feel as though I'm doing that and it's just not making much sense to me. I also tried tinkering with the actual video picture, brightness, contrast, saturation, etc... Everything is 0 right now, which I assume is a safe bet to toy with. Once I started messing with saturation I noticed it got noticably worse, so I set everything to 0 and I'm sitting tight there. I wonder if Motion supports H264... hmm... if not, is there any way to get MJPG to look a bit more crisp? EDIT - Motion's man page has this entry which suggests to me H264 isn't available since it specifies jpeg file or mjpeg stream. At any rate, how can I clean up MJPEG? I just feel like I need to twist the end of it to focus it, sort of like how a ~800 dollar Nikon would be with a decent lens. On another note, it's a network camera, I wonder if I'd have better results if I would connect the camera cat5e line right to my system... that way I'm not hopping through the POE injector, through the Netgear switch, then through my router to see the live feed. It would at least be a way to isolate the additional network gear, but I feel as though there shouldn't be anywhere near "too much" traffic to alter the actual quality of the feed. *shrug* EDIT II - So now I'm a little confused. Maybe I was tinkering with it too late in the evening that when night vision came up I couldn't really tell the difference in the quality settings. Here's today's image: http://i.imgur.com/VuDUA.jpg Still a little fuzzy (having a little trouble reading the big text on the cardboard), but far, far better than the previous screenshot. EDIT III = Potential facepalm moment... So I couldn't figure out why my images were looking so bad. Here I was messing around with the wrong setting. My camera can do 3 streams, however there's 4 options in the menu (two for H264, one for MPEG4, one for MJPG) and I can customize them accordingly. I didn't realize that the feed I was pulling from the web GUI (where I can see the current view from the camera's perspective) was one of the H264 feeds, which of course I altered to the point of having a terrible view... so even though I had adjusted my MJPG feeds to be of excellent quality, of course my quality I was seeing was terrible because I was viewing the current feed (aka stream 1 feed) when stream 4 (what I use with Motion) was set to max quality. I only realized this when I right clicked on the video, went to "open with totem movie player", and saw the address was an rtsp://ip.of.camera/live.sdp address... which told me that was the other stream, as the MJPG stream of course ends like: video4.mjpg... two different things. I just didn't know that the default video feed I was seeing in the web interface was rtsp... Oh well... I also found if I get the sharpness setting from 0 to +1 (I have a range of -3 to +3) it sharpens it up a bit better too. If I go to +3 it looks sharp but it has a super grainy look to it, so I figured +1 was a happy median since it was a bit clearer and it looked like a very natural shot. I'll check in with it tonight and see how that setting works in bw/night mode. I also adjusted the "white balance" to be set to auto. I think it looks a bit better. What do you guys think? http://i.imgur.com/Z5fES.jpg

My apologies on the late response. Been busy with some bathroom renovations and a last second vacation! Motion can do 247 recording if you set it up as such. It's meant to be motion based out of the box, though. I have it set up for dual streams right now, where I have a 247 stream @ 1 fps and another @ 10 fps that is based on motion detection. You can really manage it any way you want, though the initial kickstart the recording will have to be motion based to get things rolling since that's what the software is designed to do. As far as PTZ controls, I do recall seeing them in the config, but I haven't touched them since I'm not a big PTZ user. In regard to ZoneMinder, I'm actually very fond of that software, but I've had continued issues with it recently. My feeds would work and then magically stop, populating my syslog with a ton of errors that seemed to only lead to dead ends. I also found ZoneMinder to be much heavier than Motion. This was never an issue as I have a quad core server to work from, but it was definitely some food for thought if I would ever add more cameras. Overall, I decided for a security system, I needed something reliable. ZM working for 15 hours and magically stopping, requiring me to fix/tweak it, then to break 5 hours later and repeat wasn't acceptable to me. Once I got hooked up with Motion, I haven't had a single issue with it. It just kind of... runs.

I've had thoughts about purchasing a 2nd IR "flood light" type of light to add to the deck to light it up a little more for my camera to see. I began thinking about the placement of it and couldn't really come up with a solidified idea. With something like that, are you supposed to fire it in the same direction that the camera is pointing? Or are you better off firing it at the camera? I know I could buy it and find out myself but depending on which way is optimal (if it matters) may dictate upon whether or not I'd have to install a new electrical outlet out there... if that's the case I'd hold off buying one for now until I get some other home renovation projects done. If firing it AT the camera is okay, I can consider it a done deal now. Thanks guys!

Thanks for the insight. I should have looked better. I'm a little disinterested in the mount that I have due to the positioning of the one screw. There's a thumb screw to tighten the rotation, but there's also a hex screw on the opposite side to serve the same purpose. Problem is, I want my camera on a direct 90 degree angle with the camera sitting on top of the post. If you take that image and rotate it 1/4 turn to the right, you'll get what I mean. When the camera is on the bracket, the larger nickle-sized round "stop" that you thread against the camera to lock it in place effectively covers the hex screw that stops rotation. In order for me to get a proper 90 degree angle on it and secure it, I have to essentially set up the bracket, then twist the camera on it, then mount it to the wall, since I can't lock down the hex rotation screw AFTER the camera is on due to the nickle-sized round stop. Due to the length of the post, I can't twist the camera on it once mounted. I did get semi lucky though when I mounted it and got it ALMOST dead on, just had to give it a little more nose-dive to get the right angle... but I basically had to force it... so I know I might have been churning the metal ball a little bit inside. It feels secure, yes, but I want to have a better mount if there's ever a round 2 of fighting with it.

I'm curious about finding a new bracket for my one camera, as the location I'd like to mount it might be a little difficult for the mount I got. I began to look up universal mounting kits, and some of them look decent and have great reviews. However, some reviews indicate the threads did not match their camera body. This made me wonder... how can you verify that it's a match? Is there some sort of code or feature ID that I must look for in order to verify the bracket I'm looking at online will fit my specific camera threads? EDIT - Well that may have been an open/shut case quicker than I thought. I was searching for more brackets and some of them I came across began to specify the thread size. A few caught my eye, as it's a similar thread size (1/4 20) of a set of bolts I bought for a completely separate project I'm working on. I tried the bolt against the camera body and sure enough, 1/4 20 was the perfect fit. I was noticing some brackets with a 3 digit ID I didn't recognize... 1D0 and 1BA and things like that. I was assuming that may have been referencing the actual mount type... The only question I have now is... what if I DIDN'T have that bolt? I wonder how I would be able to tell the thread count of the included mount... looks like I have some mid morning reading material.

accidental post; please delete

Just to update, I've been running Motion for a few weeks now. To say I'm happy with it would be an understatement. It's extremely configurable, easy to work with, and it was incredibly easy for me to pick up and use since I already had a Linux server running... just had to install and run with it. A buddy of mine (one of those situations where you haven't talked in a long time, but you're still friends on Facebook) brought up some video surveillance conversation the other day when he saw I posted a link about Motion. It turns out these days he does installs for a lot of businesses in the city a few miles away, and a lot of them use Motion and love it. Nice! Here's my screencast going over some of the basics:

Well, a quick update. I noticed the config file REFUSED to be acknowledged when I ran Motion, which I only realized when I ran it in some sort of debug mode (motion -c config or something?). I just got a slew of permissions denied errors. Turns out the motion.conf file had permissions of 600. I set them to 644, and suddenly everything worked. (owner read/write, group read, all others read) Some reading of the documentation suggests that once netcam_url is in use, whether in the motion.conf file or within thread1.conf, etc., then /dev/video0 becomes unused. So by default, Motion seeks out /dev/video0 to use. If you have one camera, that is to be configured within motion.conf. If it's a network camera, adding the camera's URL (netcam_url http://192.168.1.10/video4.mjpg or whichever your's may be for your specific camera) will thereby make video0 inactive. The same is true if you have multiple cameras and begin adding more netcam_url entries (for each camera) in each thread1.conf, thread2.conf, etc. In short: motion.conf = for global settings that will effect all cameras OR for a single camera. thread1.conf = for camera 1 in a multi camera environment thread2.conf = for camera 2 in a multi camera environment etc... My server is a low end quad core, however it barely shows any movement as the camera is recording under 1280x800 res @ 5 fps. I'm really, REALLY digging Motion so far. It seems daunting at first since the entire thing is based on a config file and no real GUI, but realistically if you just read the config file, it's crazy easy. All of the juicy info is in comment tags in the file, so you just have to read and adjust whatever options you want. Really the only things I changed were I added in the URL of my camera stream so the program could find that feed, I ramped up the fps from 2 to 5, and increased the resolution. I also changed the target_dir so it was saving the files in a directory that wasn't a tmp directory, which it's set to by default. Other than that, seems pretty nice so far. Very quick program, low overhead, and feels a lot like a "no BS" solution. Like I said, at first it seemed kind of like a low end program with rather little to offer versus something like ZoneMinder, but it really isn't bad at all. Just have to RTM, or in this case, RTCF (read the config file). I assume the lower processing requirements (so it seems) is due to it not needing a MySQL database and whatnot, since it really just saves continual snapshots when something moves to the directory you specify. So far, I'm a fan. But hey, I suppose further time with the program will tell. Just wanted to post my findings in case anybody down the road would run into these issues or if someone is curious enough to try it out.

My soon to be in-law's would like to have some eyes on their beach house. Nothing major, just basic surveillance. Since there's nothing outdoors on the property, they opted to go for an indoor camera with IR to save a few bucks. After all, if they want to get in, they'll get in, and an outdoor or indoor camera will catch them in the act regardless, hence their leaning towards the indoor camera idea. I think a simple system is all they need. Just something to check on and set up email alerts. I'm thinking the camera I got that I use for puppy patrol when we're gone would be good, which is a Foscam FI8918w. Simple PTZ, IR, wireless, etc. For a single camera system, I'm not sure what kind of processing power it'll need. I have some spare desktops sitting around which might fit the bill. I have a basic Pentium 4 desktop as well as a Pentium Dual Core desktop. I would think the Pentium DC would be good. HDD space wise, I have about 250gb, and would likely run Linux with ZoneMinder if I went with the software route. I assume this would be enough for housing at least 2 weeks worth of camera footage from a single cam? OR I could just get an NVR system. Problem is, I don't have some parts to build an NVR system like I do with the computer idea, plus I'm not familiar enough with brands to go to town with looking at potential options a while. That said, I want the option on the table. Can anybody recommend a good simple basic NVR that would handle one IP based (possibly even wireless, not entirely sure) camera? Thanks for the input!

Very nice. I'll look into them. I don't have much experience with too many brands, but I've heard the Vivotek interface is decent. My buddy has one and told me about some of the features and it sounds somewhat comparable. I actually have one on the way but I haven't received it yet to see what it's all about. The only downside is if somebody does break in and manages to find the camera, there's the feed... gone... however if they can get away from the need of a DVR/NVR based on one, solid, quality camera, I think they'd likely go the extra mile to ensure it's well hidden and out of plain view. An indoor PTZ with IR camera would be absolutely optimal. Time to do some digging... It'd be nice if I could rig the thing up to back up to a cloud NAS... like ssh the video feed to my server, which runs 247... that way if someone walks in, oh hi camera, and jacks the feed, it's still mostly processed on my server to at least get a face. Probably dreaming there, but hey, I'm allowed.

That's funny you bring that up. I just got that idea in my head and came on here to ask that exact question... so I suppose could just get a really nice indoor camera with support for SD card storage, get a massively huge SD card, and set everything to store there. Then forward the camera IP through the router and from there they can play back motion detected events (pending that the camera software supports it) and whatnot right from the camera's web GUI... am I on the right track? That sounds like a great idea...

I have a 12 year old shelf stereo from Aiwa that I've had hooked up to my computer since the beginning of time. It's loud, sounds decent, has a range of equalizer settings and presets, etc. All in all, it does the job done, and blows any 2.1 computer audio system I've seen completely out of the water. Well, I'm getting married in October, and in an effort to save some money we're doing the music ourselves with the help of my brothers to keep an eye on the pre-defined playlists. My computer will be there running Ubuntu + Clementine with everything set up ready to go. They just have to transition from "dinner" music to "dance" music and whatnot, which will be separated by playlists. Super easy. The curve ball is, the Aiwa system I have I was planning on using, as I'm sure it would be enough for the venue we're having the reception at, but the one speaker is starting to have a baffle/mumble sound as it hits certain notes, which from my car audio days suggests the speaker is being clipped or in the beginning stages of failing. This, of course, kicks me into thinking about a replacement. Three options are on the table. 1 - A newer, bigger shelf system. This guy here looks like it would be perfect. Pros and cons... Pros are I could re-use it as my replacement audio system for my computer, which is a pretty decent idea. Cons, well, maybe I could piece together my own more "professional" grade system with some PA speakers and a receiver? I don't know. It looks like that route is getting a bit pricier anyway, so this shelf system looks attractive. Several reviews have stated they've used this system for a similar situation, such as anniversary parties, etc. Amazon.com: Sony Muteki 560 Watts Hi-Fi Stereo Shelf Audio System with Integrated iPod® Dock, 5 Disc CD Changer, Game SyncTM Mixing & 3 Way Bass Reflex Speakers with Dual 6.75" Woofers: Electronics 2 - A regular home audio system. This option is probably the one I dislike the most. The pro is, I could re-use it later for the living room as I have no stereo system there connected to the TV at all... it simply runs off of the onboard TV audio, which is okay, but not entirely optimal. I don't see how a living room home theatre system, even a higher dollar one, is going to be powerful enough to push enough volume/sound across the venue. The venue isn't absolutely large... but it's enough to fit 110 people. 3 - A pieced together PA audio system. I considered this option heavily, especially after being at my cousin's wedding this past weekend which had two large passive speakers on stands and a receiver, along with a laptop plugged in to control everything. The speakers themselves looked to be 200 a piece, based on what information I could see on the speaker and cross referencing that to online sites selling this equipment. The other thing is, I would need to get a receiver/mixer/whatever that thing is that goes in between two PA speakers (I have no idea if receiver is the proper name or not). Pros - it MIGHT offer more/better sound than the Sony system, but I'm not sure how confident I am in that. Cons, it's likely to cost more (which is okay, as long as I can re-use the gear) which brings me to the next con, I don't know how to re-use this gear. It won't just plug in to the TV over HDMI, and it won't be easy to adapt to my computer, which further isolates this option from being an optimal one. Overall, I'm leaning more towards option 1. Best Buy had this system in stock for the same price as Amazon. It sounded decent when I quickly cranked it for a few seconds, certainly better than my Aiwa. I'm still on the fence, and still have time to play. Figured I'd post here to see what you folks thought.

The frustration my one buddy had was he wanted to play a specific slow song that the DJ didn't want to do. He wanted to focus more on "getting the party going". I get that, but seriously? It's things like that that I really want to avoid. I'm approaching this with an open mind... if this was music appreciation night, we'd hear Pink Floyd and Pearl Jam on the stereo for 5 hours straight. But it's not. It's a wedding. There will be rap music. There will be oldies. There will be 80s. I've already got a long list of "wedding acceptable" music that you would hardly ever hear me jamming to on a regular day, but music that indeed fits the persona of an actual wedding. I have zero doubt that a good solid MC is going to tip the scale in terms of entertainment value. Things are just happening so fast that it's hard to look at the costs associated with some of these services. My fiance and I opted to do as much by ourselves as remotely possible, which is a big reason why we're going this route. But hey, like I said (going back to square one again), I just don't want to be an idiot in regard to what stereo to get, since I am essentially trying to do a 2 birds/1 stone thing here. If I can get a solid setup for a few hundred bucks that fits the wedding needs yet I can reuse with my computer later, then we have a winner.