cctv_down_under

Fair point - I actually meant to type an eight dont know how I got the guy with the glasses LOL I did say "usually" obviously there will be differences the point was that you need to set to the best focus possible for the testing, there are even better ways to do this.....but hay lets not confuse the issue, it seems pretty confused already and its nearly 1AM here......

Last time I looked this site was called CCTV Forum .....not CCTV argument...lets keep it a little mature shall we. Look I know I should have read it all...I am sorry but I am far too busy.......(read that as Lazy) TV Lines in CCTV can be very confusing indeed - especially these days as we are not necessarily talking about standard video anymore so it really depends on what medium you are talking about...Digital or Analogue. When discussing Analogue Vertical Resolution is the maximimum number of horizontal lines that a camera is capable of resolving..... this is limited in Analogue to the CCIR/PAL (in my country) standard to 625 horizontal lines and in your native USof A EIA/NTSC recommendations to 525 horizontal lines....however the REAL vertical resolution for both standards in analogue is much less. If you take into consideration the vertical sync pulses, equation lines etc the maximum would be 575 for PAL and 470 for NTSC this then needs to be further corrected by the Kell factor of 0.7 to get a more realistic vertical res of 400TVL PAL......... A similar deduction applied to the NTSC signal would render the maximum realistic resolution at 330TVL Horizontal Resolution is the maximum number of vertical lines that a camera can resolve and this figure is only limited by the technology and the monitor quality. Horizontal resolution is usually 75% of the number of horizontal pixels on any given CCD chip this is a direct result of the 4:3 aspect ratio. When counting or measuring vertical lines in order to determine horizontal resolution you only count the horizontal width equivelant to the vertical height of the montior used to measure..this ensures that you have an equal thickness of lines both vertically and horizontally so then when you measure the total number of vertical lines accross the width of the measuring monitor you have multiply this by 3/4 which is equal to 0.75 and because of the unusuall counting .....horizontal resolution is always reffered to as TV Lines and not just Lines...this is WHERE the measurement comes from...measuring lines on a TV (Yes Analogue). In answer to your questions there are many ways to test a cameras perfomance in this way and one of the best ways is as I mentioned before the CCTV Test chart ...as one of our colleagues pointed out ....this is for your people called a EIA RETMA chart but this by no means makes it the only testing device - however this chart is designed for CCTV measurement unlike some others that are available. To test on a chart like this you need to focus a camera to the best possible focus (usually a middle F-stop, 5.6 or making the test chart fully in the feild of view, you also need to turn off all other features of the camera - like AGC etc. Now this is where the oscilloscope comes in.....you can measure on this chart where the lines in the shape of a sharp triangle come in contact but if this is only measured by a human eye it will only give an approxamite (usually fairly accurate) however for a more accurate testing you can use the oscilliscope...especially if the one you use for testing supports a TV Line function (some do) the measurement is then narrowed down to selecting a line where the four lines of marking making the triangle modualtion depth is equal to or better than 5% by doing this you can measure by disregarding the moniutors resolution limits. Although resolution is closely related to the signal bandwidth a camera may generate it is not the defining characteristic. I may stand corrected but once you are taking the analogue signal which can be defined and creating a digital signal then you are no longer measuring TV Lines as TV Lines are a measurement based on analogue environments. I think you may be confusing resolution and TV Line measurement and you need to know in which medium you are measuring this and in what context...you firstly need to quantify to medium you are testing as you seem to be crossing between different types of measurements. I am sorry if any of this is off the mark

Bad wording......on my part, but assume you can get a signal generator for that test pattern

You get a large version of that chart ...focus the camera onto it and look at the video on the other end, you need to ensure that the screen you use to measure it on can handle, more than the TV lines you are trying to measure, you dont allow it to be compressed, just analogue signal - by visualising the chart you can (although not perfectly clearly) visualise where the TV lines will stop on both Vertical and Horizontal. If you look at that link, you will see that the chart has an x and y triangle shape with lines coming together at the tip of each triangle, where you can no longer visualize the independant lines is where the TVL stops and looking at the shart at that point you can read the TVL. I admit it isnt perfect but it is fairly accurate - I dont think a lot people realise that the difference perception to the human eye of 50TVL or so is so minimal that it isnt worth regarding really. Not to mention the tricks that are used to reach that TVL spec in the first place

Actually that is consistent with 90% of all cards in the market, 16 cameras = 4 x 25FPS (PAL) chips.....well it used to be anyhow - I haven't mucked around with cards for a while and obviously there is now hardware compression chips which would differ, but even the Comart Systems Korea cards used to be this way, different Hint Bridge though. Usually Geo upgrades are free or reasonably cheap but that depends from which version you are going to and if you plan to use IP cameras or not - again some upgrades require hardware dongle change, really depends what version you are running.

Be careful in running power closer to the camera, if the ground potential of different GPO ciruits differs then you may run into issues, ensure that all GPO's are the same ground potential first

Wow what a response - would have loved to read it all but would take so long. To measure accurately you are correct an oscilloscope could be used, to measure roughly though you could use a TV Line generator or a still image with tvline measurement......there is one on the back of the best CCTV book ever written ironicaly called "CCTV". You would need a larger one for testing but you will see that there are vertical and horizontal lines making a triangle shape......where the lines can no longer be seen as seperate lines is where the the TVL resolution is limited to.I purchased a larger version of this to test all new cameras on and it is a damn bit cheaper than an oscilloscope There are a multitude of ways to test TVL but this is the most basic way. I suggest all CCTV experts read and purchase this book....it is my Bible...there is a newer and an older version...its not light reading but covers everything you would ever need to know. http://www.cctvlabs.com/orderbookmagschart.pdf

It depends on the model and age of the Geo card, however one chip controls 4 x camera inputs and multiplexes the signal, therefore if you are getting a return on one camera it can indeed affect three others. It also depends if the card has a Hint Bridge controller or not, IE if it is a GV650 or below. The rebooting issue can be disabled and is actually floored in some versions of the software so I would recomend an upgrade the version that is newest that the card supports - be careful though as not all cards can have the latest version - I beleive there is software to test the card for what version you can have. Check that the cameras are grounded properly, I have seen this happen with PTZ's a bit because people mount them on Metal material and do not ground the device, try placing a small peice of rubber between the metal wall (if that is the case) and the PTZ or Camera bracket. To test you could disconnect the 485 wire and touch the bnc against the PC case - assuming it is grounded if it has any affect on the video then you may be getting a problem. Lastly if you are able to upgrade the card to the latest software you could add IP cameras to the system without changing the DVR itself.

did you download the app you wanted first from the first page. I still think it is the [password not getting back to the DVR, I think 80 is just the web page and that one of 3550 or 4550 carries either the data, the audio or the password return token.... do you have at least these three ports open.....can you describe how you have set up your port forwarding......PM me if you want me to remote into your router and check for you.....set up many remote Geo's

My point by "more points of failure" is that on a large scale IP install there would be multiple switches and therefore more points of failure than running directly the dvr, therefore more equipment and more joins and patches ...therefore more points of failure......Distance is still and issue for IP. I can use an XF camera from Bosch and run it using the inbuilt ability to run what i think is about 400 Meters (not sure but probably longer) on coax...to do that with standard Cat5 would require more points of weakness....yes i understand there is fibre and other mediums, but most common is cat5 and coax.

Granted...and I stand corrected, it was not my intention to mislead however, it is just that to me ONE of the major advantages of the IP style of camera is that they can be MP, I agree that there is a mix between the two and that is certainly not the ONLY advantage, I think I made the mistake of not being clear on this because I would mainly only consider the advantage of resolution in swaying me to a IP MP camera...otherwise I would mostly use analogue. The problem as you rightly stated is that both have advantage and disadvantage...and I am not taking sides becasue I have specialised with both....but the one thing I will say is that quite often you will find a person who has been in the industry for some time that will embrace the IP and MP technology, but it NEVER seems to be the other way around....that said...there are those of us that dont like to embrace that technology...hell I rememeber using a dual page quad + a single ch capture card and PC Anywhere on slow modems...but when digital came we embraced it...what really irks me is that anyone who has ONLY ever done IP cameras speaks to me and perhaps I am unlucky in whom I have dealt with ......but they ALWAYS are not willing to consider analogue....when it is obvious that like you said both have their place. I think most people dislike the hype because it tends to be very inacurate at times and annoying to have to disprove.... I think things are a little more mature and rational in here than out in cold face. Dont get me wrong, CCTV suppliers have been cheating the specs for ages.....counting fields as frames...using half full IRE to read ratings, measuring with F Stops that would cost you a mortgage to buy......lying about TV lines......but never has there been so much fake hype generated about CCTV before. IP has its advantages....so does analogue its annoying when CCTV people will not accept that. I just hate it when you hear all those same lines.....you know the whole "Oh but you save on cabling" or "But it takes the job of two cameras". To be honest I am all for IP cameras.... to me it makes sense to go this route...but I just wish there was a little more profesionalism from the people pushing the product so hard. I recently had to waste 2 days of my time taking shots at different times of the day at different lighting conditions becasue I had to convince our existing customer that we werent selling him old technology...wasted my time and I knew what the results would be..but because some smarmy sales guy who has no history in CCTV at all and no knowledge repeated verbatim the same old lines that you always hear. I think the casing point is......do a google on IP vs Analogue and see how many PRO IP articles you find.....but we all agree there are advantages to both....so why are there not as many PRO Analogue articles.....the reason is simple IT companies and manufactorers behave differently to traditional CCTV ones (small manufactorers excepted) and they dont carry on like that. So to be clear....I like both....JUST IP reps seem to be less accurate with the info...but thats just my experience. My apologies for not being clear about IP/MP and also to the poor guy who copped my ridicule about the tongue and cheek comment.....it was simply a case of ....so sick of that incorrect statement. And I feel terrible because he helped me with a support issue today as well.....oh well my bad.!!!!

Ok guys..... I only made it to page 7 ..seems we were repeating a lot. but there were a few things I did not agree with. I dont totally agree with this statement - for one...there are IP cameras that can do both analogue and IP, so that brings about a hard wired redundancy along with a IP performance - Secondly the MAIN and I am sure to mention quite a few reasons but the MAIN reason I am not all that fond of IP solutions is exactly as CCTV Expert mentioned......more points of weakness, more plugs, more switches, especially when on a large scale....the problem I always saw with IP was that if a DOS / VIRUS or a network issue occured, the recording stopped, this is the biggest risk by far...granted a DVR is also succeptable to virus, but network efficiency can be easily disabled, this is why a lot of manufactorers will shift to solid state storage in the camera...but further..... the systems I have used also re-replicate the data....IE as soon as the network goes down it records inside the camera or at a local network location - it then re replicates from where it last recorded when it comes back online......until this was available I hated IP. That is such a ....well I am trying to find a nice way to say the word Immature.....statement and one most IP pro people use it simply is not worth arguing with ... I totally agree with this statement, I hate that all too familiar statement saying that IP cameras can do twice the res so therefore if they are twice the res then they should equate to twice the cost..........try pulling that stunt with almost ANY design in the market, try telling a grocery store with multiple aisles that a single camera can do the job of two.....what rubbish, it can not see from one aisle into the other ...try to picture the scenario...if a camera is placed in an Aisle in the middle looking up it...it can not see the next aisle , but two cameras could... If you had a camera on the inside of a doorway and the outside, the inside one cant see to the outside....so how does 1 camera benefit...now before you say "ok for that situation" I would argue that more than half of installs would not require a large open area...where MP cameras are an advantage....granted if you specialise in this area....then all well and great but as an average I would think that in most instances more cameras and more angles are better than one larger view. I have been in the industry a long time and I have EXTENSIVELY tested both analogue and IP and I can tell you that these are the benefits and problems I have seen. IP PRO - Larger Resolution.- in even lighting and good lighting, nothing comes close to MP IP cameras, outstanding - Relocation - once a DVR is hard wired it can not be moved as easily as an IP NVR one, it is simple to up the NVR to another location which makes it more suitable - Camera configuration - although some analogue cams can allow remote configurtaion through a DVR, IP cameras can be connected to directly, so if a new window or a new doorway or if lighting changes then it is simple to adjust the camera settings remotely - Existing Cabling - yes you can use existing ethernet, but what a lot of people forget is that it is not only down to the ethernet bandwidth, if you do not have the right NIC's installed then you will affect performance, when streaming large res video the NIC needs a buffer to process IP traffic it can increase perfomance greatly, most often you can get away with a few extra cameras but try flogging a cheap router all day long to max capacity and see how long it lasts. - Firmware Upgrade to take advantage of new technology IP CONS - Mostly CMOS and very poor dynamic range......although the pics from soundy are clever....try looking from a warehouse out to the sunlight on the ground outside.....find a picture where bright takes up half as much as dark and then see the image result.....I have tested many IP cameras, the same test angles same lighting, with most IP cameras you can not even make out marking on the ground outside but with analogue...no problem. - Succeptable to network failure - More points of weakness - Bandwidth Intensive - No proper standard - Upgrading a NVR may not be possible because of compatability needed for your old IP cameras. There are many many points from both sides, but for me, I like IP when in perfect lighting and there is a nice network with spare bandwidth or a new IP network can be installed......but for reliability analogue is much better- I must admit I only use expensive analogue gear Bosch/Panasonic etc but still Analogue outperforms IP in almost every aspect other than resolution and although resolution is great it is not the only factor, what good is a really high res image of an intrudor that you can not see because the scene is too dark or becasue you do not have enough cameras installed in enough locations.. Ultimately security television's (cant call it CCTV) most important features should be. Reliability - Analogue Identification - Analogue/IP (dependant on light) Coverage - Analogue (cheaper more cameras...more angles) IP bigger resolution larger area. Design - Analogue (you can put analogue in more trying lighting environments and therefore it can be placed EXACTLY where you want it, you do not have to sacrifice location to accomodate poor performance. What is the future- IP of course....is it here yet....I dont think so...growth of a technology does not stop just because of a recession.....I think a lot of people in the industry know that unless a standard is realized and worked to IP is not worth the extra dollars. Put it this way, Id rather afford a rotweiler in my front yard and my back yard if I could.... than simply a bigger one in the front yard...deterrant can be a massive thing and having more coverage even if at less resolution is more important...that said when I tested low light...Analogue was much better, when I tested BLC or WDR Analogue was much better, but when I closed the roller doors, turned on the fluro's and compared the two.....WOW 3MP really makes a huge difference.....just my two cents.

I will have a look at these, but I think the biggest problem is that VNC seems to refresh the screen remotely when changes happen on the pc you remote into and therefore if you have 16 cameras up at once, then it is constantly changing and refreshing the remote connection?

Not all hanging PTZ's are limited to this......due to design needed for Airports etc (you need to see above the horizon for planes coming in etc) you can now find PTZ's that do this......but I have not seen a lot that go past horizontal...I think the new Bosch one comes close......I think the website is http://www.autodome.com but I Imagine it might not quite cut it, a smaller version of what is pictured above would work, most pan tilt heads can run on Pelco Protocol so no real issue.

I agree that the best option is a cheap video server, however the Geo Montoring Software does all this and is free with the DVR, your smartest move is to wire a hardware PIR to the DVR then trigger connection to the Geo Center software by activation of the PIR, this attaches a definable AVI file segment to be sent. The best part is you can latch it to the Keypad for the alarm so that once the alarm is activated upon leaving the premise.....only then it will send video on detection

Why dont you just use a PTZ head and a standard camera and zoom lens

Sounds like you have not port forwarded all the ports, only port 80...perhaps you have not port forward both inwards and outwards?

It is likely that your DVR comes with a small "player" software so that it can play exported video files..the reason it may work on one PC and not another is that the one it works on may have the "player" codec installed. Can you set up a remote connection so that the Plice can log in through the web and view the video?

Keep in mind that there are many and varying types of IP cameras using different technologies, if it is a CMOS CCD then its unlikley (thsi is not a blanket statement though) that you will get the low light perfomance you are after MP cameras (again not a blanket statement) are generally worse in low light than standard CCD Cameras and sometimes it would be more beneficial to put in sensor lights than paying for an expensive low light MP camera. IP cameras can be bought just about anywhere but I guess you get what you pay for - the main concern is going to be housing them outside, if you intend on using a camera that needs a housing be carefull as there are considerations with IP cameras that are not a worry with analogue...for instance becasue the compression and web serving is done at the camera itself then it will get very warm, make sure your housing encompasses cooling for the camera if you are in a warmer climate. Yes -it is actually easier to set up IP cameras than analogue in this way, you can use a POE switch, this means you can power the camera from the same network port that it uses for its data, you can also use what is known as an IN-LINE injector to provide power without changing your current switches - hubs - routers etc There are four ways (well actually more) of doing CCTV you can do it completely as analogue and record on VCR - Very old hat You can record with a digital capture card or standalone DVR - converting analogue cameras to digital - Older Technology You can do the same as above but using a Hybrid System - this allows for IP cameras and analogue to be recorded on the same device - Most Current If you intend on going fully IP then you should not need a card because the compression is done at the camera - normally you would buy some software and then just network the IP cameras. There is a downfall to this design though......some DVR's that are hybrid, incorporate a seperate IP Camera Network Card - the advantage is that if you bring the IP cameras directly back to this card, they go directly to the DVR without affecting the bandwidth of your network - this can also be done by bridging multiple network cards on your PC running the IP software. If you have all the cameras locally and are on a local LAN, then unless you have a hardware failure it should not stop recording - that said THIS is the drawback of a lot of IP Camera solutions, in that a loss of network or a network virus can easily bring a system down, currently a lot of manufactorers are working towards local storage at the camera to avoid this issue in that if the network goes down the camera will store at the camera until the network returns to life...currently very few offer this and even less offer replication of the data back to the server. Watching rmeotely should not affect local recording though. The smart thing to do is to test the camera you want to buy.....because it is an IP camera your supplier should have a demo already configured, after all it makes no difference if your on a LAN or not you should be able to see the quality you will get even if at a lower speed. You will find people are still recouping the cost of development, so IP cameras are fairly expensive at present.......give it a few years.

Hello Guys, Just installed a Geo at a customers site, he runs Mozilla, Firefox off his Apple Laptop and also has an I-Phone. Is there any way to get the remote viewing working on these devices?

Anyone got any feedback on this device...bad press most welcome

What .....no one......?

OT??? Old Thread?

My opinion is it depends on how you look at it........I like the Geo, it's a bit complicated.....but the worst thing about it..is ITS JUST A CARD so ANYONE can build one, what this means is not every DVR is always the same spec. So as an end user, you need to be very wary.....there is a big difference between cheap parts and the expensive ones...does it have adequate cooling..were partitions set up etc etc. This is the problem with buying a card based DVR, with a standalone device, you can at least be sure of what you are getting. That said, I have been using the Geo stuff since its inception....gack in the old Gv200 and even earlier models, and the development has been amazing...I guess it depends on if you are an end user or a systems integrator.

I know the human eye can not see the entire range of IR light, however can anyone confirm that this is truly safe, is it at all possible that this spectrum could cause a human Iris to stay open when staring directly at a camera in turn causing muscle damage to the eye. I would certainly check this out first