Maui Custom Surveillance

Can not use 207 outside because of cmos

IKWB15A

Just using the cat5 spare pairs for standard 12vdc power right? That is correct

You still don't get it do you I splice open the category five wire at both ends and cut the brown and blue wires and attach to them a male plug on one end for the camera, and the DC power adapter to the other end. In other words, there is never any power going through the RJ-45 Jack, no possibility of harming any device unless of course I get the polarity wrong.

"Power Over Ethernet". Ethernet or CAT5, consists of four twisted-pair 24 gauge wires. Only two of the twisted-pair, (orange and green) carry data in ethernet configuration. This leaves the brown and the blue twisted-pair wires available to carry DC electrical current to a device such as a camera, a switch, or an access point. I custom make all my ethernet to carry DC current on the brown and blue wires so I do not need to run an extra wire to power a camera, even if that camera is not POE capable. That is one hell of a way to ghetto it. Im guessing your getting quite a bit of CRC and frame errors too. Why would I get any errors? If you comprehend my procedure, then you would know there would be no more errors than any device using a POE adapter. If you are insinuating you actually know something about networking, then why not just come out and clearly state what you think is wrong with my cable conversions, and why you think it couldn't possibly work. So far I have a 50 plus success rate with no failures on these conversions. Ever heard of the 802.3af standard? lol. If you think its all good to split your pairs like that, then by all means go for it. As for a good PTZ with PoE, I prefer the Panasonic WV-NS202. It does MJPEG as well as MPEG-4.. and is day/night. You can set quite a bit of presets with the capability of utilizing triggers. It also accepts SD cards for storage, and has SDIII capability as well. Plus it has a built in microphone with a line output for hooking up an external speaker. Well, obviously I'm not using the 802.3af standard. There are basically three methods of sending PoE on the ethernet cable: "First type of PoE, using "spare" wire pairs. The Unshielded Twisted Pair wiring (UTP) for ethernet has 8 wires, twisted in 4 pairs. Ethernet connects to only two pairs for data, leaving the other two free. Simply using the "spare" pairs is the hands-down most economical and efficient way to do PoE. But, beware of incompatible standards for polarity and voltage, which vary from brand to brand. More info below. Beware also, some other devices, such as ordinary analog phones, may already be using the "spare" pairs in your network. Also, if you plug your laptop or some kind of non-PoE ethernet device into a port energized with PoE, it may or may not harm your devices. All homebrew and many commercial PoE devices use the "spare" pairs in UTP wiring, and it is the absolute fastest and easiest way to adapt a non-PoE device to use PoE. Second type of PoE, using "data" wires. The IEEE (Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers), same folks who standardized Ethernet itself, standardized PoE in June 2003. The IEEE 802.3af standard uses the same "data" pairs as ethernet, leaving the "spare" pairs free. This PoE adds DC power to the data pairs using signal transformers, and pickes off power at the far end the same way. A comprehensive set of technical standards for Power Sourcing Equipment (PSE) and Powered Devices (PD) create an "idiot proof" system protected from shorted wiring, polarity reversal, or accidentally plugging in non-PoE equipment. IEEE 802.3af is technically complex and best implemented with power management chips specially designed for the purpose, supplied by Dallas, Maxim, Linear Technology, Texas Instruments, and others, that are intended to be embedded into the PoE devices themselves. Expect PoE device makers using their own standard to migrate to IEEE 802.3af in the future. Third type of PoE is a combination of the two. The new IEEE 802.3af standard alternatively allows the "spare" wire pairs to be energized, to be compatible with both types of wiring. You may mix 802.3af with older or homebrew PoE devices, but the result may not be "idiot proof". If your mixed network has only PoE sources that are IEEE 802.3af compliant, your mixed network is pretty safe from damage, but older devices may or may not operate correctly. This mixed PoE allows brands to migrate to the common standard." http://www.altair.org/labnotes_POE.html

"Power Over Ethernet". Ethernet or CAT5, consists of four twisted-pair 24 gauge wires. Only two of the twisted-pair, (orange and green) carry data in ethernet configuration. This leaves the brown and the blue twisted-pair wires available to carry DC electrical current to a device such as a camera, a switch, or an access point. I custom make all my ethernet to carry DC current on the brown and blue wires so I do not need to run an extra wire to power a camera, even if that camera is not POE capable. That is one hell of a way to ghetto it. Im guessing your getting quite a bit of CRC and frame errors too. Why would I get any errors? If you comprehend my procedure, then you would know there would be no more errors than any device using a POE adapter. If you are insinuating you actually know something about networking, then why not just come out and clearly state what you think is wrong with my cable conversions, and why you think it couldn't possibly work. So far I have a 50 plus success rate with no failures on these conversions.

I can bring down wireless with a microwave oven Are you for real? I'd really like to see you bring down any of our wireless equipment with a microwave oven.... Since 90% of microwaves use ~2.4GHz and the other 10% use 915MHz, our equipment wouldn't even know the microwave was there. I guess I'm behind the times concerning wireless transmission of analog signals, what exactly is" our equipment" Our equipment is higher frequency (>5Ghz) I think you mentioned it was extra high frequency, but what is the name and model of the equipment?

Thanks, I was about ready to call them

Do you have any idea how much a wdc100dn ioicam costs?

I was not aware of that Luxriot had a Linux version of their software, are you certain?

I can bring down wireless with a microwave oven Are you for real? I'd really like to see you bring down any of our wireless equipment with a microwave oven.... Since 90% of microwaves use ~2.4GHz and the other 10% use 915MHz, our equipment wouldn't even know the microwave was there. I guess I'm behind the times concerning wireless transmission of analog signals, what exactly is" our equipment"

Actually lower resolution (420TVL) is preferred for Infrared Night Vision applications. Some links to check out. http://www.cctvforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6122 you could contact Extreme CCTV if interested in further details. That is correct, that is why the Arecont Vision 3Mpixel+1.3Mpixel Day/Night Network(IP) Camera, has two ccd chips and two lenses, one for day at 3.1 megapixel, and one for night at 1.4 megapixel. And according to the manufacturer's advertisements, the 1.4 megapixel is on a larger ccd chip to take in more light, and since it is for night time only in monochrome, there is no RF filter. I have a lot of experience with night vision cameras with infrared. There was one difficult project I recall, consisting of 10 mansions on the beach, each worth $10 million, and beach people were coming up from the beach and swimming in the rich people's hot tubs and swimming pools, for the most part these large homes are not occupied most the time of the year and the resident manager is not always able to catch these people. So I put up a number of infrared cameras, the name of which, slips my mind. The client was not entirely happy with the nighttime pictures, so I spent the next year testing eight different cameras at that location, some quite expensive, and ended up keeping the originals. The infrared was built into the cameras, and could see about 60 foot with 6 mm lens, there was absolutely no light source other than the cameras and the moon. I would like to see what the Arecont Vision 3Mpixel+1.3Mpixel Day/Night Network(IP) is capable of with an illuminator Here's a link to a picture I just put up for you showing a nighttime picture last night, there is no moon, and the lights you see are not spotlights. http://mauics.com/puamana/nightc.jpg

I hope I not sound too defensive, but it was late. Yes that $30,000 quote was rather it extravagant, but I had more than one quote in about the same price range, this is Maui after all. Plus, these hotels are huge, and the location of some of the cameras were nearly impossible. Imagine tearing out the walls of a plush hotel while it's occupied to install wiring. Regarding your questions about the 16 camera system, admittedly I have not built a 16 camera IP system yet. I have only got up to eight cameras so far, and I would certainly be asking a lot of questions from a lot of people if I were to go to 16 and expect a high frame rate. I am not entirely an IP camera company, I will install DVRs in some instances, I guess I will have to look into some of the new DVRs you are describing for they may be suitable in some instances. As you know, every client has different expectations and needs, so a system has to be designed around those. For instance, I can tolerate three fps of high definition overlooking a parking lot, whereas if I am watching a bartender I would prefer a full 30 frames, and would go to a lower resolution to get it. But that's the thing about IP cameras, I can configure the system either way for the most part. I have never attempted to get 30 frames a second for 16 cameras for instance, I'm not certain that it's possible for an IP camera. Of course, none of my DVRs were capable of that either, but maybe you could suggest one that is capable, I would be interested. So the question of frames per second versus quality is all a matter of application. My DVRs have overall faster frame rate in the IP cameras, but they are of such low resolution running in h.264, that many times license plates and faces are unrecognizable. One thing about having a lot of DVR analog experience, and then switching over to IP cameras, I can revisit in my imagination former analog projects and their difficulties and limitations, and compare them to the newer IP systems. I know one thing for certain, I would have done things much differently in the past if I had access to the newer systems. More than once I would visit a client who had an event, and called me to help him with his new DVR, to copy the event to a CD-ROM for instance for the police. And after spending $15,000, not being able to clearly recognize people, and the police would just say we cannot help you with such a picture. When you say megapixel cameras are not required to identify a person or a license plate, I would like to be convinced, but it a maximum of ..45 megapixels, I don't see how that's possible. The reason I say this is because when I choose a megapixel camera, whether it's a 1.3 megapixel, a 2.1 megapixel, or a 3.1 megapixel, it depends on how far the camera is from say were a car stops to Punch in access codes to open a gate, how many feet depends on which megapixel camera I choose. Most the time it's at least 2.1 megapixel, if I go to 1.3 megapixel, the license plate is no longer legible if it is over 25 foot away, what to say of a .45 megapixel analog camera no matter what kind of DVR running on. Re: the argument about using less megapixel cameras then analog cameras on a project, depends entirely on the layout. For instance, I did a 16 camera DVR for a gas station once. The client was adamant about capturing license plates because of all the drive offs. I tried analog cameras of every kind, but the roof of the overhang for the gas station was approximately 15 foot high, and from that height no matter what camera I tested I could not read a license plate. I actually ended up running conduit down the polls and installing peephole cameras at waist height to capture the license plates as the car drove by to satisfy this client. It worked pretty good, but it was expensive. We had to dig up the pavement to run the conduit out to the gas pumps, there were eight cameras located out at the pumps including the ones to catch the license plates. Now, I might have ran a conduit out to a poll on the corner of the property, and installed one day night 3.1 megapixel camera, and captured every license plate and every car that entered or left that gas station in much more detail than all of the eight analog cameras that were installed with much cost. Of course, you would have to have the right line of sight to do that with one camera, it might take three cameras, but even that would be an improvement over the eight analog. When I do surveys now, it's from an entirely different perspective taking into account megapixel capture.

Let's say you want to install six IP cameras. If your client already has broadband, then they probably have a router, if not you will need one. Since most routers only have four ports, you will need a switch, a five port or eight port switch will do depending on how many ports on the router are occupied. Let's assume these are low resolution IP cameras, so placed them as you would any analog camera, running ethernet or category five wire back to the server or NVR (network video recorder), plugging the ethernet into the ports of the switch, with one short ethernet wire running to the router as a bridge, and another short ethernet wire running from either the router or the switch to the server. Now you have physically networked the cameras, but now you have to configure the cameras and server in the router, and this takes some networking expertise. Each camera has a unique IP address, and possibly more than one port, the ports and IP addresses of the cameras all have to be different, this is all done in the advanced tab of your router under port forwarding. The server or NVR, if you are building it yourself, will need to have installed the NVR software or archiving software such as Luxriot.(Luxriot.com), go to their website to get an overview of how the software works. After you have configured the router for the IP addresses and ports for the IP cameras, you will need to do the same thing in the archiving software configuration. Also, you should lock in a static IP for the server in the router that does not change, and also you need to include the server IP in the advanced settings of your router along with the cameras. It's a good idea to set your router for remote access, so you can tweak the system remotely if there's a problem. Also, there are POE Smart switches, that not only power your cameras if they are POE capable, but you can reboot each camera via the switch remotely. I hope this gives you some idea of how to configure and IP camera system. If you are a company that has analog camera experience, and want to expand your business to include the IP camera, my company" Maui custom surveillance" is a consulting company that specializes in working with analog camera companies switching over to IP cameras. As your consultant, I can configure your IP cameras and archiving software remotely, monitor your client's network and so forth. That way you do not have to go out and hire a networking person for your company.

I custom make all my ethernet to carry DC current on the brown and blue wires so I do not need to run an extra wire to power a camera, even if that camera is not POE capable. As i know in order to run cat5 with DC power and you have to apply using balun. So do you need any balun for youor custom made cat5?? if not need, mind to share how you do it? Running 12 V DC, or even 24 V AC over a category five wire with balums for the purpose of powering and running analog cameras would not be called "POE", or power over ethernet, because it is not an ethernet wire when configured for analog cameras. POE expression is used exclusively for ethernet wire configured for network devices, such as IP cameras, access points, computers and so forth. This particular forum is dedicated to IP cameras.