Jump to content
nickCR

Residential Complex CCTV system, need suggestions...

Recommended Posts

Hello All,

 

I live in a fairly large residential complex in Costa Rica (consists of 121 homes).

 

We are trying to get a CCTV camera system setup in the complex to monitor/record video from the outside perimeter, the two club houses / pools, entrance, exit and the treatment plant / electric plant.

 

For starters I have attached a jpg of the complex. Each location where we want a camera is marked with a red triangle.

 

So far we have received two quotes.

 

Provider "A" wants to use a Linux based NVR (network video recorder) and External WiFi IP cameras and a PTZ Dome with space for 32 cameras. (he didn't provide brand names at all nor details about the cameras)

 

Provider "B" wants to use a Win XP based GeoVision analog system with a 16 port card, Wired Cameras and Wired PTZ Dome. (all the cameras he quoted are Sony and the dome has some serious zoom - which it must since it needs to cover a 200 meter stretch)

 

Provider "B" cameras are:

 

7 x http://www.interventas.net/especificaciones.php?In=&id=1328

1 x http://www.interventas.net/especificaciones.php?In=&id=395

 

Both prices are similar, "Provider B" will charge more for installation since it's a wired system (not included in quote).

 

My main concerns are that WiFi cameras can be easily intercepted or disrupted since the signal is wireless.

 

The main problem is that the camera positions are mostly 130 - 220 meters long from the point that we are thinking to install.

 

Also note that some residents have requested that a specific channel be available to see the cameras via the TV cable system (i'm not sure if this is possible on both system)

 

One more feature that we must have is the ability to put a monitor in the guard house at the main entrance where the security company can see 'some' of the cameras. I do NOT want them to see all of them only specific ones. This is to avoid them drooling over woman swimming in the pools, etc.

 

Provider A - Pros

 

The NVR is nice since it runs on linux so it should be less problematic and require less maintenance (capable of 32 ip cams)

 

The IP Cameras are nice since you just need to add more

 

The WiFi system eliminates the need for wiring the cameras individually

 

Computer parts can be easily changed.

 

Provider A - Cons

 

I don't know if the WiFi Cameras are reliable

 

I don't know if the security via WiFi is an issue

 

I don't know what brand of WiFi cams he's providing

 

Provider B - Pros

 

All sony cameras (i've been told they are among the best)

 

Wired system makes security almost a non-issue

 

Computer parts can be easily changed.

 

Provider B - Cons

 

Limited to 16 ports

 

Wired system requires very long wiring runs inside exterior tubing

 

 

Thanks in advance for any help / suggestions you can provide. It will greatly help me decide which direction to go.

 

Regards,

 

Nick

1896520333_complex-map-1(Large).thumb.jpg.036c796d2ff0433443b1b874eb1ff372.jpg

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In no particular order:

 

Provider B's cameras are not Sony-branded. They use fairly common Sony sensors that are used by probably the majority of camera makers. There's no guarantee the cameras themselves are of solid construction or have good optics (weakest-link theory: doesn't matter how good the sensor is if you throw a crap lens in front of it). This isn't to say these are junk cameras either, just that you can't go on the Sony name alone.

 

WiFi is fine for this purpose, IF it's done right. Your concerns are valid for off-the-shelf products like consumer-grade routers and cameras, but good IP cameras using specialized directional antennas and high-grade encryption can do a great job.

 

There's no reason a Windows-based DVR can't be as solid as a Linux-based one, IF Windows is installed cleanly and the machine uses good hardware. In fact, cheap hardware is probably a bigger issue than the OS used.

 

As for the video feed to the cable system, it will depend largely on the DVR having the necessary output. The GeoVision will do it easily, but the NVR will need some sort of hardware to generate a standard composite video output. Do they want to view multiple cameras, or just one? One is easy... multiples could be tricky. You'd have to either give them a rotating view of the cameras, or a split-screen... giving them individual control would be highly impractical for this type of setup.

 

For that though, either system should allow residents to access it via the internet to view whatever cameras they want (or whatever ones you allow). With the IP-camera model, they could also directly view the cameras... again, IF you set them up to allow that access. Or you could provide a simple web page that shows the specified cameras... lots of options there.

 

Personally, I'd generally prefer Provider A's offer... EXCEPT the fact that they give you no details on the equipment is a red flag. A "wireless network camera" could be a $100 offshore piece of junk, or a $2000 multi-megapixel beast. I'd also want details on the WiFi system they intend to use, whether it's a proper professional-grade setup or if they plan to try to make it work off consumer hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Provider B's cameras are not Sony-branded. They use fairly common Sony sensors that are used by probably the majority of camera makers. There's no guarantee the cameras themselves are of solid construction or have good optics (weakest-link theory: doesn't matter how good the sensor is if you throw a crap lens in front of it). This isn't to say these are junk cameras either, just that you can't go on the Sony name alone.

 

Great, this is sort of what I understood but I wanted to clarify.

 

WiFi is fine for this purpose, IF it's done right. Your concerns are valid for off-the-shelf products like consumer-grade routers and cameras, but good IP cameras using specialized directional antennas and high-grade encryption can do a great job.

 

They cost $240 each. I am going to call the guy tomorrow and get the model #'s from him. Also i'll ask him if there are any other options at that time (better ones).

 

Something I don't understand. He has 7 wifi cameras and 7 long rang ap's on the quote. Couldn't this be setup using less ap's having two antennas each and then use external antenas to point at each camera area?

 

Also in some areas like the guard house there are cameras that could easily be done with UTP cable and then use IP cameras in those spots.

 

I could use dd-wrt firmware and have a master AP, then client bridge AP's (basically the client router will connect as a wireless client but it will assign IP's to the units connected via the RJ45 ports).

 

There's no reason a Windows-based DVR can't be as solid as a Linux-based one, IF Windows is installed cleanly and the machine uses good hardware. In fact, cheap hardware is probably a bigger issue than the OS used.

 

You are totally right. The hardware will determine the longevity of the machine. Even though the machine will be connected to the internet, since no one will "use" it there is a VERY VERY small chance that a virus will get on it. 98% of viruses infect computers because of the users.

 

As for the video feed to the cable system, it will depend largely on the DVR having the necessary output. The GeoVision will do it easily, but the NVR will need some sort of hardware to generate a standard composite video output. Do they want to view multiple cameras, or just one? One is easy... multiples could be tricky. You'd have to either give them a rotating view of the cameras, or a split-screen... giving them individual control would be highly impractical for this type of setup.

 

Sure I entirely understand. I was actually thinking of exporting each camera on a separate channel using maybe two ATI graphic cards in a crossfire arrangement. But I think this is something that will need to wait anyway. I think GeoVision makes accessing the Video by IP (on intranet) easy since it has a built in web server.

 

For that though, either system should allow residents to access it via the internet to view whatever cameras they want (or whatever ones you allow). With the IP-camera model, they could also directly view the cameras... again, IF you set them up to allow that access. Or you could provide a simple web page that shows the specified cameras... lots of options there.

 

Yup goes with what I said above. At least for the guard house, if they are on the intranet we are ok. We'll worry about exporting the cameras for the neighbors later on. The problem I see with having them accessible via Internet is that if thieves got the address they could monitor it, which of course we don't want as it's a pretty serious security risk.

 

Personally, I'd generally prefer Provider A's offer... EXCEPT the fact that they give you no details on the equipment is a red flag. A "wireless network camera" could be a $100 offshore piece of junk, or a $2000 multi-megapixel beast. I'd also want details on the WiFi system they intend to use, whether it's a proper professional-grade setup or if they plan to try to make it work off consumer hardware.

 

Thanks. I met with Provider A... he seems to know his stuff about cams but Provider B is a friend of mine and thought i'd give him a chance. I just feel that Analog and cables are not very appropriate in this situation.

 

I think all in all I need to sit down with Provider A and tell him we need a system that is a hybrid wireless / wired IP system.

 

Use wireless cameras for the furthest 3 cameras.

 

Use AP -> Client Bridge AP's for all the locations where appropriate and where more cameras may be installed in future.

 

Also just to give you an idea, the ENTIRE quote including hardware and install is $9000. The install is only $1500 of that though.

 

I do really like the IP system though because it allows us to easily expand in future up to 32 cameras (I doubt we'll ever require more than 20).

 

Let me know what you think of that. I really appreciate your help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WiFi is fine for this purpose, IF it's done right. Your concerns are valid for off-the-shelf products like consumer-grade routers and cameras, but good IP cameras using specialized directional antennas and high-grade encryption can do a great job.

 

They cost $240 each. I am going to call the guy tomorrow and get the model #'s from him. Also i'll ask him if there are any other options at that time (better ones).

 

Something I don't understand. He has 7 wifi cameras and 7 long rang ap's on the quote. Couldn't this be setup using less ap's having two antennas each and then use external antenas to point at each camera area?

 

Potentially, I would think so, yes... unfortunately I'm not too experienced (yet) as far as WiFi cameras go, but I've worked with consumer WiFi for years. It would really depend on the APs and how they're designed. With consumer stuff, most multi-antenna routers are using some sort of diversity setup, where it will switch antennas depending on which has the best signal, so replacing each with a directional antenna pointing in different directions wouldn't accomplish anything as the signal would drop intermittently one one or the other. Newer MIMO setups may not have the same issue, I haven't really dug into how that works. The AP itself would have to support the multiple antennas... and would probably cost substantially more.

 

Also in some areas like the guard house there are cameras that could easily be done with UTP cable and then use IP cameras in those spots.

 

Certainly. That's one of the benefits of IP - you can use existing network... you could have two or three cameras on the guardhouse and feed them all back over a single network drop (or a single WiFi link).

 

I could use dd-wrt firmware and have a master AP, then client bridge AP's (basically the client router will connect as a wireless client but it will assign IP's to the units connected via the RJ45 ports).

 

As cool as DD-WRT is, I wouldn't advise using what really is a hack, for a production environment like this. Great stuff for your own bench and around your own house, but I wouldn't rely on it for a client's site unless there was really no other way.

 

There's no reason a Windows-based DVR can't be as solid as a Linux-based one, IF Windows is installed cleanly and the machine uses good hardware. In fact, cheap hardware is probably a bigger issue than the OS used.

 

You are totally right. The hardware will determine the longevity of the machine. Even though the machine will be connected to the internet, since no one will "use" it there is a VERY VERY small chance that a virus will get on it. 98% of viruses infect computers because of the users.

Exactly. Place it behind a router/firewall, enable the software firewall, and you're pretty safe from intrusion as long as you don't go surfing porn on the machine's browser.

 

Personally, I'd generally prefer Provider A's offer... EXCEPT the fact that they give you no details on the equipment is a red flag. A "wireless network camera" could be a $100 offshore piece of junk, or a $2000 multi-megapixel beast. I'd also want details on the WiFi system they intend to use, whether it's a proper professional-grade setup or if they plan to try to make it work off consumer hardware.

 

Thanks. I met with Provider A... he seems to know his stuff about cams but Provider B is a friend of mine and thought i'd give him a chance. I just feel that Analog and cables are not very appropriate in this situation.

 

I think all in all I need to sit down with Provider A and tell him we need a system that is a hybrid wireless / wired IP system.

 

Use wireless cameras for the furthest 3 cameras.

 

Use AP -> Client Bridge AP's for all the locations where appropriate and where more cameras may be installed in future.

 

Also just to give you an idea, the ENTIRE quote including hardware and install is $9000. The install is only $1500 of that though.

 

I do really like the IP system though because it allows us to easily expand in future up to 32 cameras (I doubt we'll ever require more than 20).

 

Let me know what you think of that. I really appreciate your help!

 

Sounds about right! The IP route will certainly give you more expandability in the future without needing to add cabling. My main concern at that pricing, again, would be the cameras themselves and the level of quality you get for that - keeping in mind that I'm used to dealing with cameras that start at twice that price, at OUR cost (nevermind markup).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO way would I use "WIFI" ? Even with a high powered 5ghz system and directional antennas its on the same band as 121+ people.

Your system can /will go down very easy. Any wireless link that's on a public band is asking for trouble

 

Even a class1 bluetooth unit close by will kill it. [the cameras no doubt will be on the BG bands].

 

Sorry those quotes are a stooge by amateurs you will be plagued with problems.

It needs to be done properly with Fiber/cat5/6.

 

that said for some interconnects YOU could get away with a 5ghz WPA2/AES/hidden SSID with lots of power from high gain antennas but risky....

 

my 2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, thanks for your replies.

 

So I just spoke to "Provider A". The cameras he wants to install are these:

 

http://www.foscam.com/

 

Model # FI8904W

 

He claims that they run on a different frequency than home units but I don't see that at all in the specs.

 

They look like cheap made in China electronics.

 

Soundy: Thanks for the clarification. It makes sense that consumer products are not what we need here since there are SO many home and so many probabilities for interference.

 

zmxtech: Thanks for putting it so blunt. I kind of felt that was the case but needed some conformation.

 

Also it's important to note that we want this system to be expanded to cover the inner parts of the complex in future. Mainly more cameras in the common areas and inner roads so we can monitor whats going on.

 

I guess that leaves me with two additional questions:

 

1. Labor aside if you guys were doing this what would you estimate the cost of the actual equipment to be, for this type of install be?

 

2. What type of equipment would you use and how would you set it up? (GeoVision PC?, NVR?, etc?) Maybe just some model #'s would be a huge help.

 

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I just spoke to "Provider A". The cameras he wants to install are these:

 

http://www.foscam.com/

 

Model # FI8904W

 

He claims that they run on a different frequency than home units but I don't see that at all in the specs.

 

He's full of $#!T. "Wi-Fi compliant with wireless standards IEEE 802.11b/g" - there's no such thing as a "different frequency". 802.11n draft supports 5GHz, as long as you're using all-N equipment, but so do the "home units".

 

They look like cheap made in China electronics.

 

Agree with you there.

 

I think this provider has the better plan overall, but he's selling you a bill of goods on the quality of the cameras.

 

Also it's important to note that we want this system to be expanded to cover the inner parts of the complex in future. Mainly more cameras in the common areas and inner roads so we can monitor whats going on.

 

IP definitely has some benefits here, when you have multiple buildings. You can have a single network drop to a building and add more cameras by adding switch ports within that building (using quality switches, of course, so they don't choke under the traffic). Ultimately, you can even route video over the internet, if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soundy, thanks for you continued support.

 

What is it that you like about "Provider A's" plan better the fact that it's IP based or that it's based on Wireless?

 

I checked the distances and the furthest camera is 162.68 meters and the closest would be 93.27 meters, this is taking into consideration jump points with routers (not direct from the machine room).

 

There is another option which could work, run CAT5e in with the existing Cable TV wires and add a weather proof PoE repeater every 85 meters or so and pop out where and when needed. Like these:

 

http://www.korenixsecurity.com/products/weatherproof-ethernet-switch/jetnet-2006-rj

 

I found online some wireless solutions but it seems that I would spend around $8K just on the wireless equipment. Something like this maybe for the wireless:

 

http://www.videotransmitters.com/Products/5-8GHz-Video_2

 

The fiber optic options out there are also quite expensive and NO one in the country really knows how to do that stuff very well also I can see the gardeners digging down to plant a tree or something and rupturing the wire....

 

I called bs too, I've been doing a lot of networking wireless and wired for years. I think he meant to say channels, like when you go on DD-WRT there are extra channels that not many people have but anyway it's still consumer grade.

 

BTW funny enough my Grandparents live in Maple Ridge and I'm originally from Victoria / Vancouver. Now though, I live down here in Costa Rica. I'm not the installer either, I'm just a resident of the complex and part of the security comity which is reviewing the quotes etc.

 

Thanks again for your help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Soundy, thanks for you continued support.

 

What is it that you like about "Provider A's" plan better the fact that it's IP based or that it's based on Wireless?

Primarily, that it's IP based. Some will argue for "traditional" analog systems, and those still have their place as well (as do hybrid systems, which I deal with extensively), but in your case, the large area involved can really benefit from the use of IP systems. Wireless isn't a selling point as such, but where it is necessary or at least preferable, it's certainly a lot easier and cheaper to implement with IP. For example, you have two cameras at or near the guard hut - if, for the sake of argument, the guard hut was too far for a direct wired run, you could use a wireless link to the hut, feed that into a switch, and run the two cameras over the single link... and for that matter, other cameras that are also in proximity to the hut. Doing something like that with analog gets a lot more complex.

 

There is another option which could work, run CAT5e in with the existing Cable TV wires and add a weather proof PoE repeater every 85 meters or so and pop out and when needed.

There's that too. Again, IP gives you a lot more options and flexibility in a situation like this.

 

I called bs too, I've been doing a lot of networking wireless and wired for years. I think he meant to say channels, like when you go on DD-WRT there are extra channels that not many people have but anyway it's still consumer grade.

That COULD be, but I really don't see THOSE cameras having something like that.

 

BTW funny enough my Grandparents live in Maple Ridge and I'm originally from Victoria / Vancouver. Now though, I live down here in Costa Rica. I'm not the installer either, I'm just a resident of the complex and part of the security comity which is reviewing the quotes etc.

Well hey, send me a plane ticket, and I'll come consult in person... cuz I'm just that kinda nice guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt,

 

Thanks for clarifying and yes I think the wireless bridges you are talking about are the way to go. Can you recommend any that you have worked with in the past that provided good results?

 

If we can't go wireless then we will need to find a good waterproof switch that we can buy quite a few of to get to where we need to go with wires.

 

Either way I think the infrastructure is the key element here, because it really won't mater what cameras we get as long as we have the RJ45 connections setup then we can easily just change out the cameras, assign IP and wham done deal (I love the IP system too, very easy and scalable).

 

If they do have some special channel it is probably consumer channel 14 or something like that but still on consumer frequencies.

 

I'd send ya a plane ticket if I could convince the rest of the comity that we need a consultant but I doubt they would be game.

 

Regards,

 

Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for clarifying and yes I think the wireless bridges you are talking about are the way to go. Can you recommend any that you have worked with in the past that provided good results?

I haven't worked with this grade of wireless products myself, so I couldn't tell you. I'd like to, but the need/budget ratio hasn't been met on any jobs yet

 

If we can't go wireless then we will need to find a good waterproof switch that we can buy quite a few of to get to where we need to go with wires.

When I've had to do something like this, I've used a water-tight PVC box to just mount a standard 5-port D-Link switch. To power the switch, I ran 24VAC to the box, added an adjustable voltage regulator board, and wired the barrel plug off the switch's power supply to that.

 

I'd send ya a plane ticket if I could convince the rest of the comity that we need a consultant but I doubt they would be game.

 

Tell them I'm not charging for my time - just feed me and fly me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I see that this setup is similar to the one I'm asking for some input on in my other thread about the large plant.

 

I haven't yet got the job but I plan to use these as wireless bridges. They can be setup to use different channels (frequencies) on the 5GHz-band to avoid interferences with other equipment if that should occur. You can also attach 5° directional antennas to minimize reception of unwanted transmissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are very much on the right track about using IP, but make sure you use GOOD IP and wireless equipment. Cameras with built-in wireless tend to be steaming lumps of crap, as well as the fact that they are not usually able to be positioned with both line of sight for the view you need, and the wireless link, to work effectively.

 

A better choice is to cluster groups of cameras that can easily hard-wire to individual switch locations, and then a wireless bridge from there to the headend.

 

If you have phone connectivity/cabling between areas, you could look at using SDSL modem pairs to establish connectivity rather than using Ethernet repeaters with CAT5, you can get 100Mbps symmetrical to 1000 feet+ on CAT3 phone cable, and lower rates well beyond that, with good DSL-type extenders (I have a large apartment complex wired that way, through existing phone cabling between buildings, to a central DSLAM concentrator at the NVR)

 

You could also look at using MOCA or HPNA converters to run over existing cable TV cable.

 

For wireless AP/bridges, I've had good luck with Ubiquiti products, they are a popular product choice with a lot of wireless internet providers. Their wireless "N" rate product can provide a lot of throughput, while being able to use smaller bandwidth channels (5 or 10 MHz, as opposed to the traditional 20MHz channels) so you can have more channel selections for multiple links, or avoiding interference sources (the 5GHz band tends to be less polluted, as well as having more channels available).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IP is they way to go for sure and Ubiquiti products are nice they also use some NON WIFI protocols that's a bonus

I would also put a ANPR camera at the entry points, having lived in a condo for years you`ll need it !

There no point saying "it was the red car" ... you want to say ....and here's the Rego !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys thanks very much for all your replies!

 

I have definitely set in stone that the IP system is the way to go.

 

I also like the NVR (it has 1TB of space which should be enough), still waiting for find out what software it will have.

 

The ANPR is certainly something we will do next round, currently we only have enough money to do the exterior but the nice thing about IP is that we can add as many cameras as we need

 

Soundy: Thanks for your help, it's cleared up a lot of questions. You make a very generous offer

 

Ted: Thanks for the link, they seem like a very nice product.

 

hardwired / zmxtech: Thanks for your comments. Ubiquiti is a great recommendation and I have passed that on.

 

I'll check back in when I meet with Provider A. I already sent him an email breaking the news to him that the wireless system he's suggesting won't quite cut it and provided him with some of the suggestions provided here. Lets see what he has to say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Guys!

 

I spoke to the provider finally about all the recommendations here.

 

Basically I misunderstood two things.

 

1. The cameras that he quotes are WiFi cameras but they will be connected via wire to a AP/CB which works on 2.4 ghz (Super G).

 

2. The Wireless product he proposes to use is made by SENAO :

 

http://www.senao.com/English/Default.aspx?TYPE=vipplayercard.htm&PT=product_t&tv_TCAT_POS=0&PID=02010022&CATNO0=B&CNT=0

 

I did find out what software he will use on the NVR (Linux) which is called ZoneMinder :

 

http://www.zoneminder.com/

 

Seems to be good but i'm not up to speed on the good and bad of the actual software so I don't know. In part this is why he wants to use the camera he quoted because it is compatible with the ZoneMinder software.

 

I did see there are quite a few Cameras on the list that are compatible with the software and I told him today that the budget is a little more flexible now so maybe we can get better cameras. The foscom cameras are quite commonly discussed on the ZoneMinder forums and people seem to be fairly happy with their performance.

 

What do you guys think about the wireless product? Have any of you used them before?

 

I will probably send those companies that you guys recommended with the wireless products emails to get their recommendations based on the site plan.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind I see that it's a commonly discussed Wireless solution here on the forum and often compared to Ubiquiti. So I guess this provider A is using a decent wireless product. The cameras seem to be the only issue really and maybe putting a slightly better camera will make his proposal the best.

 

I did get another provider to come yesterday. They were recommended to me by an exacq sales person (I called to inquire about the software and they told me to talk to him).

 

Hopefully on Monday i'll receive his quote and we'll see what the cost will be from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i'm a little confused. I see that a lot of these wireless products use the 802 channel. What makes them different from consumer wireless?

 

I'm curious because I work on my home network a lot ... Right now I have a DIR-825 (2.4ghz & 5ghz) system with a,b,g,n capabilities. If I installed DD-WRT I get channel 12, 13, 14 in addition to the 11 that are normally provided.

 

Do the Engenius / SENAO / Ubiquiti wireless systems run on a different frequency from the 1-14 channels that are available for consumer usage?

 

Thanks for your help this is the only point I wanted to clarify.

 

Regards, Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ubiquiti/Senao/Engenius product can allow more channels, but only if the product you are trying to connect to has that same capability.

 

The spec sheet I looked at for a Foscam product listed 802.11B/G capability, which likely means standard 20Mhz channel widths, 2.4 Ghz only, and the standard 14 (or so) channels available.

 

The Ubiquiti (and other higher grade products) allow for frequency shifting, and also slicing the standard range of frequencies available into smaller slices(10 or 5Mhz), which allows for more channels, but less bandwidth per channel. This allows more AP's to coexist peacefully in the same area, and allowing the ability to work around interference more easily. The Ubiquiti 5Ghz wireless N product I have on my bench right now allows for up to 43 individual 5Mhz channels, with up to 26 Mbps theoretical throughput on each channel, on modulation scheme MCS13. The latest firmware also has a built in spectrum analyzer, to allow you to find interference free channels more easily.

 

But, you will need the same type of product at each end to be able to take advantage of these capabilities.

 

One other thing I noted on the Foscam specs is that it does not list actual RF output power, another thing to be suspicious of, as well as the fact that you will be limited by trying to get the camera in a position that has a useful line of sight for both the view, and the wireless link back to the AP.

 

I would strongly suggest looking at quality IP cameras without wireless built in, and then link them to the AP with some of the better known components like Ubiquiti, or others.

 

As far as the recording software, I would strongly recommend Exacq. Zoneminder works, but is difficult to use, as well as severely limiting your choices in IP cameras.

 

 

**********Edit*******

 

Just re-read your last message, and I saw that you planned to use different wireless gear to make the link to the headend. Better choice by far, but why use wireless cams, then? Take a look at offerings from Acti, Axis, Panasonic, and others, and search for information here, before making your final decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardwired sorry for the delay but thank you very much for taking the time to respond.

 

I had a chance to meet with the exacq distributor here and he has come up with an expensive but very professional system.

 

He is proposing the usage of a wireless system called SkyPilot. I'm a little concerned about this though considering the 1x SkyPilot SkyAcces (AP) is $4,936 + 8x SkyPilot SkyConnector Mini ($336 ea) are a total of $2,688.

 

The nice thing about the above is that it's a MESH system which someone previously recommended seems good for redundency.

 

I am curious does the Ubiquiti system require such an expensive AP? I emailed them and they suggested that we get the NanoStation M5's. Do we need a special AP to connect them like the SkyPilot system?

 

The cameras they are quoting are Vivotek cameras and I've used that brand in the past and am happy with their products. The ones they are including are 7x - IP7330 and 1x SD-7151.

 

An enterprise class server with Exacq software with the required # of licenses.

 

Thanks in advance for your help!

 

Regards, Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many cameras, what type (standard resolution or megapixel, etc), desired frame rate, and how many separate wireless points will be required, and do all of them have a clear line of sight back to the Access point/ recording location?

 

The SkyPilot products do not seem to have any problems, but I do question if they might be overkill in your case. They also do not appear to be mesh, just point to multipoint, although with added synchronization features, compared to the Ubiquiti (the SkyConnector Mini seems to be a Ubiquiti Nanostation, with custom firmware modifications).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a total of 7 exterior fixed cameras (vga) and 1 dome camera (no megapixels cams - yet)

 

I did have an idea last night. Since this is a residential complex we could mount the NanoStation / SkyConnector on the roof of the nearest home (since we need to get the power from that home anyway). I'm almost 100% positive that this would provide direct line of sight to the main access point.

 

I'm not sure how these wireless products work but what I was hoping for was to have in both entrances a wireless receiver that connects to a router so we could have the ability to add more cameras to the network (entrances could eventually be equipped with cameras to capture license plates, one to monitor the interior of the guard house and another to monitor the office above the guard floor). If possible i'd also like the router to provide access to a work station that would be able to access the video via INTRANET (not www). I'm sure each client bridge will have a maximum bandwidth so it's understandable if we would have to run the work station on it's own wireless receiver. Is this possible or does each camera require it's own NanoStation?

 

I would also like the same to be said for the club house 1 and club house 2. Currently we will only have one camera in each club house but it would be ideal to have 3 cameras in club house 2 and 4 cameras in club house 1 with one camera in each club house being megapixel.

 

Being a computer programmer i'm always thinking ahead and that's one of the main reasons i'm all for the IP system.

 

I also feel that the SkyPilot system is rather overkill. Do the Ubiquiti NanoStations require a proprietary access point like the SkyPilot or can you just use a DLink DIR-825 or the like and connect some high gain antennas?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Regards, Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ubiquiti products (NanoStationM5, etc) will talk to anything in the same product line at full "N" data rate, or other branded products at a reduced rate. In your application, the NanoStations can be configured as Access Point, Client, or any mix. You could use them in point to point, or multipoint bridging, depending on the angle and distance from each other. Take a look at all of the products in the "M" product group, the Nanostations are great for each remote location, but the BulletM5, or maybe two of them, with omnidirectional antennas, might be the way to go for the central recording access point.

 

They should be able to easily support recording and viewing bandwidth for the application you are describing, at worst, you can throttle viewing bandwidth in Exacq to limit loading on the viewing side.

 

If you could give us a rough layout showing each switch/wireless point, with distances and direction, we could probably work something up for you in regards to product choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×