Replacing first DVR after a week with better stuff

[JoeLansing 0]

I bought a Swann DVR4-2550 from Amazon for like $250. The cameras are 420 tvl junk. The DVR unit isn't half bad though for what I need, but only 4 channel. I'm going to probably buy a part here, a part there. CNB MonaLisa 600 TVL IR cameras for a start. I'm not rich so probably 2 at a time for starters. After I get 4 I'll look at the DVR itself. This one isn't bad. The only thing I don't like is it doesn't seem to do any index points at alarms. It's D1 at 240 fps. What should I look at for an 8 channel? And remember, I'm cheap! I've got dual core XP computers laying around but I've been a computer tech for 20 years and just don't need anymore computer headaches. And a small DVR is easier and quieter to hide. I don't need to go back more than 2 days on a replay. I'd love to find something that would record to the internet. I have lots of internet space and bandwidth. Internet recording is a dream though. CCTV cameras are so behind the times, and maybe the DVR's also so I won't hold my breath. Is an 8 channel Gadspot unit ok? I've got accounts on Monoprice, PiMfg and Bestlinknetware already for computer stuff. Do they have anything cheap yet semi worthy?

- Joe

[dahomes555 0]

First things first. If the DVR is only 4 CH, I guarantee you that it doesn't have 240 fps. That would be 60 fps, which is double the rate of full motion.

 

Secondly, there is a difference in frame rate typically as resolution goes down. Your DVR does support D1 resolution, but not at full 30 fps. It records D1 @ 60 fps, which breaks down to 15 fps per channel. That is plenty, by the way.

 

So while I don't think Swann is the greatest brand on the market, you are at least working with a DVR that has a decent frame rate at D1. So there are two things that can be improved:

 

1) cameras. Don't buy in to the notion that the higher the TVL, the better. The reality is that D1 resolution is only capable of recording/displaying 480 TVL. So buying a camera with any higher resolution than that won't get any higher quality. Will increasing from 420 to 480 make a difference? Yeah, a little. But not a ton. You'll want to make sure that the cameras have a 1/3" CCD image sensor. If you can get one with a varifocal lens (typically 4-9mm in that price range) then that is better. Often the cameras come with a 6mm lens, which in my opinion, is not wide enough to give a good general view and not focused enough to get good detail when needed. Opt for a varifocal lens. Make sure that it has good specs (low signal/noise ratio, and low LUX are important for image quality and low light image) and if you want night vision, get one with lots of IRs for maximum illumination in darkness.

 

2) Cabling. I hate those kits that come with "everything you need" because the pre-made cables are almost always junk. They don't use coaxial cable (RG59 or RG6) for the video transmission and the power wire is usually very thin. You can have a good DVR and good cameras, but if your power isn't sufficient and your video cable/connectors are junk, then you won't have a good image. It's best and cheapest to make your own cables, either with siamese cable or using UTP (Cat5) with good video baluns. If you still want to go the pre-made route, make sure the cables use coax with 18 ga power wire.

 

I've never bought cameras from monoprice, but I am pleased enough with many of their other products that I would take a chance buying cameras from them. You don't have to spend a ton for good quality (half the price is the name brand printed on the outside!) For the cameras you are talking about, you should be able to find good ones in the $60-100/camera range.

 

 

Hope that is helpful. Good luck!

[JoeLansing 0]

Thank you for the help sir. I've noticed I can't crank everything up to D1 across all four channels at 30FPS. All 4 at 15FPS does work though. At the moment I'm wanting to get a camera that can actually do a decent job of recording the D1 that the DVR will do. The 600 TVL MonaLisa isn't that expensive ($79 or so with a non zoom? lens). So what does it take to break the D1 barrier or do I really need to for sharp video at 30-40 feet? Lets say I have 3 black dudes in my house and they are running around stealing my weapons and computers..(this has happened twice so far with no cameras, it's my neighbors) Can I get good pictures of them? I can keep my house dimly lit if that helps. The crap 420 TVL cameras that came with it don't really cut it unless they are like 10-15 feet away. I'd like to double the distance/clarity if possible with just new cameras. Will a 600 TVL MonaLisa do that? And maybe give me room to grow into a new 8 channel unit.

- Joe

[dahomes555 0]

D1 is the maximum resolution possible on analog. It's the video format (NTSC) that limits this.

 

The only way to get higher than D1 is with digital. You'll have to go IP to get this. Also possible with emerging technology, HD-SDI.

 

All of these will cost you MUCH more than analog. You get what you pay for.

[JoeLansing 0]

I'm fighting with this at work. We are opening new bank branches and I keep wondering why IP. It seems like assigning a IP address to a mouse. Why? My TV talks to my blue ray player without an IP address. Why do I need an IP address to get a decent pic from a cctv camera? My cell phone can take nice photos without an IP address and it has a smaller sensor and is cheaper than a CCTV camera that uses IP. I can plug in a USB camera on my notebook. Even a crappy 640x480 one has the potential to take quite nice video.

- Joe

[dahomes555 0]

Because all the objects you mentioned are digital. Your blu ray connects with an HDMI and is a digital signal. NTSC signal is limited to 480 TVL, same as DVD.

 

To get hi resolution video you need a digital signal, which means an IP (megapixel) or HD-SDI.

[shockwave199 0]

Lets say I have 3 black dudes in my house and they are running around stealing my weapons and computers

Amazing how quickly people reveal so much about themselves in one short sentence.

 

 

I'm having a hard time even giving the benefit of the doubt here.

[Sawbones 0]

Lets say I have 3 black dudes in my house and they are running around stealing my weapons and computers

Amazing how quickly people reveal so much about themselves in one short sentence.

 

 

I'm having a hard time even giving the benefit of the doubt here.

 

It sounds like some guys have been robbing his neighbors... maybe somebody spotted them? I don't know that I'd call the guy a racist just yet.

 

But he brings up an interesting point. Sometimes getting decent resolution of facial features in African Americans can be difficult, particularly with lower-quality cameras, or in dim light. I don't know if anybody else has noticed that, but some of the shadows and lines that we use to distinguish facial features are easier to pick out on a lighter background, and harder to see on some African Americans. The darker their skin tone, the harder it gets.

 

JoeLansing: If you're trying to get decent facial resolution on folks with darker skin tones, LESS LIGHT is NOT what you'd be wanting.

[shockwave199 0]

Sometimes getting decent resolution of facial features in African Americans can be difficult, particularly with lower-quality cameras, or in dim light. I don't know if anybody else has noticed that, but some of the shadows and lines that we use to distinguish facial features are easier to pick out on a lighter background, and harder to see on some African Americans. The darker their skin tone, the harder it gets.

This has not been my experience. IME, what you install and how good or bad you install it will provide the ability to help identify ANYONE, regradless of race, creed, or color. To suggest avoiding low light situations to better identify african americans is...I don't know, it kinda makes my head want to explode just reading it, let alone retyping it. I can't believe this notion would actually be considered by anyone. I don't like or wish to make a race argument in this forum, but these particular remarks and thoughts should not be left unchecked. Perhaps you should consider rethinking where your head is at in the future, or at least consider what your saying in a public forum.

 

Take a look at the three minute mark in my goofy halloween video captured by a cctv camera that cost less than fifty bucks, transmitted over a 100' spaghetti cable, to an inexpensive drv in low light- just to illustrate that the recording chain is not an expensive system. ALL the people in the video have the same ability to be indentified, regardless.

 

5SwBF9CLI-8

[Sawbones 0]

This has not been my experience. IME, what you install and how good or bad you install it will provide the ability to help identify ANYONE, regradless of race, creed, or color. To suggest avoiding low light situations to better identify african americans is...I don't know, it kinda makes my head want to explode just reading it, let alone retyping it. I can't believe this notion would actually be considered by anyone.

 

You apparently have something very inflammatory to say... so why don't you just say it?

 

I'm not making a racial argument... in fact, I'm not sure ANYBODY was. You, however, rode in here on your high horse to make accusations.

 

I despise racists, and as far as I am concerned, this is a technical discussion. I'll thank you to leave it at that.

 

Lower quality cameras (particularly those without sufficient dynamic range) WILL have a harder time distinguishing fine details in shadowed/darkened areas... including facial features... not to mention that virtually ANY camera will benefit from better lighting.

 

That's not racism... that's a technical fact.

 

I'm actually pretty f*cking offended by your accusation.

[shockwave199 0]

Lower quality cameras (particularly those without sufficient dynamic range) WILL have a harder time distinguishing fine details in shadowed/darkened areas... including facial features... not to mention that virtually ANY camera will benefit from better lighting.

 

That's not racism... that's a technical fact.

That's all you needed to say.

 

I don't know if anybody else has noticed that, but some of the shadows and lines that we use to distinguish facial features are easier to pick out on a lighter background, and harder to see on some African Americans. The darker their skin tone, the harder it gets.

What you said here is flat out bull****e. A low quality, poorly applied system won't do well to help identify ANYONE, dark skinned OR light skinned.

 

If you don't want to be offended, than don't be offensive. If you can't see it, that's the real problem. I'm gonna leave it at that. You all can have the last word.

[tomcctv 187]

I think its time to have this post removed. and the OP re-posts ...... the post is getting no where. to the point its useless

[Campbell 0]

I'm fighting with this at work. We are opening new bank branches and I keep wondering why IP. It seems like assigning a IP address to a mouse. Why? My TV talks to my blue ray player without an IP address. Why do I need an IP address to get a decent pic from a cctv camera? My cell phone can take nice photos without an IP address and it has a smaller sensor and is cheaper than a CCTV camera that uses IP. I can plug in a USB camera on my notebook. Even a crappy 640x480 one has the potential to take quite nice video.

- Joe

 

IBL!

 

It depends on your definition of nice video. As someone said before, analog has a limited resolution because of the signal. PAL format will actually give you a few more TVL but not that much and certainly not enough to make a difference.

 

As for the rest of it, a Blu-ray player emits a digital signal through your HDMi cable, your cell phone will take a digital picture and of course the USB camera is digital as well.

[Sawbones 0]

Lower quality cameras (particularly those without sufficient dynamic range) WILL have a harder time distinguishing fine details in shadowed/darkened areas... including facial features... not to mention that virtually ANY camera will benefit from better lighting.

 

That's not racism... that's a technical fact.

 

I don't know if anybody else has noticed that, but some of the shadows and lines that we use to distinguish facial features are easier to pick out on a lighter background, and harder to see on some African Americans. The darker their skin tone, the harder it gets.

What you said here is flat out bull****e. A low quality, poorly applied system won't do well to help identify ANYONE, dark skinned OR light skinned.

 

If you don't want to be offended, than don't be offensive. If you can't see it, that's the real problem. I'm gonna leave it at that. You all can have the last word.

 

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I said the same thing, in two different ways. The only bull****e here is your knee-jerk accusation of racism. This is a technical forum, where we discuss these issue like adults.

 

Any portrait photographer (if they have photographed different races of people) will tell you that photographing darker-skinned people can be more challenging than photographing lighter-skinned people, especially if the background/clothing is light, or there are high contrasts within the scene. You have to be careful with lighting, though sometimes you can cheat by overexposing the scene by an F-stop or two... but darker-skinned people are more difficult to photograph than lighter-skinned people, and that goes double for for security cameras, where you don't have the control over the scene lighting, F-stops, aperture size, etc to NEARLY the same degree as you have with a proper SLR.

 

A WDR camera will help compensate for this. That was my point.

 

And I think that's enough thread-hijack for today. Freakin' political correctness run amok... I swear.

[JoeLansing 0]

Guys.. I'm the OP and not racist. My wife isn't Caucasian.. But I do live with some black kids next door, and they are related to an entire house full of hoodlums across the street. My house got broken into once and guns and computer equipment were taken. About 2 weeks ago someone tried to kick in my back door again. There is a 90% chance it's the kids across the street hanging out at my next door neighbors house. They see no cars around and hop the fence. I'll admit there is a small chance it's someone else. But when they only take a couple armloads and I have a truck load of loot, then it's someone close. And when it's long guns like SKS you know they aren't running too far in the daytime. One time at about 1:30AM we were all home, cars in the drive, lights on, and some fool crawled through my back bathroom window. We heard him, he heard us, and he locked the bathroom door and bailed back out the window. These guys aren't Eisenstein.

 

I really do need cameras, and better than I have now. I'll buy 2 MonaLisa 600 line ones this Friday when I get paid and see how clear those are. And I have a couple of stake yard signs from eBay on their way. I'd rather not shoot people I live next door to when I catch them in my house so I'm trying cameras and signs. Sorry for the long message. Anyone want to sell any decent cameras cheap? I can only do D1 15fps max on my crappy Swann DVR4-2550 that came with 4 PRO-550 420TVL cameras. It was only $250 so a decent starter toy.

- Joe

[NotoriousBRK 0]

I'll buy 2 MonaLisa 600 line ones this Friday when I get paid and see how clear those are.

 

They will be most likely *barely* better than the 420 line cameras.

 

You could get a 1000 TVL camera, but the image you see is still going to be D1 (~704 x 480 pixels).

 

To get good facial details you're going to need 50 pixels per foot minimum. 704/50 = 14.8. If you try to cover an area more than 15 feet wide your detail is going to suffer. With *ANY* D1 camera.

 

IP cameras come in D1 resolution, but also in much higher resolutions. D1, BTW, is about .3 Mega-pixels. A cheap 2 mega-pixel camera has 7x the total pixel count, and can cover an area about 38 feet wide and get strong detail.

 

On your internal network it doesn't matter if you have to assign an IP address to each camera. You're using a reserved subnet (eg: 192.168.x.x) so the IPs are free. Type in a couple dozen numbers (IP address, subnet mask, gateway) to the camera and go.

 

You can fight with the D1 gear as long as you want but you'll never get the image quality that I think you are expecting to get.

 

It's not the IP address that gives the camera the higher resolution, it's the fact that IP cameras are not bound by the signal constraints of D1.

[Sawbones 0]

Notorious is telling you the truth.

 

Analog is better than IP for a very narrow range of circumstances (low budget, very low-light, tiny covert camera needed, etc)... but the pixel-density of IP makes for a superior image in virtually all other circumstances.

 

If you want the best detail under most conditions, you're going to want IP.

[Numb-nuts 1]

First things first.

So while I don't think Swann is the greatest brand on the market, you are at least working with a DVR that has a decent frame rate at D1. So there are two things that can be improved:

 

1) cameras. Don't buy in to the notion that the higher the TVL, the better. The reality is that D1 resolution is only capable of recording/displaying 480 TVL. So buying a camera with any higher resolution than that won't get any higher quality. Will increasing from 420 to 480 make a difference? Yeah, a little. But not a ton. You'll want to make sure that the cameras have a 1/3" CCD image sensor. If you can get one with a varifocal lens (typically 4-9mm in that price range) then that is better. Often the cameras come with a 6mm lens, which in my opinion, is not wide enough to give a good general view and not focused enough to get good detail when needed. Opt for a varifocal lens. Make sure that it has good specs (low signal/noise ratio, and low LUX are important for image quality and low light image) and if you want night vision, get one with lots of IRs for maximum illumination in darkness.

 

 

I have to agree with the above, and to add Swann aren't the best value or quality for the money, but at least you are using a DVR that has an acceptable frame rate, (if the specs can be believed).

 

Regarding cameras with 6mm fixed lenses these are an all round camera and generally average at all they do, but they are not brilliant as no camera/lens combination, can do all jobs well. The closest you will get is a camera with varifocal lenses which target more closely the 'operational requirements'. Do a proper lens calculation, and buy a varifocal lens that has your required focal length within it's range of adjustment that way you stand a perfect chance of achieving the results you want.

 

Also remember that built in IR will require higher current availability and will reflect back into the lens from trees, and often cars and white clothing too. (when too close) IR light is better set at an angle across the intended subject to avoid such destructive IR light reflection.

[shockwave199 0]

Is an 8 channel Gadspot unit ok?

I don't know about their dvr's, but I use certain cameras of theirs for all eight of my cameras, coupled with a qsee 408 dvr and I'm pleased with the results. Pics captured directly from the dvr are in this thread-

 

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27405

 

My qsee package came with crap cameras too and it's the first thing I changed out and it made a big difference. If a better picture is what you're after [who isn't], than upgrading the cameras will help that cause so you're on the right track. My cameras are bullets and ball dome types- not typical domes that you're getting from CNB. I decided to steer clear of them because of the troubles I've heard about with the inside domes getting dirty or cloudy and IR causing a cloudy image. I needed IR in the cameras as opposed to external IR and domes with internal IR just don't seem to do well so I chose other types of cameras. You mention you don't have a ton of bucks. People will suggest very expensive options and say it's a must for great detail. I think that's true, but I also believe you can get very acceptable results from less expensive gear. I've tried to illustrate that for exactly your type of situation- a DIY residential install on a budget. Take a look at my signature vids too. Although they are screen recordings, not direct vids from the dvr, it's still good examples of what you can get out of a budget system. All I can really suggest is to buy everything from places you can return the product if it isn't right for you or if it's broken. The only thing I held onto from my box system is the 408 dvr

 

http://q-see.com/products/security-product.php?ProductId=297

 

Read the manual too- it's actually a very decent dvr. I have my channels setup to 1&2 at D1 and the other six at HD1, all at 20fps at the highest bit rate and the live feed, remote feed, and pictures snapped are great.

 

I know it's a lot to consider, so all I've tried to do is give examples of how a modest budget and system can get you very useful results. Best of luck getting what you're looking for.