Thanks for the great post!

I have a small system with a consumer grade 4-channel MPEG4 DVR and I'm not happy with the quality of the stored video. The cameras look great live but the stored images lose a lot of detail.

Do you think I will see a noticeable improvement in quality if I upgrade to a consumer grade 4-channel DVR with H.264 compression?

Probably not a huge increase in quality. What you will see is a decrease in file size. However, if the picture quality isn't what you really want, where's the benefit? First and foremost, the system has to have the picture quality you want... and everything else follows from that. Storage space is incredibly cheap these days, and there's almost no reason to sacrifice quality for file size; just get more/bigger drives. (1.5 Terabyte drives go for about 120-150 dollars on Newegg, all day long)

Personally, I use MJPEG... the pictures simply look better than MPEG4, and you get less compression artifact. The file sizes are significantly larger... but I've probably got 2.5 Terabytes of local storage on my NVR, and an additional 4.5 Terabytes in network storage that the NVR can use for overflow.

My advice would be not to skimp on picture quality... that's the whole reason why most of us get these systems.

That's a very involved question.

I'd first have to ask what you're attempting to do with the system... identify faces? Identify vehicles? Simply be able to tell that "something's out there?" How large an area do you hope to cover? Is night-time performance an absolute must? How much ambient light do you have to work with? What climate will this system be expected to endure? Analog or IP-based? What kind of structure is this system going into? Do you need covert cameras?

I had my first system professionally installed by some alarm guys, and they did a nice job. I may be a computer geek, HAM operator, etc... but I didn't know the first thing about surveillance video. After they were done, and I looked at it, I realized that I could do a lot of this myself. I started with a four-camera analog system... and it's grown into a hybrid system, including PTZs, day/nights, covert cams, megapixel IP cams, and a PC-based DVR that I built myself.

I recently did a four-camera system for my elderly parents (mixture of domes and bullets)... took about a day and a half (my old man helped me fish the siamese cable up through the soffits and into the attic... that's a much easier job with two people.). They now have an internet-aware system that they can check when they're traveling... and I'm going to add a bit more to it before I'm done. Here's a rough cost breakdown for what we used:

Nuuo SCB-5004 4-port encoder card (purchased from these guys): $450
IBM Thinkcentre small-form-factor desktop, purchased from Ebay: $200
Honeywell dome cameras x2: $400
Armored IR-equipped dome x1: $100
IR-equipped Bullet x1: $100
Cable and Connectors: $150

It's about $1400 in parts, and the encoder card came with its own software (Important... see below). The software is expandable. It has the capability to add IP cameras by purchasing additional licenses and a USB dongle. We did all the labor ourselves, and we split the hardware cost.

If you go IP-based, you're going to need some sort of camera management software... (which is why it was so nice that the encoder card I mentioned above included it). There are all kinds of options as far as that goes... that probably deserves an entire post of its own, but depending on what you need/want, you can drop up to $200 per channel just for software.

On the remote cam question...

The pix GreyMan showed in the posts above demonstrates how high the resolution of an IP camera is vs analog.

An earlier poster asked how he could remotely [I presume maybe 1/4 mile] monitor a camera. I've been giving the same issue some thought so in a SHTF, I can put a cam a mile or two away to watch a road or something.

The best way I can think of [and there are a LOT of variables for each application] is to use a large 12 volt battery, solar panel, an IP cam and and a wireless bridge like 2 Linksys WAP54g's at 2.4 gHz with a couple of gain antennas to bridge the IP cam back to the shelter. Then it can be linked here at 5.8 gHz, many miles away.

Also, it might make sense to get an old 2nd gen intensifier to adapt to a cam to be able to see at night w/out using IR illuminators. Make a flip shield [with a pinhole in it] to block light from the NOD during the daytime.

Use some frequency hopping Trisquare walkie-talkies on 900 mc with encoders/decoders to control the cams remotely to save battery power

The Linksys draws about 1/2 amp at 5 volts and the cams draw the same probably. That's a total drain of 5 watts or 120 watt hours per day or about 10 amps from a 12 volt battery, not incl inefficiencies, per day.

A 20 watt solar panel might be overkill in this application.

Two covert IR sensors could be located ahead and behind the cams to detect movement and activate them and signal an alarm to base.

Excellent post thanks

FerFAL

Thanks. My cameras are good for what they are and the images look great on a monitor live. I think the limiting factor is my cheap low-end DVR. I have it set to the highest settings with a 500+ GB hard drive (largest it can handle) and can store over a week from two cameras. It's doing all that it can. I'll have to keep doing more research and save up some more money.

So what about PTZ cameras?

PTZ stands for Pan-Tilt-Zoom, and these are probably what most people think about when they see "security cameras" in the movies. These are the cameras that you can use to look all around... pan from side to side, tilt down to see things directly below them, or zoom in to examine license plates, faces, etc.

First thing to know: these cameras are more expensive than standard fixed cameras, and since they have more moving parts (slip rings, drive belts for motion, etc), they are more prone to failure. That's not to say they're going to crap out on you within a week... but let's face it, wear-and-tear on moving parts is wear-and-tear on moving parts... so be advised that they have a shorter MTBF compared to a standard fixed dome or bullet-cam.

They also work best when there is somebody monitoring/controlling them; somebody has to control where the camera is moving/looking (particularly when following a moving target, etc), and without an operator, these cameras essentially act just like fixed cameras, focused on their "home" position. There are PTZ cameras that are "auto-tracking," (they are "smart cameras" that use software to automatically follow people, vehicles, etc that wander into their coverage area) but these are BIG BUCKS; in the neighborhood of several thousand dollars per camera. Ouch. That said, there is value in standard non-auto-tracking PTZs, since it's nice to be able to take your camera and look around... and this can be done through web interface, or through a special keyboard/joystick device.

As you probably already figured out, these cameras need a way to get commands from the joystick/web interface to the camera. In the case of IP-based PTZs, this is easily done over the network, through the normal web interface that you use to view the video. In the case of Analog PTZs, there is additional wiring (usually two-conductor) you have to run in order to get movement commands to/from the camera, in addition to selecting the proper protocol. Which protocol to use with which camera is well beyond the scope of a post like this, but common protocols are RS232 (serial), RS-485, Pelco-D/P, etc. This part of camera wiring can get a little dicey, so if you're getting into the PTZ realm, you might consider consulting an alarm/security company.

In PTZ cameras, zoom is a very useful feature, and there exist cameras that provide only zoom, and not pan-tilt. These are great for a specific doorway you're watching, a narrow road, or a specific choke point. It essentially allows you to magnify whatever is happening, in real time (this assumes you're watching the camera). However, when discussing zoom, it's important to understand the difference between digital zoom, and optical zoom. Optical zoom means that there's an actual lens assembly within the body of the camera that magnifies the image you're viewing. Digital zoom means the computer takes the existing image, and without magnifying the image optically, simply takes the existing data and blows it up (this usually results in a nasty, blocky, pixelated image). If you have to choose, go with cameras that are heavy on optical zoom, and light on digital zoom. The possible exception is for high-megapixel IP cams, where there is sufficient image data (in the huge file that a multi-megapixel digital image contains) that you can have "digital zoom" that looks just like optical zoom. This is one of the advantages of multi-megapixel IP-based cameras.

thanks for the great info and pics

Not a tag

Nice score for an entry-level system... that's pretty tough to beat for the money.

I suspect the weather-resistant moniker just means you shouldn't put them up on a pole by themselves. As long as you mount those cameras underneath your eaves or an overhang, you're probably good.

Those are 1/4" CCDs, which means they don't have a very large lens to gather light, so you may find their night performance could stand improvement. Ways to improve this are to add ambient light (like motion-activated flood lights... those are one of the best security additions you can add, and most homes could benefit from them), or add some additional IR illuminators.

The Laptop-like plug is probably a standard 2.5mm 12V barrel connector. They're center-positive by convention. I get most of mine from Radio Shack (expensive, but you can get them today), or Digikey:



If you're very worried about vandalism of the cameras, you can switch those cameras out for domes. Vandal-resistant domes usually run anywhere from $100-500 each, depending on features. Most don't include built-in IR, so you'd need to add illuminators. Remember my admonition about IR versus visible light: you're virtually always better off going with visible lights, unless you have a specialized situation/application that precludes it.

As for audio, I'd be VERY careful about recording audio... that can run you afoul of wiretapping laws in many states, and render your video useless for evidentially purposes. It's BS, but it's happened, and it would seriously chap my a** to go to the trouble and expense of installing all this CCTV, just to have some smart-aleck defense attorney get the burglar off because he didn't "consent" to being recording. Lots of alarm guys advise not installing audio AT ALL, just to avoid this pitfall.

PS.

On the box I have, under camera specs it says 1/3 inch color CCD sensor 1.2 LUX without IR illumination 0.1 LUX with IR. and the res is 420 TV lines so it looks like they are better cameras than what is listed online. Makes it even better.

Tagged, cool thread.

Very informative thread.

I have a 4 camera system with a PC based DVR card. 3 out of 4 of the cameras have IR capability. Incoming camera feeds are split with one leg going to a 4 channel modulator, the other going to the DVR. I also have IP access to the video feeds.

A couple of tips for those using consumer grade cameras.

If you can find cameras that have termination points inside the housing as opposed to a tail coming out, use those. The tail is always either too long or too short.

Preterminated camera cables can be a huge PITA to route to the inside of a structure and fish down walls. Even with the ends staggered and taped, it still required almost a 1in hole to get the pile of ends into the exterior wall. Even if you have to buy the tools to terminate RG59 and the ends to do it, it is still easier.

Plus the preterminated cables are always 6 inches too short or about 35 feet too long.

Inexpensive, consumer grade cameras are hit and miss. I have 3 different types, all from the same manufacturer. One of them (with pretty much the same image specs as the rest of mine) has an excellent image quality. 2 of the other ones look not so good.

You do get what you pay for for the most part.