| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 139431 | 2015-04-30 22:51:00 | cheap security camera question | 1101 (13337) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1399736 | 2015-04-30 22:51:00 | Whats your experience with installing cheap video security systems I say cheap, as the best reply will always be to get the experts in :-) I have a customer who wants security cams for his business, indoor & out(cam just on the side of building, in a covered area ie covered from rain). Wifi just doesnt work , too many concrete walls etc. So 2.4G video wireless (wireless not wifi) probably also wont work, so I guess the way to do it will be run cables or powerline kits for each camera (if using IP cams) . Any suggestions , or advice what doesnt work ? Cheers |
1101 (13337) | ||
| 1399737 | 2015-05-01 00:39:00 | Whats your experience with installing cheap video security systems I say cheap, as the best reply will always be to get the experts in :-) I have a customer who wants security cams for his business, indoor & out(cam just on the side of building, in a covered area ie covered from rain). Wifi just doesnt work , too many concrete walls etc. So 2.4G video wireless (wireless not wifi) probably also wont work, so I guess the way to do it will be run cables or powerline kits for each camera (if using IP cams) . Any suggestions , or advice what doesnt work ? Cheers I have 2 cameras at home - one internal, one external. Brilliant method - Ethernet over power - this of course then requires access to mains power proximity for each camera. This system eliminates data feed for each camera - all carried over mains, then finally to PC router. It's a logitec system - ex pic quality. PM me if you want any more details. Cheers |
Woody (710) | ||
| 1399738 | 2015-05-01 06:39:00 | If it's 2.4G but not 802.11 Wireless, it will *destroy* any nearby WiFi networks. Don't do it. Get yourself a camera that you can hook up to "Vitamin D" on a PC or similar (Now https://www.sighthound.com ) Something like this would work fine: www.pbtech.co.nz |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1399739 | 2015-05-01 08:25:00 | i would go power over ethernet. only have to get one cable to camera, no sparky required and no risk of mains voltage and wet cameras. make sure the camera will actually do anything. a video of how the robbery took place doesn't help. you need the camera to be in place where they can get identifying features. outside one to get car number plates or picture of driver. inside one to catch face of people ie at an access point. |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 1399740 | 2015-05-07 07:53:00 | I encircled the house with a Swann system (from Dick Smith) after some scum had a 'help yourself' session in my garage one day. 8 cameras, self installed, about $1200 all up from memory. From what I've read the infra red LEDs for night vision have a limited lifespan of about 2 years. I'm still to see any degredation so far. If it becomes significant a more economical solution than replacing the cameras might be to install larger, independant external IR lights. The other disadvantage to the IR in the cameras is that it draws insects to the cameras, and about once a month I need to go out with a broom to clear away the veil of cobwebs that get built over the cameras. A good surface active flyspray might do the same task. The newer systems are Power over Ethernet (note this is different to Ethernet over Power), so only a single cable from the recorder to the camera, with all the power packs (3 packs, 1 per 4 cameras, plus 1 for the recorder) at the recording point. The recorders can be set up to record continuously, or on a schedule, or to only record in the event of a trigger (motion detection). There's also a 'pre-record' option. Essentially this involves a memory cache for each camera, which holds about 3 seconds of video data, which is constantly streamed through the cache. Once a trigger event occurs it will retrieve and store the 3 seconds from BEFORE the trigger occurred, in addition to the next minute or so of whatever follows. This means you've got a far better chance of seeing the buggers face, rather than the back of his head as he retreats. Go with the best resolution you can get. The other issue I find is to do with contrast and shadows, mostly morning light when the sun is low - the image can be pretty bleached-out. The recorder has been faultless, with the exception of giving a HDD error once the drive was full. The answer was simple enough. Dump the old recordings and it was all go again, but the message was suggesting a hardware fault when there actually wasn't one. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1 | |||||