I am running Cat5E and satellite cables around the house to make it
reasonably future-proof for the next few years and then someone
suggested putting in cabling for security cameras. But initial
research suggests that there are currently two types of cabling used
for cameras at present ie coax and Cat5- with the latter sometimes
using POE (Power Over Ethernet).



Can someone enlighten me on the current trends in this area and
recommend which wiring type I should install . Or, should I install
both types to each camera location together with power - working on
the basis that the cable itself is cheap but installing it costs a
lot. - In my case I would want to record camera footage and monitor
via selected cameras over the internet.

Vet Tech

In article ,
Vet Tech wrote:
I am running Cat5E and satellite cables around the house to make it
reasonably future-proof for the next few years and then someone
suggested putting in cabling for security cameras. But initial
research suggests that there are currently two types of cabling used
for cameras at present ie coax and Cat5- with the latter sometimes
using POE (Power Over Ethernet).



Can someone enlighten me on the current trends in this area and
recommend which wiring type I should install . Or, should I install
both types to each camera location together with power - working on
the basis that the cable itself is cheap but installing it costs a
lot. - In my case I would want to record camera footage and monitor
via selected cameras over the internet.

Best to have a look at camera technology and price, and see what fits
the budget...

For analogue cameras, you'll need some sort of encoder to digitise the
data and make it avalable via the 'net. IP enabled cameras can do this
directly, but typically cost a bit more right now - however analogue
cameras might be easier to mix and record as the technology to do that
is very well established.

You still have to get power to analogue cameras, so that might mean a
2nd power line, but I don't know if they take power over co-ax...

Personally (and it's what I've done myself), I'd go for IP cameras -
but make sure you can keep the ends totally waterproof until they're
actuall in-use, and even then make absolutely sure the connections
stay water tight. Water and 48V DC do not mix. (And the issues won't
be that of fire, etc. but that of accellerated electrolytic corrosion -
even when using low-voltage PoE adapter that some devices use)

Gordon

In article ,
Gordon Henderson writes:
In article ,
Vet Tech wrote:
I am running Cat5E and satellite cables around the house to make it
reasonably future-proof for the next few years and then someone
suggested putting in cabling for security cameras. But initial
research suggests that there are currently two types of cabling used
for cameras at present ie coax and Cat5- with the latter sometimes
using POE (Power Over Ethernet).



Can someone enlighten me on the current trends in this area and
recommend which wiring type I should install . Or, should I install
both types to each camera location together with power - working on
the basis that the cable itself is cheap but installing it costs a
lot. - In my case I would want to record camera footage and monitor
via selected cameras over the internet.

Best to have a look at camera technology and price, and see what fits
the budget...

For analogue cameras, you'll need some sort of encoder to digitise the
data and make it avalable via the 'net. IP enabled cameras can do this
directly, but typically cost a bit more right now - however analogue
cameras might be easier to mix and record as the technology to do that
is very well established.

You still have to get power to analogue cameras, so that might mean a
2nd power line, but I don't know if they take power over co-ax...

There seems to be a standard analogue camera cable which has video
coax, power, and audio in one sheath. You can buy reels of it from
the likes of CPC, but actually several of the cameras I have bought
came with such overly long lengths of this cable that I've never
needed to buy any extra.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In message , Gordon Henderson
writes
Best to have a look at camera technology and price, and see what fits
the budget...

For analogue cameras, you'll need some sort of encoder to digitise the
data and make it avalable via the 'net.

Although it is very simple and cheep to convert 75 ohm video to twisted
pair and send it over CAT5 and then back again to 75 at the other end,
this also allows you to send power over the CAT5 to the camera.

i.e.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/CCTV-Camera-BN...ver-UTP-Cat5-R
J45-f_W0QQitemZ180374578059QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_CCTV? hash=item29ff29a38b
&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A10|66%3A4|39% 3A1|240%3A1318|301%3A1|
293%3A1|294%3A200

http://tinyurl.com/lw24o3

An Ebay search on CCTV and CAT5 will fetch up many options.

If long cable runs are needed then twisted pair is a lot more efficient
than coax, also takes up less space. Although you may need to provide a
local PSU at the camera.


--
Bill

"Vet Tech" wrote in message
...
I am running Cat5E and satellite cables around the house to make it
reasonably future-proof for the next few years and then someone
suggested putting in cabling for security cameras. But initial
research suggests that there are currently two types of cabling used
for cameras at present ie coax and Cat5- with the latter sometimes
using POE (Power Over Ethernet).



Can someone enlighten me on the current trends in this area and
recommend which wiring type I should install . Or, should I install
both types to each camera location together with power - working on
the basis that the cable itself is cheap but installing it costs a
lot. - In my case I would want to record camera footage and monitor
via selected cameras over the internet.

Vet Tech

If you are planning a PC/network based camera security system (as opposed to
an analogue stand alone setup) then the trend is definitely towards the WiFi
based cameras. The prices are falling rapidly now and cheap (low res) IP
based wireless cameras can be obtained for less than £50. Decent wireless
cameras with low light capability start from £150 and upwards, the more
expensive ones having there own built-in webserver which allows you to
control/view a particular camera from anywhere on the internet.

Phil

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:57:54 +0100, Phil Jessop wrote:

If you are planning a PC/network based camera security system (as
opposed to an analogue stand alone setup) then the trend is definitely
towards the WiFi based cameras.

Hum, a security system with RF based links, not sure that is wise.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net...
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:57:54 +0100, Phil Jessop wrote:

If you are planning a PC/network based camera security system (as
opposed to an analogue stand alone setup) then the trend is definitely
towards the WiFi based cameras.

Hum, a security system with RF based links, not sure that is wise.

--
Cheers
Dave.


In what respect?

If you are thinking eavesdropping then the links can have exactly the same
WEP 256 bit keys applied to the stream as any WiFi network can - yes,
ultimately it is crackable given time - but I assume we are talking
opportunity based domestic as opposed to high level military type security
problems?

If you are thinking jamming, then again the WiFi system is capable of, and
uses channel agility.

If you are thinking range/signal strength issues then obviously this needs
to be considered during installation.

A wired system can be overcome with a pair of cutters.

Both systems can be overcome with a well placed bullet.

Phil

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:34:41 +0100 someone who may be "Phil Jessop"
wrote this:-

If you are thinking eavesdropping then the links can have exactly the same
WEP 256 bit keys applied to the stream as any WiFi network can

That doesn't convince me that cameras using radio are wise, quite
the reverse in fact. Using WEP would give a false sense of security
as WEP is to all intents and purposes useless. It can be cracked
with enough information and a camera will be spewing out that
information. Capture enough packets and it is easy to crack.

Having cracked the encryption things like false images become
possible.

Not something the typical drug addict is going to be able to do, but
a more serious attacker will be able to do so. This sort of thing is
not in the large organisation bracket any more.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:34:41 +0100 someone who may be "Phil Jessop"
wrote this:-

If you are thinking eavesdropping then the links can have exactly the same
WEP 256 bit keys applied to the stream as any WiFi network can

That doesn't convince me that cameras using radio are wise, quite
the reverse in fact. Using WEP would give a false sense of security
as WEP is to all intents and purposes useless. It can be cracked
with enough information and a camera will be spewing out that
information. Capture enough packets and it is easy to crack.

Having cracked the encryption things like false images become
possible.

Not something the typical drug addict is going to be able to do, but
a more serious attacker will be able to do so. This sort of thing is
not in the large organisation bracket any more.


I did actually mention that WEP is (eventually) crackable, even with TKIP on
top.

If the punter is really serious about fending off government agency nerds
then AES encryption is also available on COTS cameras.

Personally I think this is totally OTT for a domestic situation - unless of
course you have something really heavy duty to hide ...

Phil

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:34:41 +0100, Phil Jessop wrote:

Hum, a security system with RF based links, not sure that is wise.

In what respect?

Jamming.

If you are thinking jamming, then again the WiFi system is capable of,
and uses channel agility.

Within spectrum allocated. Eenough "noise" around 2.4Ghz would wipe
everything out Bluetooth, WiFi, wireless video links, the lot.

A wired system can be overcome with a pair of cutters.

If you have physical access to the cables and a properly installed
system would not allow the cables to be cut without an alarm being
raised.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:31:04 +0100, Phil Jessop wrote:

Personally I think this is totally OTT for a domestic situation - unless
of course you have something really heavy duty to hide ...

I'm not even thinking of anyone wanting to decrypt the images, all a
tealeaf want to do is stop the signal to prevent their actions being
seen and/or recorded. The tealeaf has something heavy duty to hide,
their indenty...

Fire up a jammer, do the deed, turn of jammer. The chances are that
the short period of no camera wouldn't even be noticed and if it was
"it came back and is fine now"...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , Phil
Jessop scribeth thus

"David Hansen" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:34:41 +0100 someone who may be "Phil Jessop"
wrote this:-

If you are thinking eavesdropping then the links can have exactly the same
WEP 256 bit keys applied to the stream as any WiFi network can

That doesn't convince me that cameras using radio are wise, quite
the reverse in fact. Using WEP would give a false sense of security
as WEP is to all intents and purposes useless. It can be cracked
with enough information and a camera will be spewing out that
information. Capture enough packets and it is easy to crack.

Having cracked the encryption things like false images become
possible.

Not something the typical drug addict is going to be able to do, but
a more serious attacker will be able to do so. This sort of thing is
not in the large organisation bracket any more.


I did actually mention that WEP is (eventually) crackable, even with TKIP on
top.

If the punter is really serious about fending off government agency nerds
then AES encryption is also available on COTS cameras.

Personally I think this is totally OTT for a domestic situation - unless of
course you have something really heavy duty to hide ...

Phil



And with RF based system you can always jam the radio 2.4 Ghz band or
that will sometimes be done for you by simple congestion;!..

Horses for courses .. sometimes wired is right, sometimes radio depends
on the application and where U are..
--
Tony Sayer

Dave Liquorice coughed up some electrons that declared:

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:34:41 +0100, Phil Jessop wrote:

Hum, a security system with RF based links, not sure that is wise.

In what respect?

Jamming.

If you are thinking jamming, then again the WiFi system is capable of,
and uses channel agility.

Within spectrum allocated. Eenough "noise" around 2.4Ghz would wipe
everything out Bluetooth, WiFi, wireless video links, the lot.


And a Panasonic Inverter Microwave oven can and does wipe out the entire
WIFI band in my house - frequently.

In article , Tim S
scribeth thus
Dave Liquorice coughed up some electrons that declared:

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:34:41 +0100, Phil Jessop wrote:

Hum, a security system with RF based links, not sure that is wise.

In what respect?

Jamming.

If you are thinking jamming, then again the WiFi system is capable of,
and uses channel agility.

Within spectrum allocated. Eenough "noise" around 2.4Ghz would wipe
everything out Bluetooth, WiFi, wireless video links, the lot.


And a Panasonic Inverter Microwave oven can and does wipe out the entire
WIFI band in my house - frequently.

I should get that checked for leakage if its doing that!..
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer coughed up some electrons that declared:


I should get that checked for leakage if its doing that!..

It's a known issue with that series. I found a fair few people complaining
in the internet - the situation can be improved by rotating the WIFI base
station's antenna to a different polarisation...

Phil Jessop wrote:

I did actually mention that WEP is (eventually) crackable, even with TKIP on
top.

Eventually is about 2 mins now for 128 bit WEP using packet injection
techniques.

WPA2 however is far more resistant. WiFi is easier to block though even
with discrete spread spectrum since the overall allocated bandwidth is
quite narrow.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Jun 29, 2:31 am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:57:54 +0100, Phil Jessop wrote:
If you are planning a PC/network based camera security system (as
opposed to an analogue stand alone setup) then the trend is definitely
towards the WiFi based cameras.

Hum, a security system with RF based links, not sure that is wise.

If the OP intends using movement detection software to record only
when movement is detected, every time the RF signal is affected by
anything (e.g. passing police cars etc) then three files will be
recorded for each camera (pre-alarm, the movement, and post-alarm).
I have 7 movement detection cameras and I recommend copper wires

Why not install 2 inch plastic pipes in the walls complete with
inspection hatches and a pull-through cord? That will allow for any
future improvements in technology. Don't put AC wiring in the conduit
of course.

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Tim S
scribeth thus
Dave Liquorice coughed up some electrons that declared:

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:34:41 +0100, Phil Jessop wrote:

Hum, a security system with RF based links, not sure that is wise.
In what respect?
Jamming.

If you are thinking jamming, then again the WiFi system is capable of,
and uses channel agility.
Within spectrum allocated. Eenough "noise" around 2.4Ghz would wipe
everything out Bluetooth, WiFi, wireless video links, the lot.

And a Panasonic Inverter Microwave oven can and does wipe out the entire
WIFI band in my house - frequently.

I should get that checked for leakage if its doing that!..

Some corrections.

1/. Most WiFi is not frequency agile in the sense that it keeps changing
channels.It tends to select at start up a channel that is 'empty'.

2/. Depending on traffic, throughput will degrade in the presence of noise.

3/. Microwave ovens actually produce energy as microwaves in the 2.4Ghz
band: Its not the power supply, its the oven itself. 600W of 2.4Ghz
dioesnt take much leakage to upset a 10mW WiFi system..

4/. High bandwidth video cameras with wireless links are the worst users
of bandwidth.

In message
, Vet
Tech writes
I am running Cat5E and satellite cables around the house to make it
reasonably future-proof for the next few years and then someone
suggested putting in cabling for security cameras. But initial
research suggests that there are currently two types of cabling used
for cameras at present ie coax and Cat5- with the latter sometimes
using POE (Power Over Ethernet).



Can someone enlighten me on the current trends in this area and
recommend which wiring type I should install . Or, should I install
both types to each camera location together with power - working on
the basis that the cable itself is cheap but installing it costs a
lot.
You can run video over one CAT5 pair with the remaining three pairs
being used for power, look into CCTV baluns.

Quick tip though, if you do go with baluns, make sure you buy a *good*
PSU and not the crap most CCTV supply places sell or you'll have masses
of interference.

Alternatively, one plug top PSU per camera and for preference as close
to the camera as you can get it, that way you don't have to worry about
voltage drop or induced interference on the power although it's unlikely
to bite you unless your house is massive (think hundred metre+ cable
runs)

POE is not commonly used for CCTV, it's expensive to set up and IP
cameras cost an arm and a leg for anything decent.

If you install CAT5 now and use baluns then you can upgrade to IP
cameras if and when you need to but personally for home use, I'd run
COAX and CAT5 to each camera location, pulling two cables is as easy as
one for most situations.

You can buy a combined power/coax/control composite cable but it's
hardly worth the bother, it's expensive and you need a dedicated crimp
tool and special sized BNC connectors.

- In my case I would want to record camera footage and monitor
via selected cameras over the internet.
You'll need a DVR, there are plenty out there that will allow you to
monitor over then internet, record days and days of video which you can
also view over the 'net. You can pick and choose which cameras you want.
Mail me off list and perhaps I can arrange a demo.

You might also want to look into Zoneminder, it's open source and is
pretty good but you'll need to find a DVR card, most of the cheapies on
eBay are junk. Personally, I'd recommend Geovision cards if you decide
to go the PC route but for home use or small office use then a dedicated
DVR is probably best, far lower power, quieter and easier to find space
for also pretty much as flexible now.

Vet Tech

--
Clint Sharp

In article , John
Rumm scribeth thus
Phil Jessop wrote:

I did actually mention that WEP is (eventually) crackable, even with TKIP on
top.

Eventually is about 2 mins now for 128 bit WEP using packet injection
techniques.

WPA2 however is far more resistant. WiFi is easier to block though even
with discrete spread spectrum since the overall allocated bandwidth is
quite narrow.



Has anyone managed to crack this as yet, WPA-2 with AES as used on some
5.8 Ghz links?..
--
Tony Sayer

In message , Phil
Jessop writes
If you are thinking jamming, then again the WiFi system is capable of, and
uses channel agility.
Still easy to jam, still subject to interference. Far better to buy
higher spec wired cameras and spend a little time making the cabling
vandal proof. £150 buys a very good 'traditional' camera these days and
with respect, most, if not all of the cheap WiFi cameras are just that,
cheap crap.

If you are thinking range/signal strength issues then obviously this needs
to be considered during installation.

A wired system can be overcome with a pair of cutters.
Not easily if it's installed properly

Both systems can be overcome with a well placed bullet.
Of course but that's a little unlikely.

Phil



--
Clint Sharp

tony sayer wrote:
In article , John
Rumm scribeth thus
Phil Jessop wrote:

I did actually mention that WEP is (eventually) crackable, even with TKIP on
top.
Eventually is about 2 mins now for 128 bit WEP using packet injection
techniques.

WPA2 however is far more resistant. WiFi is easier to block though even
with discrete spread spectrum since the overall allocated bandwidth is
quite narrow.



Has anyone managed to crack this as yet, WPA-2 with AES as used on some
5.8 Ghz links?..

I am not aware of any general cracks for WPA2, or AES as yet. Their may
be flawed implementations about which are weaker, but again they have
not been widely reported.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 29 June, 08:42, Clint Sharp wrote:


You can run video over one CAT5 pair with the remaining three pairs
being used for power, look into CCTV baluns.

Quick tip though, if you do go with baluns, make sure you buy a *good*
PSU and not the crap most CCTV supply places sell or you'll have masses
of interference.

Alternatively, one plug top PSU per camera and for preference as close
to the camera as you can get it, that way you don't have to worry about
voltage drop or induced interference on the power although it's unlikely
to bite you unless your house is massive (think hundred metre+ cable
runs)

POE is not commonly used for CCTV, it's expensive to set up and IP
cameras cost an arm and a leg for anything decent.

If you install CAT5 now and use baluns then you can upgrade to IP
cameras if and when you need to but personally for home use, I'd run
COAX and CAT5 to each camera location, pulling two cables is as easy as
one for most situations.

You can buy a combined power/coax/control composite cable but it's
hardly worth the bother, it's expensive and you need a dedicated crimp
tool and special sized BNC connectors.

- In my case I would want to record camera footage and monitor
via selected cameras over the internet.

You'll need a DVR, there are plenty out there that will allow you to
monitor over then internet, record days and days of video which you can
also view over the 'net. You can pick and choose which cameras you want.
Mail me off list and perhaps I can arrange a demo.

You might also want to look into Zoneminder, it's open source and is
pretty good but you'll need to find a DVR card, most of the cheapies on
eBay are junk. Personally, I'd recommend Geovision cards if you decide
to go the PC route but for home use or small office use then a dedicated
DVR is probably best, far lower power, quieter and easier to find space
for also pretty much as flexible now.



--
Clint Sharp

Clint,

You've certainly given me a lot to think about there and i'll start
doing my research now.

Much obliged.

VT

On 29 June, 08:42, Clint Sharp wrote:


You can run video over one CAT5 pair with the remaining three pairs
being used for power, look into CCTV baluns.

Quick tip though, if you do go with baluns, make sure you buy a *good*
PSU and not the crap most CCTV supply places sell or you'll have masses
of interference.

Alternatively, one plug top PSU per camera and for preference as close
to the camera as you can get it, that way you don't have to worry about
voltage drop or induced interference on the power although it's unlikely
to bite you unless your house is massive (think hundred metre+ cable
runs)

POE is not commonly used for CCTV, it's expensive to set up and IP
cameras cost an arm and a leg for anything decent.

If you install CAT5 now and use baluns then you can upgrade to IP
cameras if and when you need to but personally for home use, I'd run
COAX and CAT5 to each camera location, pulling two cables is as easy as
one for most situations.

You can buy a combined power/coax/control composite cable but it's
hardly worth the bother, it's expensive and you need a dedicated crimp
tool and special sized BNC connectors.

- In my case I would want to record camera footage and monitor
via selected cameras over the internet.

You'll need a DVR, there are plenty out there that will allow you to
monitor over then internet, record days and days of video which you can
also view over the 'net. You can pick and choose which cameras you want.
Mail me off list and perhaps I can arrange a demo.

You might also want to look into Zoneminder, it's open source and is
pretty good but you'll need to find a DVR card, most of the cheapies on
eBay are junk. Personally, I'd recommend Geovision cards if you decide
to go the PC route but for home use or small office use then a dedicated
DVR is probably best, far lower power, quieter and easier to find space
for also pretty much as flexible now.



Vet Tech

--
Clint Sharp

Clint,

Is this the sort of kit you had in mind?

VT

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:57:54 +0100, Phil Jessop wrote:
If you are planning a PC/network based camera security system (as opposed to
an analogue stand alone setup) then the trend is definitely towards the WiFi
based cameras. The prices are falling rapidly now and cheap (low res) IP
based wireless cameras can be obtained for less than £50. Decent wireless
cameras with low light capability start from £150 and upwards

What's the range / battery* life like on those?

* I assume they're battery powered - if you have to run power to them
anyway then there seems little point in them bing wireless! :-)

I want some sort of camera setup here, but could use an outdoor camera
round the back - and that's a good 300 feet from the house (closer on 400
for a wired setup, as it'd be easier to run things via existing buildings
rather than a direct route through the woods).

cheers

Jules

"Phil Jessop" wrote in message
o.uk...

Both systems can be overcome with a well placed bullet.

Phil

You would have to find them first at my house.

Who do you use as your supplier Phil as I am considering an uprade from 8
cameras to 12 with extra cable for another possible 4 cameras

I used the RG56 mini composite cable for my existing setup.

Cheers

Adam

"Vet Tech" wrote in message
...
I am running Cat5E and satellite cables around the house to make it
reasonably future-proof for the next few years and then someone
suggested putting in cabling for security cameras. But initial
research suggests that there are currently two types of cabling used
for cameras at present ie coax and Cat5- with the latter sometimes
using POE (Power Over Ethernet).



Can someone enlighten me on the current trends in this area and
recommend which wiring type I should install . Or, should I install
both types to each camera location together with power - working on
the basis that the cable itself is cheap but installing it costs a
lot. - In my case I would want to record camera footage and monitor
via selected cameras over the internet.

Vet Tech

The future is IP cameras.... and in the security industry it will be
megapixel and HD digital video recording allowing post processing zooming in
to get individual identities to an extent impossible with the resolution of
composite video cameras. POE is only available for fixed cameras, pan/tilt
cameras require local power.
The technology is not quite there yet, with network package speed and
loading being a limitation at the moment to get the detail required but H264
is appearing to predominate as the optimum compression standard. All thats
needed now is for the industry to get together and agree on the structure of
the digital data packets otherwise we are going to have the farce we have
now of different pan/tilt/zoom telemetry protocols for each manufacturer!
Waterproof cat5 connectors are available and are a must for outdoor cameras.
Wireless cameras are definitiely taking off with, as someone has already
said, security encrypted local networks much like your wireless broadband on
which I am typing this little gem...and the latest radio standard 802.11n
due to be ratified in 2009 allows significant bandwidth improvements.
However the camera will still need local power and at present IP cameras do
take more power than composite video cameras. I even had one 5 years ago
that had an integrated cooling fan from JVC.
I have been watching IP cameras for 9 years..and they still have a long way
to match composite video quality and real time images displayed at the same
size screen....... but wait 5 years..or worst case 10 years and we will be
astounded by the technology on offer.
Once the resolution is there with megapixel cameras then a raft of other
features will be developed which require this quality... ANPR now but facial
recognition is the next advance which requires the quality of the
resolution.
.... and if anyone tells you HD recorders are expensive..I have one connected
to my freesat box which records in full 1080P with 2 freesat tuners for
£300.

"Tim S" wrote in message
.. .
Dave Liquorice coughed up some electrons that declared:

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:34:41 +0100, Phil Jessop wrote:

Hum, a security system with RF based links, not sure that is wise.

In what respect?

Jamming.

If you are thinking jamming, then again the WiFi system is capable of,
and uses channel agility.

Within spectrum allocated. Eenough "noise" around 2.4Ghz would wipe
everything out Bluetooth, WiFi, wireless video links, the lot.


And a Panasonic Inverter Microwave oven can and does wipe out the entire
WIFI band in my house - frequently.

Ive got a panasonic inverter type micro... Ive never noticed that... but I
will check now!

In message , BigGirlsBlouse
writes
ANPR now but facial recognition is the next advance which requires the
quality of the resolution.
Facial recognition is here now.
... and if anyone tells you HD recorders are expensive..I have one
connected to my freesat box which records in full 1080P with 2 freesat
tuners for £300.
Yeah, but it won't record 16 or 32 HD streams simultaneously even if you
do have the terabytes of storage required.


--
Clint Sharp

On 29 June, 18:50, "BigGirlsBlouse" wrote:
"Vet Tech" wrote in message

...





I am running Cat5E and satellite cables around the house to make it
reasonably future-proof for the next few years and then someone
suggested putting in cabling for security cameras. But initial
research suggests that there are currently two types of cabling used
for cameras at present ie coax and Cat5- with the latter sometimes
using POE (Power Over Ethernet).

Can someone enlighten me on the current trends in this area and
recommend which wiring type *I should install . Or, should I install
both types to each camera location together with power - working on
the basis that the cable itself is cheap but installing it costs a
lot. - In my case I would want to record camera footage and monitor
via selected cameras over the internet.

Vet Tech

The future is IP cameras.... and in the security industry it will be
megapixel and HD digital video recording allowing post processing zooming in
to get individual identities to an extent impossible with the resolution of
composite video cameras. POE is only available for fixed cameras, pan/tilt
cameras require local power.
The technology is not quite there yet, with network package speed and
loading being a limitation at the moment to get the detail required but H264
is appearing to predominate as the optimum compression standard. All thats
needed now is for the industry to get together and agree on the structure of
the digital data packets otherwise we are going to have the farce we have
now of different pan/tilt/zoom telemetry protocols for each manufacturer!
Waterproof cat5 connectors are available and are a must for outdoor cameras.
Wireless cameras are definitiely taking off with, as someone has already
said, security encrypted local networks much like your wireless broadband on
which I am typing this little gem...and the latest radio standard 802.11n
due to be ratified in 2009 allows significant bandwidth improvements.
However the camera will still need local power and at present IP cameras do
take more power than composite video cameras. I even had one 5 years ago
that had an integrated cooling fan from JVC.
I have been watching IP cameras for 9 years..and they still have a long way
to match composite video quality and real time images displayed at the same
size screen....... but wait 5 years..or worst case 10 years and we will be
astounded by the technology on offer.
Once the resolution is there with megapixel cameras then a raft of other
features will be developed which require this quality... ANPR now but facial
recognition is the next advance which requires the quality of the
resolution.
... and if anyone tells you HD recorders are expensive..I have one connected
to my freesat box which records in full 1080P with 2 freesat tuners for
£300.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good post BGB, and may I solicit a recommendation..

What I'm looking for is:-

a) Ability to record footage locally following motion detection.
b) Ability to monitor remotely over the internet.
c) Using three external and one internal camera.
d) All cameras to be fixed.
e) Reasonably good image quality - ie not using hardware that you get
on Ebay and the sheds.

I really dont want to wait for the industrty to agree a standard IP
but would be willing to go with something IP based now that will last
say 5 to 10 years.

What would you recommend on a budget say of around £100 to £1200?

Thanks
VT

In article
..com, Vet Tech scribeth thus
On 29 June, 18:50, "BigGirlsBlouse" wrote:
"Vet Tech" wrote in message

...





I am running Cat5E and satellite cables around the house to make it
reasonably future-proof for the next few years and then someone
suggested putting in cabling for security cameras. But initial
research suggests that there are currently two types of cabling used
for cameras at present ie coax and Cat5- with the latter sometimes
using POE (Power Over Ethernet).

Can someone enlighten me on the current trends in this area and
recommend which wiring type *I should install . Or, should I install
both types to each camera location together with power - working on
the basis that the cable itself is cheap but installing it costs a
lot. - In my case I would want to record camera footage and monitor
via selected cameras over the internet.

Vet Tech

The future is IP cameras.... and in the security industry it will be
megapixel and HD digital video recording allowing post processing zooming in
to get individual identities to an extent impossible with the resolution of
composite video cameras. POE is only available for fixed cameras, pan/tilt
cameras require local power.
The technology is not quite there yet, with network package speed and
loading being a limitation at the moment to get the detail required but H264
is appearing to predominate as the optimum compression standard. All thats
needed now is for the industry to get together and agree on the structure of
the digital data packets otherwise we are going to have the farce we have
now of different pan/tilt/zoom telemetry protocols for each manufacturer!
Waterproof cat5 connectors are available and are a must for outdoor cameras.
Wireless cameras are definitiely taking off with, as someone has already
said, security encrypted local networks much like your wireless broadband on
which I am typing this little gem...and the latest radio standard 802.11n
due to be ratified in 2009 allows significant bandwidth improvements.
However the camera will still need local power and at present IP cameras do
take more power than composite video cameras. I even had one 5 years ago
that had an integrated cooling fan from JVC.
I have been watching IP cameras for 9 years..and they still have a long way
to match composite video quality and real time images displayed at the same
size screen....... but wait 5 years..or worst case 10 years and we will be
astounded by the technology on offer.
Once the resolution is there with megapixel cameras then a raft of other
features will be developed which require this quality... ANPR now but facial
recognition is the next advance which requires the quality of the
resolution.
... and if anyone tells you HD recorders are expensive..I have one connected
to my freesat box which records in full 1080P with 2 freesat tuners for
£300.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good post BGB, and may I solicit a recommendation..

What I'm looking for is:-

a) Ability to record footage locally following motion detection.
b) Ability to monitor remotely over the internet.
c) Using three external and one internal camera.
d) All cameras to be fixed.
e) Reasonably good image quality - ie not using hardware that you get
on Ebay and the sheds.

I really dont want to wait for the industrty to agree a standard IP
but would be willing to go with something IP based now that will last
say 5 to 10 years.

What would you recommend on a budget say of around £100 to £1200?

Thanks
VT



Give rfconcepts a bell, their on the web ..
--
Tony Sayer

In message , tony sayer
writes
What would you recommend on a budget say of around £100 to £1200?

Thanks
VT



Give rfconcepts a bell, their on the web ..
Generally I'd agree, I've spent a few tens of thousands with them in the
past but the few times I've rung them this year I've had a nightmare of
a time wading through their stock system, the website telling me stuff
is available and them telling me it's not, wrong parts being sent out
and one part that was most definitely second hand. Aftersales has been
awful, forget trying to claim warranty off them. YMMV of course.

Personally, if I were a home owner looking to buy my own CCTV, I'd use
Henry's radio, forget eBay, it's almost all cheap Chinese crap.
--
Clint Sharp

In article , Clint Sharp
scribeth thus
In message , tony sayer
writes
What would you recommend on a budget say of around £100 to £1200?

Thanks
VT



Give rfconcepts a bell, their on the web ..
Generally I'd agree, I've spent a few tens of thousands with them in the
past but the few times I've rung them this year I've had a nightmare of
a time wading through their stock system, the website telling me stuff
is available and them telling me it's not, wrong parts being sent out
and one part that was most definitely second hand. Aftersales has been
awful, forget trying to claim warranty off them. YMMV of course.


Well haven't bought much but what we have tuned up quickly and Billy
there was good for answering a few questions..

Personally, if I were a home owner looking to buy my own CCTV, I'd use
Henry's radio, forget eBay, it's almost all cheap Chinese crap.

Gawd!, is that the Henrys radio of the 50's 60's and ever since that did
valves and wound RF components still going?..
--
Tony Sayer

In message , tony sayer
writes
Gawd!, is that the Henrys radio of the 50's 60's and ever since that did
valves and wound RF components still going?..


Oh yes........................

http://henrys.co.uk/cctv.htm

--
Bill

In message , tony sayer
writes
Well haven't bought much but what we have tuned up quickly and Billy
there was good for answering a few questions..
Delivery was pretty good and TBH, I still use them but their web site is
a mess and stock control is awful. Generally, the kit is pretty good but
as I say, I've had problems recently, don't know if people were on
holiday or there was some other reason...

I have a couple of local suppliers where I can go and play with the kit
if I need to so RF Concepts are only really used if I need specific
stuff I can't get elsewhere.

Personally, if I were a home owner looking to buy my own CCTV, I'd use
Henry's radio, forget eBay, it's almost all cheap Chinese crap.

Gawd!, is that the Henrys radio of the 50's 60's and ever since that did
valves and wound RF components still going?..
Oh yes. Very helpful bunch of guys as well.
--
Clint Sharp