Re: DVRs

["alarman" <alarman2000@xxxxxxxxx>]

"FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4Od3g.2295$TT.1103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Depends on ones perception of image quality I suppose.  What does the
> extra $2k get you?

The quality images you seek.

Image quality is subjective, and I'm only guessing about what you will find
satisfactory. It would help to know what you expect to see, and what you
intend to do with the video. IME, people looking for residential video
systems are trying to catch a neighbor, habitual vandal or thief, etc. Their
desire for good video to turn over to the police or DA for prosecution is
fueled by emotion, which cools once the cold reality of what you need to
do/spend to achieve your goal sets in.

Images of the quality necessary to be of use in these cases require good
quality equipment: (garbage in, garbage out)

1. An incident at night requires a special camera and good lighting to
produce a good image.

2. A common mistake is to try to see too much with one or two cameras.
Wide-angle lenses and low resolution imager chips common to inexpensive
cameras see a wide area, but not much detail.

3. Once you have the cameras sending good video, you need a good DVR to
manage it. A decent DVR will likely cost you at least $2K. Some will say
that you need to pay a lot more.

Again, maybe all you need is to see that there is someone there.
js