Re: DVRs

["FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"alarman" <alarman2000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ySe3g.36920$iU2.25752@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4Od3g.2295$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

I can spend $50 bucks on a cheap dvr card to see if someone is there.  What
is special about the hardware or software that you get with a $3000 unit?