Re: DVRs

[Matt Ion <soundy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

FDR wrote:

> I'm trying to understand what someone means when they say to spend 2k to 3k
> on a system vs. 1k for better picture quality.  When I asked that someone
> pointed out fps, but the rest was about ftp, e-mail, networking, etc., which
> as far as I can see is not about picture quality, especially if I don't use
> it most of the time.
>
> I'm not trying to be disrespectful.  I sincerely want to know what the extra
> money gets you in picture quality so I can decide if it's worth it.  If it
> isn't I'd rather spend the money on cameras.

One thing I've not seen mentioned here yet, by you or any of the
responses I've read so far, is whether you're looking for a "standalone"
DVR, or a PC-based system.

A standalone will generally be less expensive *as a whole*, but if you
have a suitable spare PC (and keep in mind, you want a DEDICATE PC for
this type of system; don't be doubling it up with a game machine), you
can put a DVR card and software in it for less than the standalone unit
would cost; if you need to purchase a PC for it, that route will likely
cost more.

Ftp, email, networking etc. are not related to image quality, but
they're considerations that must be included when determining cost, as
to whether you want or need any of them.

You also didn't mention how many cameras you're looking to hook up -
standalone DVRs and DVR cards typically come in 4, 8 and 16-channel
versions, with prices increasing accordingly the more channels you want.
Framerates, capture resolution, and compression levels all affect both
image quality, and along with how much time you want to record for, how
much storage space is required... and all of those, including storage,
affect total cost.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0616-4, 04/21/2006
Tested on: 4/24/2006 10:54:53 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com