Re: DVRs

["plug" <p@xxxxxxx>]

"FDR" <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:FPp3g.2709$TT.1486@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Matt Ion" <soundy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:oRi3g.69322$7a.23446@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> 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.
>
> Yeah, I don't really have a spare PC that meets the requirements for most
> DVR cards.  The advantage of a PC based system though is the ability to
> expand or change configuration as well as setting motion controlled areas
> for recording.

most unit that allow motion detection also allow setting up or blocking off
areas for detection.