Re: store system w 4-8 cameras ?

[Matt Ion <soundy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, YMMV... we've sold a couple dozen VI systems now, all to very satisfied
clients (the ones that DO have issues, they tend to be either PC hardware-based
problems unrelated to the DVR components, or their virus/malware problems
because some fool decided the DVR would make a nice web-surfing machine).

We also sell and service Camacc VIGIL systems, that use essentially the same
capture hardware, and have a lot more "neat" features, but also cost twice as
much.  Don't even get me started on the Capture IDR systems at 3-4 times the
price of a VI setup...


Roland Moore wrote:
> I guess we all struggle for the lower end price point gear for certain jobs.
> Thats why I tried the Video Insight stuff originally. Usually I build one up
> with their lastest software every year to see if it has improved enough for
> us to sell. I never find it very appealing and that is disappointing because
> I am always hopeful that it will finally make it. In addition to the reasons
> you mention in your post about the Video Insight application being a
> resource hog that takes the system to its knees under load, it has an
> otherwise unrefined look and feel. The video grabber hardware lacks  its own
> processing ability so the CPU gets overloaded and frames drop (at best) or
> the system freezes up (at worst). It lacks POS integration (other than ad
> hoc), it is not really OPC and no major access control vendor interfaces
> with it. For the most part it appeals to IT guys that see it as a computer
> (project) with a Microsoft .Net interface that they understand, so they like
> it. They seem to think it does what they think a DVR should do (because
> they're not in the security business for the most part) and have nothing to
> compare it to. It is a niche market item not a real main stream unit for
> anyone in the security marketplace in my opinion. There are hundreds of
> brands of DVR units, some for the build it yourself crowd and just becuase I
> don't like some brand doesn't mean that someone else won't love it. However
> our company has spent a great deal of time and money narrowing down DVR
> units it will sell and support. For brands of gear we use now it is Verint
> (yes I know they hog big box sales like Home Depot for their own) at the
> very high end (for video analytics, access control integration and for
> support for hundreds of cameras on one system), although there are some
> development issues for Nextiva versus LVM 4.51 (not to mention the damn
> strange ways it "grooms" video - I can't get used to that), then Bosch DiBos
> 8.x for general purpose analog and/or IP cameras (for alarm system
> integration and easy IIS web interface), Intellex 4.0 (NOT 3.x anything!
> those are great boat anchors), only the Ultra not the LT, (for access
> control interface ability), and at the low end Electronics Line for POS
> integration ability, but the sales force never seems to spec those EL units
> in their bids so they don't get sold. Other than EL our company sold well
> over $500k of these DVR units (you don't have to sell too many Verint
> systems or Intellex Ultra Units to get to sales totals in the hundreds of
> thousands of dollars) alone in the past year. I wouldn't run away from an I3
> DVR (the license plate and human recognition features are great if you need
> them - but a bit bleeding edge) and I suspect you would be far happier with
> the I3 DVR brand versus one from Video Insight. If you are a high volume
> dealer and aren't afraid to pony up the 50k annual minimum you can build up
> COTS units with Verint gear (if you like the build your own thing). If
> you're into computers, like it sounds like you are from your post, Verint
> Nextiva comes with MOM, SQL 2000 (soon 2005) server and all of the other
> Microsoft stuff you might love (or love to hate). Most any of these DVR
> units I mentioned we sell, whether COTS built or factory built DVR's, have
> feature sets, stabilty and interfaces that are truly miles beyond Video
> Insight, but that's just my opinion (based on years of experience).
>
> "Matt Ion" <soundy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:8SuSg.60314$1T2.23760@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>I don't think you really want something that records direct to DVD...
>>besides needing to replace the disc regularly, you'll end up with a big
>>stack of discs very quickly, and you'll need to label and file and store
>>each one - tracking down a piece of video later can get complicated!
>>
>>Comparing "standalone" DVRs vs. PCs is really pointless... most standalone
>>units still record to hard drives, and many are simply scaled-down PCs
>>running an embedded OS of some kind.  Their only REAL advantage over PCs
>>is cost.
>>
>>Any PC can be VERY reliable, as long as you don't cheap out.  Use a
>>server-quality board and RAID-spec hard drive(s) if you're that worried
>>about it.  Be sure to provide lots of cooling, especially for the
>>drive(s).  Put the OS and software on a separate drive from the video
>>data. RAID is fine, but remember if you're using mirroring, you'll need a
>>twice the actual drive space. (I find using the smallest available drive,
>>usually 80GB these days, for a system drive, I section off one partition
>>for the OS and software, the rest for "export" space, and save any video
>>of incidents there... then if the main video drive dies, that exported
>>video isn't lost).
>>
>>Keep in mind that as your framerates go up, your data throughput capacity
>>must go up as well.  I've built 16-channel, 240fps machines, which allows
>>30fps for every two cameras, but found that even with a fairly powerful
>>computer, I've had to keep the frame sizes small (320x240) to run at full
>>speed, or the computer will have trouble keeping up, and will suffer from
>>dropped frames (it also makes the system VERY slow to respond on playback,
>>unless you stop recording first). You're probably better to run multiple
>>disks in a striped RAID to maximize available throughput; again, if you
>>don't cheap out on the drives, they'll be plenty reliable.
>>
>>Remember that full-motion TV video and film is only 30fps; the difference
>>will be barely noticeable even at 15fps, and 1-2fps per camera is usually
>>sufficient for surveillance purposes, and allows you to use higher image
>>sizes (640x480 or better) and lower compression, for better quality.
>>
>>BTW, if you really need higher quality, there are high-resolution IP
>>cameras available (up to 3MP - 640x480 is only about .3MP) that connect to
>>the DVR via ethernet rather than analog video... take a look at the demos
>>at www.camacc.com
>>
>>The DVRs I build, I use the VideoInsight system (www.videoinsight.net)
>>
>>
>>
>>- Bobb - wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks for the info so far.
>>>
>>>If I used a DVR how often to change the DVD ? Every 4/8 hrs ? Is this a
>>>"plain old DVR " like I'd get at Circuit City/Best Buy ? How to view
>>>something that you suspect just happened - " how to back up ?" and still
>>>be recording ?  Would it be one DVR per camera ?
>>>
>>>Since I posted the question, I've looked online at systems and played a
>>>bit with a webcam which generated another question:   Some of the PC
>>>systems state that they have 4 cameras, a 100-200gb drive , will record
>>>"X" fps (varies) and they'll hold a month's worth of info on the hard
>>>drive (and the samples they show look fine). I hooked up a logitech
>>>webcam on a pc and the video was so-so. In minute it was a 12mb file - if
>>>it takes 12 mb to record a fair image in a minute, how can these systems
>>>hold a month's worth of quality video from 4 cameras ??  Is it all a
>>>matter of the software that comes with the camera system ?  Here's some
>>>of the stuff I saw online - any opinions ?
>>>http://spyville.com/digital-video-recorder.html
>>>http://www.ezwatchstore.com/
>>>http://www.stardot-tech.com/express6/order_form.html
>>>RapidOS PCI Wireless Digital Surveillance Card
>>>http://www.x10.com/cameras/cameras_wired.html
>>>
>>>Thanks again for any feedback.
>>>
>>>Bobb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:oDaSg.13091$vi3.3630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>>"- Bobb -" <bobb@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>news:NIGdnXAD6oUpuoTYnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Have a friend looking to buy a convenience store and would like
>>>>>info/recommendations on a pc-based system that would have 4/6/8 ?
>>>>>cameras recording to the PC -  in case of  pettty theft/ hold up etc .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Where PC's ever really meant to be a security tool? There are inherent
>>>>reliability issues with using PC's for recording and storing large
>>>>amounts
>>>>of video.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>He asked me my opinion since I know computers , but other than the
>>>>>yellow pages/ google etc I don't know how to research this. Since he
>>>>>brought it up I realized that I didn't know anything about this and
>>>>>looking to learn.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Look at DVR's, of which there are many on the market to choose from.
>>>>They
>>>>have all the neccessary features needed for security applications,
>>>>especially if there is prosecution possiblities involved. Recordings
>>>>done on
>>>>someones PC will not usually be accepted except for some initial police
>>>>investigation.
>>>
>