CCTV home security

[ctsdave]

Evening all. Mams house has had an attempted break-in today! Burglar alarm bell box tore off house etc... Looking at CCTV for her but no idea where to start?? Ive been told from a neighbour that there is someone on here who does this stuff for a living too??

All advice welcome!! Got the house like fort knocks as much as possible but want to nail that ba5tards (through the skull if I had my way!!) Next time.

Ta in advance

Dave

[markbigears]

https://www.cctv42.co.uk

[villageidiot]

2nd https://www.cctv42.co.uk/

[SVS]

Hi Dave,

Sorry to hear about that. Are you 100% certain your mum's house is like Fort Knox?

This home security forum could be the place to find well-informed advice, because the forum's run by Calvin Beckford.

ctsdave said:

Looking at CCTV for her but no idea where to start??

Start here

Edited by SVS on Friday 21st November 10:29

[ctsdave]

Thanks for the replies guys!! Police have been today (not much use from what I was told...). Alarm being repaired today too so thats a bonus!

House may not be fort knocks svs but I have done what I can to make the house and outside space as secure as possible!!

Will look into your recommendations!!

[Spare tyre]

got flood lights?

could rig some up as a temp measure until you get time to do it properly

[SVS]

Hi again,

I'd argue that CCTV is the layer of icing on top of your security cake. You might want to add another layer of icing with Smartwater too. However, best get the main layers of cake sorted first (e.g. boundaries, doors, windows). By far the best advice I've seen from the police is the Met's Operation Bumblebee website. It's well worth spending a few minutes reading it through.

There's also an excellent booklet that you can download here

Good to do this, because burglars frequently target the same house more than once.

ctsdave said:

House may not be fort knocks svs but I have done what I can to make the house and outside space as secure as possible!!

Then I'd highly recommend this home security survey, because at the end it gives you tailored advice about anything important you may have missed.

HTH

Edited by SVS on Friday 21st November 15:54

[LordFlathead]

SVS said:

Then I'd highly recommend this home security survey, because at the end it gives you tailored advice about anything important you may have missed.

HTH

Edited by SVS on Friday 21st November 15:54

This is the best advice on here. I would guess that SVS is either a CPO or in the force.

Buying CCTV does not prevent a burglary. Especially old and out of date analogue technology as depicted on those web links - the industry has moved on, we are in a digital streaming world now for CCTV imagers, and the industry has moved away from CCD and now uses 960 pixel and above HDR CMOS high definition sensors which offers better picture and improved Infra red sensitivity..

Don't buy from a company on the basis of what someone else recommends (boys club) instead do your own research and make an informed decision and not sheep guidance.

About your close miss;

There are two types of villain; an opportunist and a pro. A pro does his homework and will set aside enough time to "do the job" and will be in and out. He is not interested in the average house, he will be working to order. That leaves you with the majority of small time crims that may be able to break a lock or two and gain access with limited experience of security devices - both intruder alarms and CCTV. These are most likely the guy/s that visited your mothers house and if they took a swipe at your outside bellbox, then there were probably two of them. A pro would not use this approach.

My advice would be:

• If it was dark or evening, fit PIR security lights.
• Talk to her neighbours and let them know what happened - they will thank you for this and look out.
• Timer lights are a great idea and there are also fake tv lights which look convincing.
• Get into the neighbourhood watch scheme if you have one. If you don't then put stickers in the window anyway..
• Speak to the CPO of the local police and ask him if he has any specific advice.
• Make sure the front of your property can be seen easily with no areas to hide from. If you have a porch make sure it is lit from a switch inside the house and keep it on during darkness.
• Keep anything that can be used as a climbing platform locked round the back - ladders, bins etc.
• Maintain the appearance of your property - keep paint looking fresh and areas clean and tidy.
• Get at least 3 quotes from reputable long-term established security companies and compare notes. They should ALL have professional industry certification, NACOSS, SSIA etc - no quals? No business!
• If on a limited budget fit high quality dummy cameras but DO NOT FIT batteries for flashing LED's no real camera has them and this tells the burglar that they are fake!
• If you are going to fit real cameras - fit dome cameras. Spiders cannot put webs on them and the villain cannot see which way the camera is pointing.

Do not discuss the intricate detail of what you propose to fit on a public forum. Nothing is more personal than your security. If you would like some FREE advice from a security ONLY MD please feel free to drop me a line. I am not trying to sell you anything but I do have over 20 years experience in the industry putting burglars off the properties I had previously fitted equipment in.

One last thing which is normally overlooked; keep a close watch on your mum, women don't like to show that they are bothered about break-ins but this could not further from the truth in my experience. A burglary to a woman is an invasion of her personal space and this will not hit her straight away. I've been called out to provide a quote before the police have turned up and have witnessed the emotional devastation.

Good luck either way.

[Henry-F]

LordFlathead said:

Buying CCTV does not prevent a burglary. Especially old and out of date analogue technology as depicted on those web links - the industry has moved on, we are in a digital streaming world now for CCTV imagers, and the industry has moved away from CCD and now uses 960 pixel and above HDR CMOS high definition sensors which offers better picture and improved Infra red sensitivity..

Don't buy from a company on the basis of what someone else recommends (boys club) instead do your own research and make an informed decision and not sheep guidance.

I agree that CCTV should be seen as part of a solution, not the only solution.

Not surprisingly what I don't agree with is your thoughts on CCTV equipment.

Where to start? Well let's discuss "HD" CCTV. Incidentally 960H is exactly the same pixel density as D1 resolution so don't let anyone kid you that it captures more detail it doesn't.

As an industry CCTV is terrible for people just jumping on bandwagons and blurting out bullet points on the assumption it makes for better quality.

We've seen the whole TVL scam. "If you can't capture sufficient detail then fit cameras with more TV Lines." Except it doesn't make any difference at all once you get over 550 - 600 TVL If you can't make something out at 550TVL you won't be able to at 750TVL either.

Now we are having people jump on high definition megapixel cameras before actually solving the underlying problem of cameras which are far too wide angle. The claims are a joke. 75 degree angle of view cameras that promised crystal clear images at 25 metres in D1 (realistically around 3 metres now boast 50 metres (realistically around 6 metres or so). But the fact is you can identify people at 40-50 metres using D1 resolution providing you use the right equipment.

With 2 megapixel CCTV systems you get 5 times the number of pixels compared to D1 resolution. That sounds great although you do need 5 times the storage capacity. The problem is it isn't 5 times better. You increase the distance something can be detected by around 1.8 times. What was detectable at 3 metres can now be detected at 5.5 metres, not 15 metres. It's to do with different aspect ratios of D1 & MP systems and the fact the pixels spread in 2 axis.

Then there is the issue of megapixel cameras tending to be less sensitive in low light. It's easier to get good images at night with an analogue camera. Throw money at the problem and anything is possible but the HD kit likely to be bought by readers of this thread will be at the lower and of the spectrum.

HD CCTV is very flattering in that it gives what appears to be a much sharper image but when you start extracting detail you realise how many gaps the human eye fills in when looking at video footage.

CCTV isn't rocket science, it's about understanding the strengths and limitations then building a system around them. You need a good cohesive range of cameras with no gaps in the available lenses. Most HD cameras on the market are far too wide angle and so they dilute any potential advantage over a good D1 resolution system.

We don't think HD is quite there yet in our segment of the market. We remain to be convinced that the transmission methods being used are going to last and see much of the kit currently sold going the same way as Betamax. There are some interesting solutions coming and we are looking at systems which can handle everything from D1 to HD so there is no need to chuck everything away but it isn't there yet.

I hope that any recommendations we enjoy on here are based on the sound advice we offer when people call us to discuss their specific needs rather than "Boys club" or "sheep guidance". Recommendation is a powerful tool in the decision process and so I wouldn't dismiss it quite as flippantly as you. I would advise people read up on the topic before jumping in feet first.

On the subject of reading material this bit we put on the site recently in response to the news articles covering Hacked CCTV might be of interest. https://www.cctv42.co.uk/hacked-cctv-systems-what-...

Hope that is of some use.

Henry

[okie592]

Where are you located op? Couple of the boys at my work ( fire/ Secuity / cctv ) do outside jobs and can provide network cameras you can acsess from yohr phone, and can take snapshots when your intruder alarm is triggered or when movement is detected.

[LordFlathead]

Henry-F said:

I agree that CCTV should be seen as part of a solution, not the only solution.

Not surprisingly what I don't agree with is your thoughts on CCTV equipment.

I don't care whether you agree or not. Your products are out of date and I disagree with your statements as we shall see.

Henry-F said:

Where to start? Well let's discuss "HD" CCTV. Incidentally 960H is exactly the same pixel density as D1 resolution so don't let anyone kid you that it captures more detail it doesn't.

It has a wider field of view therefore it is more akin to how our eyes take in vision. That is the reason that 16:9 came into the market place to replace 4:3. Ask 200 million widescreen adopters.

Henry-F said:

As an industry CCTV is terrible for people just jumping on bandwagons and blurting out bullet points on the assumption it makes for better quality.

Pages of rubbish take longer to read...

Henry-F said:

We've seen the whole TVL scam. "If you can't capture sufficient detail then fit cameras with more TV Lines." Except it doesn't make any difference at all once you get over 550 - 600 TVL If you can't make something out at 550TVL you won't be able to at 750TVL either.

Absolute rubbish. The higher the image resolution, the more the image can be magnified without pixelation. Ask anyone that uses ANY digital camera. What on earth do you think the Police labs do with footage, or have you never interfaced with them?

If you want detail it is down to the lense. The two different types of CCTV (which you clearly have no concept of) are observation and surveillance; observation provides a wide-angled field of view whereas surveillance provides close up facial recognition quality shots. In the past you would have to use lots more cameras to cover the same area. Now thanks to high resolution widescreen format you do not.

Henry-F said:

Now we are having people jump on high definition megapixel cameras before actually solving the underlying problem of cameras which are far too wide angle. The claims are a joke. 75 degree angle of view cameras that promised crystal clear images at 25 metres in D1 (realistically around 3 metres now boast 50 metres (realistically around 6 metres or so). But the fact is you can identify people at 40-50 metres using D1 resolution providing you use the right equipment.

See my comment about the entire industry moving away from 4:3. Companies that have already jumped on the bandwagon are JVC, Panasonic, Serage, and SONY to name but a few; obviously they were wrong to do that. 4:3 was last generation. Why are you still arguing that your out-dated products are what everyone should buy? I responded to your post because it was wholly inaccurate and misleading and the buying public has a right to know.

You can identify people at ANY distance if you use the right lens. You get to see MORE with a wider field of view - even you must understand that? You have not cited a source for your speculation, please provide links to this propaganda you continue to spout.

Henry-F said:

With 2 megapixel CCTV systems you get 5 times the number of pixels compared to D1 resolution. That sounds great although you do need 5 times the storage capacity.

No you don't - where did you get "5 times" from Henry? Did you pick it out of that magical hat again?! Not with digital streaming technology which you clearly haven't even heard of yet. The digital cameras use a digital stream over standard RG59 which is received and processed at the DVR. Consequently, the compression algorithm (still uses H.264) can make better use (performance and storage) by compressing the stream rather than dealing with the RAW video signal (1 volt peak to peak that is analogue). Storage size goes up like fashion! Do you still use desktop computers with 80GB hard drives? Most decent (as in not cheap and nasty Chinese DVR's that come with "Chinglish" manuals) can take 12TB / three 4TB drives. They are relatively inexpensive these days (£110 each) so what exactly is your point? These DVR's can record 25 FPS per camera upto 400 frames per second or 16 cameras. Next you will be spouting rubbish about frame rates and how this is not needed

Henry-F said:

The problem is it isn't 5 times better. You increase the distance something can be detected by around 1.8 times. What was detectable at 3 metres can now be detected at 5.5 metres, not 15 metres. It's to do with different aspect ratios of D1 & MP systems and the fact the pixels spread in 2 axis.

It most certainly is NOT 5 times better - again another opinion from you which shows you do not understand the first thing about the products in the market place. It is not linear, but it is a notable improvement in quality and in security quality provides better images which identifies bad guys better. Can't make it any simpler than that!

Henry-F said:

Then there is the issue of megapixel cameras tending to be less sensitive in low light. It's easier to get good images at night with an analogue camera. Throw money at the problem and anything is possible but the HD kit likely to be bought by readers of this thread will be at the lower and of the spectrum.

Now you are digging at perspective customers Henry.. has the OP approached you with a budget; does he want 16 cameras and 3 months storage capacity, or does he want one camera? Digital DVR's are as little as £140 with a hard drive. Cameras are £75. Do PH readers get put into boxes about what their investment value is for CCTV? Did you get that from the OP's profile? Shocking really, you need to add some customer service skills to that training / product placement that is clearly already required.

Henry-F said:

HD CCTV is very flattering in that it gives what appears to be a much sharper image but when you start extracting detail you realise how many gaps the human eye fills in when looking at video footage.

What the hell are you waffling on about now? HD CCTV is very flattering? Is this your best interpretation of saying that the image is clearer and the picture is better? Good heavens - what ever next?! The human eye fills the gaps Are you sure you are in the right trade; you could be selling double glazing with statements like that.

Henry-F said:

CCTV isn't rocket science, it's about understanding the strengths and limitations then building a system around them. You need a good cohesive range of cameras with no gaps in the available lenses(1). Most HD cameras on the market are far too wide angle and so they dilute any potential advantage over a good D1 resolution system (2).

Absolute tripe! Where to start with that one..

1. No gaps in the available lenses? The camera is specified according to the area it needs to look at. You use a lense calculator Have you even heard of one? You should be using one for EVERY camera calculation; or do you just tell your customers they need all 6mm lenses because they will do?

2.Most HD cameras are too wide? They are widescreen or letterbox as the broadcasting industry and entire home cinema market place has been for the last ten years - at least!

Henry-F said:

We don't think HD is quite there yet in our segment of the market. We remain to be convinced that the transmission methods being used are going to last and see much of the kit currently sold going the same way as Betamax.

We? YOU. You've not got ANY stock of HD-SDi cameras have you Henry. You've clearly never tried them because once you had that would be all you would sell. As for Betamax, well I used to repair VCR's for a living (in-flight entertainment on aircraft) back in the day, and I can tell you that Betamax was FAR SUPERIOR to VHS - more lines of resolution but doubt if you can see the advantage in that.

Instead you give a load of old twaddle about an industry you clearly know nothing about in the hope of selling some old out of date products.

Henry-F said:

There are some interesting solutions coming and we are looking at systems which can handle everything from D1 to HD so there is no need to chuck everything away but it isn't there yet.

Yes it is here. It's been here for well over 2 years. Just shows how out of touch you with the market considering you are supposed to me an "industry expert"

Henry-F said:

I hope that any recommendations we enjoy on here are based on the sound advice we offer when people call us to discuss their specific needs rather than "Boys club" or "sheep guidance". Recommendation is a powerful tool in the decision process and so I wouldn't dismiss it quite as flippantly as you. I would advise people read up on the topic before jumping in feet first.

Reading up on the new products is the ONLY good advice you have given in this post. Shocking PR Henry - if you came clean and said from the start that you are evaluating the change in the market place, this would have been better than dismissing the technology that has revolutionised the CCTV industry. Instead now people will go and do their own research which will lead them away from you as an "industry professional".

Henry-F said:

On the subject of reading material this bit we put on the site recently in response to the news articles covering Hacked CCTV might be of interest. https://www.cctv42.co.uk/hacked-cctv-systems-what-...

Hope that is of some use.

Henry

Henry; with all respect. Go back to selling second hand cars and stop spouting rubbish about an industry you have not long been in. It is offensive to those of us that have actually been in the industry professionally.



For anyone else that is still interested:

Here is a comparison between D1 and HD-SDi (at 1080P)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSTbIsidEAE

Here is a widescreen time-lapsed video produced with a 2MP digital imager (2MP? Good heavens we don't need that do we Henry!).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa_zptOAAdY

Here is a 720P widescreen video. I picked this because it shows the detail of the night vision which is pin sharp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuZEt_ZKb-s

One thing: The Infra Red has a longer range in these new generation CMOS sensors like for like. A traditional CCD camera would require twice the lighting to produce the same night vision distance. The video above shows how smooth the picture is with no pixelation which is typically associated with CCD cameras.

Finally, sorry to those of you that asked for some advice - it was not my intention to snowball the thread, but as as long as there is inaccurate information being supplied then I will chime in.

I have NO affiliation with ANY of those companies in the links, they were the first ones I found when I searched for HD-SDi on you tube.

[Foppo]

You know what you are talking about good read and advice.

[eliot]

Without wishing to pour petrol on the fire Henry - but when I asked Matt about HD-SDi he was instantly dismissive and said it wouldn't work with my cabling, Telling me I had to use "fiddly crimp on RG59's" - Perhaps he didn't realise i'm over 40 years old and came from an era when Ethernet networks were built with "fiddly" crimp on rg58's and I understand the benefits of good quality copper cabling.

Edited by eliot on Saturday 22 November 11:29

[Henry-F]

eliot said:

Without wishing to pour petrol on the fire Henry - but when I asked Matt about HD-SDi he was instantly dismissive and said it wouldn't work with my cabling, Telling me I had to use "fiddly crimp on RG59's" - Perhaps he didn't realise i'm over 40 years old and came from an era when Ethernet networks were built with "fiddly" crimp on rg58's and I understand the benefits of good quality copper cabling.

Our hesitation over HD-SDI has been transmission limitations. It requires very good cabling and potentially repeaters in the cable run depending on distance. For self installation we don't think it is a final solution particularly when there is technology becoming available which will use CAT5 cable & video baluns. It will mean existing systems don't have to be completely re-wired.

The DVR recorders will be hybrid and capable of supporting everything from D1 to HD meaning once again that you don't have to start from scratch with your system, you can keep your existing cameras and upgrade as appropriate.

When we introduce HD to our product line up we want it to be long lasting and are hoping not to have to swap technology too regularly.

Henry

[LordFlathead]

Henry-F said:

eliot said:

Without wishing to pour petrol on the fire Henry - but when I asked Matt about HD-SDi he was instantly dismissive and said it wouldn't work with my cabling, Telling me I had to use "fiddly crimp on RG59's" - Perhaps he didn't realise i'm over 40 years old and came from an era when Ethernet networks were built with "fiddly" crimp on rg58's and I understand the benefits of good quality copper cabling.

Our hesitation over HD-SDI has been transmission limitations. It requires very good cabling and potentially repeaters in the cable run depending on distance. For self installation we don't think it is a final solution particularly when there is technology becoming available which will use CAT5 cable & video baluns. It will mean existing systems don't have to be completely re-wired.

The DVR recorders will be hybrid and capable of supporting everything from D1 to HD meaning once again that you don't have to start from scratch with your system, you can keep your existing cameras and upgrade as appropriate.

When we introduce HD to our product line up we want it to be long lasting and are hoping not to have to swap technology too regularly.

Henry

Let's talk about cabling.. the industry uses RG59 and is typically crimped with a 3 part crimp kit. This consists of a thin gold plated centre signal pin, the connector body, and the ground ferrell. The ONLY alternative to this is screw on crimps which made their debut when the Chinese invaded the DIY industry.

Crimp Technology

ALL CCTV professionals (every one I have worked with in 20 years) use a crimp kit which slices the cable to the correct lengths - there are typically 3 cuts which are done automatically by the cutting tool. It does outer sheath and foil, braid and inner dielectric insulator - all in one go. Once the cables have been cut to the correct lengths (as defined by the tool), inner signal conductor is crimped with a dedicated crimp tool which is in the kit. It is inserted into the body and pushed fully home. The outer sheath is now crimped down with the ferrell to make an excellent ground connection.

• RG59 which is standard CCTV coax is perfect for HD-SDi installs of 100metres per leg WITHOUT amplification.
• When retrofitting HD-SDI to existing systems, all decent engineers make off the ends again and bell them out.
• As long as these simple steps are followed, the picture will be perfect - it is a plug and play technology.

Henry, if you cannot crimp a connector and you think they are "fiddly" you are in the wrong trade - seriously!

Twist on BNC Connector

These have a very course thread that bites into the insulation to hold the connector onto the cable sheath. It is known to work loose where there are no cable supports at the camera and DVR end. This is a DIY connector NOT a professional connector.

They DO NOT use a gold plated centre connector - instead they just rely on the signal core projecting into the BNC socket at the equipment end. In my humble opinion, they are NOT suitable for professional installs.

Ballons over CAT5e

Ballons are signal connectors that allow Video to be transmitted over longer distance using CAT5e. They can transmit over 1000 meters and provide reliable data transfer. They were not intended for use with runs less than 200 meters in poor signal or high interference areas. There are dedicated video correction modules for cabling issues but a ballon is simply not necessary using HD-SDi if the distance of cable is 100 meters or less as long as cri8mp connectors are used and fitted properly.

Here is a video showing HD-SDi over standard RG59 coax and details the issues - none!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqY2j-ePXq4


Here is a video explaining the plusses of HD over old analogue. It also compares IP cameras (which was recommended further up in this thread). They have moved on massively and offer strong advantages over outdated analogue. They are modular but do not offer the total high quality that HD-SDi offers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HB7SNyMaq8

I am NOT a fan of hybrid DVR's as you are paying for two different technologies in one case. Make the cables off properly and it is not needed unless you fit nasty Chinese cables from ebay or course

Hybrid DVR ins and outs here..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvCFVFz4Az0

[Henry-F]

960H is exactly the same pixel density as D1 resolution so don't let anyone kid you that it captures more detail it doesn't.

LordFlathead said:

It has a wider field of view therefore it is more akin to how our eyes take in vision. That is the reason that 16:9 came into the market place to replace 4:3. Ask 200 million widescreen adopters.

Immersing yourself in a good film is very different to getting a picture of the person who nicked your BMW.



We've seen the whole TVL scam.

LordFlathead said:

Absolute rubbish. The higher the image resolution, the more the image can be magnified without pixelation. Ask anyone that uses ANY digital camera. What on earth do you think the Police labs do with footage, or have you never interfaced with them?

You can't realistically zoom in on D1 resolution images for additional detail. They pixelate immediately. The 720x576 pixels of D1 are the limiting factor. Changing from a 650TVL camera to a 750TVL one won't give you any more detail to zoom in on. I won't even begin to discuss the problem of moving goal posts when it comes to deciding how those TVL are counted, how low lux figures are measured and so on. In the world of CCTV there are no universal datum points.

A digital camera is fundamentally different. The 20 million pixels on my Canon DSLR provide huge scope for zooming in before pixelation occurs.

The best result so far with our CCTV systems is 3 life sentences to serve a minimum 17 years.

LordFlathead said:

If you want detail it is down to the lense. The two different types of CCTV (which you clearly have no concept of) are observation and surveillance; observation provides a wide-angled field of view whereas surveillance provides close up facial recognition quality shots. In the past you would have to use lots more cameras to cover the same area. Now thanks to high resolution widescreen format you do not.

A little patronising but I shall rise above it and respond. 95% of our customers want to identify people. Very few are interested in observational CCTV. A few want general overview cameras and we advise accordingly. We are all about the lens. It's our mantra. We champion variofocal over fixed lens and have cameras made to our specification to ensure there are no gaps in what's available for a given camera type.

One of my constant gripes with HD CCTV is the lack of availability of anything other than wide angle cameras.


Now we are having people jump on high definition megapixel cameras before actually solving the underlying problem of cameras which are far too wide angle. The claims are a joke. 75 degree angle of view cameras that promised crystal clear images at 25 metres in D1 (realistically around 3 metres now boast 50 metres (realistically around 6 metres or so).

LordFlathead said:

See my comment about the entire industry moving away from 4:3. Companies that have already jumped on the bandwagon are JVC, Panasonic, Serage, and SONY to name but a few; obviously they were wrong to do that. 4:3 was last generation. Why are you still arguing that your out-dated products are what everyone should buy? I responded to your post because it was wholly inaccurate and misleading and the buying public has a right to know.

HD isn't used to change the aspect ratio, it's used to generate more detail. The wider image is a by-product.

Lots of development work has been and will continue to be carried out. We work directly with manufacturers so are able to keep abreast of new developments. We are waiting for the right technology to come which provides a good long term solution rather than sell new technology only to discontinue it quite quickly when something better comes along. Our customer base generally doesn't want to pay the new adopter premium.



With 2 megapixel CCTV systems you get 5 times the number of pixels compared to D1 resolution. That sounds great although you do need 5 times the storage capacity.

LordFlathead said:

No you don't - where did you get "5 times" from Henry? Did you pick it out of that magical hat again?!

D1 is 720x576 pixels. Sometimes 706x576 pixels. Slightly over 400,000 pixels.

1080P or 2.0MP cameras (there's clue in there if you look closely) are 1920x1080 pixels. Slightly over 2 million pixels or 5 times that of D1.

LordFlathead said:

Not with digital streaming technology which you clearly haven't even heard of yet. The digital cameras use a digital stream over standard RG59 which is received and processed at the DVR. Consequently, the compression algorithm (still uses H.264) can make better use (performance and storage) by compressing the stream rather than dealing with the RAW video signal (1 volt peak to peak that is analogue). Storage size goes up like fashion! Do you still use desktop computers with 80GB hard drives? Most decent (as in not cheap and nasty Chinese DVR's that come with "Chinglish" manuals) can take 12TB / three 4TB drives. They are relatively inexpensive these days (£110 each) so what exactly is your point?

Again a tad patronising but I shall try to decipher what you have written.

Both D1 and HD systems use the same h.264 compression codec to reduce demand on hard drive space. A given 2.0MP image will need 5 times more storage space than a given D1 image.

LordFlathead said:

These DVR's can record 25 FPS per camera upto 400 frames per second or 16 cameras. Next you will be spouting rubbish about frame rates and how this is not needed

No, for the vast majority of CCTV systems I don't think 25 frames per second are needed. All you are trying to do is get a still image from which you can identify someone. You aren't making a Hollywood film. If it is a toss up between 21 days rolling footage and 6 frames per second or 5 days rolling footage and 24 frames per second I would take the former. There is no point in wasting capacity.


The problem is it isn't 5 times better.

LordFlathead said:

It most certainly is NOT 5 times better - again another opinion from you which shows you do not understand the first thing about the products in the market place.

The people selling 2.0MP HD CCTV are telling people is is 5 times better not me. I'm saying it isn't.

LordFlathead said:

Now you are digging at perspective customers Henry.. has the OP approached you with a budget; does he want 16 cameras and 3 months storage capacity, or does he want one camera? Digital DVR's are as little as £140 with a hard drive. Cameras are £75. Do PH readers get put into boxes about what their investment value is for CCTV? Did you get that from the OP's profile? Shocking really, you need to add some customer service skills to that training / product placement that is clearly already required.

We don't judge anyone and hopefully anyone who has approached us for advice will agree we take the time to assess their needs very thoroughly indeed. I can't speak for other suppliers but many customers tell us we are the only people they have approached who do this. Most just seem to knock out whatever they happen to have in stock that month.

When you say cameras are available for £75 would that be the high quality vari-focal camera offered in several cohesive lens ranges to accommodate all the customers needs or would that be a cheap and nasty fixed lens camera?

On the one hand you champion correct lens choice but in the next breath you fall into the industry standard trap of using cheap fixed lens cameras which are usually far too wide angle and so waste pixels.


HD CCTV is very flattering in that it gives what appears to be a much sharper image but when you start extracting detail you realise how many gaps the human eye fills in when looking at video footage.

LordFlathead said:

What the hell are you waffling on about now? HD CCTV is very flattering? Is this your best interpretation of saying that the image is clearer and the picture is better? Good heavens - what ever next?! The human eye fills the gaps Are you sure you are in the right trade; you could be selling double glazing with statements like that.

HD CCTV captures more detail, I don't deny that, but not to the extent people think. The human eye does fill in a lot of gaps so if you aren't careful you think you're capturing more detail than you actually are and that is the point I was trying to make. It comes back to the fact that wide angle cameras suffer pixel spread very quickly as you move away from the lens and 2.0MP CCTV doesn't extend the distance at which detail is captured by 5 times.


CCTV isn't rocket science, it's about understanding the strengths and limitations then building a system around them. You need a good cohesive range of cameras with no gaps in the available lenses(1). Most HD cameras on the market are far too wide angle and so they dilute any potential advantage over a good D1 resolution system (2).

LordFlathead said:

Absolute tripe! Where to start with that one..

You can't just say "I've got a 10 metre wide entrance to cover 30 metres from the camera so give me a camera wide angle enough to cover the gap". You need to first determine the level of detail required and work back from there.

If you don't understand the strengths and weaknesses you can't begin to solve the customers requirements

LordFlathead said:

1. No gaps in the available lenses? The camera is specified according to the area it needs to look at. You use a lense calculator Have you even heard of one? You should be using one for EVERY camera calculation; or do you just tell your customers they need all 6mm lenses because they will do?

Once again a lesser man might think your tone patronising but I shall press on regardless. As said previously we are the champions of the vari-focal zoom lens camera because it allows the user to balance area covered with detail captured and ensure no pixels are wasted. For this to work you need cameras available from wide angle to telephoto with no gaps in what's available. This tends not to be the case, particularly with affordable outdoor HD CCTV.

LordFlathead said:

2.Most HD cameras are too wide? They are widescreen or letterbox as the broadcasting industry and entire home cinema market place has been for the last ten years - at least!

Widescreen is very different from wide angle. It's the latter which I'm talking about and most people use cameras which are far too wide angle. They suffer pixel spread and fail to capture detail at the required distance.


We don't think HD is quite there yet in our segment of the market. We remain to be convinced that the transmission methods being used are going to last and see much of the kit currently sold going the same way as Betamax.

LordFlathead said:

We? YOU. You've not got ANY stock of HD-SDi cameras have you Henry. You've clearly never tried them because once you had that would be all you would sell.

No, we, and I say we because we are a company, don't sell HD-SDI but we have evaluated it. For us the problem is in the transmission limitations compared to standard CCTV. HD-SDI was always going to be a stop gap in our opinion. We are now looking at HD technology which doesn't suffer the same transmission limitations and Hybrid DVRs which will accommodate D1 through to HD. This will provide a lasting solution which doesn't necessitate throwing out your current system, instead you can retain it and upgrade as appropriate.

In a typical CCTV system not every camera needs to be HD. This will allow the most appropriate solution for a given problem. D1 resolution CCTV will always have a place in the market and even now there are very few times when we can't provide a good solid solution to the needs of our customers.

LordFlathead said:

As for Betamax, well I used to repair VCR's for a living (in-flight entertainment on aircraft) back in the day, and I can tell you that Betamax was FAR SUPERIOR to VHS - more lines of resolution but doubt if you can see the advantage in that.

History is not as kind to Betamax as you. I too used to use Betamax to make videos in the mid 1980's but I don't mourn it's demise.

LordFlathead said:

Henry; with all respect. Go back to selling second hand cars and stop spouting rubbish about an industry you have not long been in. It is offensive to those of us that have actually been in the industry professionally.

I have been involved in CCTV for 6 years now. Not a lifetime but in those 6 years I'm happy that we as a company have influenced the industry. The industry has acknowledged us with an award.

I came in to the world of CCTV as a dissatisfied customer. I saw industry wide lies which in the motor trade would result in people going to prison. Those lies are still being told to this day and underhand techniques are still used to sell product.

I don't claim to be the oracle of all things CCTV but I hope my reasoning is sound and our customers well educated. We spend a lot of time offering free advice and our website is complimented on a daily basis for providing information. We know our target audience well and cater for their needs.

The footage used in your examples was too wide angle for D1 and we would not have specified the particular cameras for those locations.

Henry

[Henry-F]

LordFlathead said:

Henry, if you cannot crimp a connector and you think they are "fiddly" you are in the wrong trade - seriously!

I am more than capable of making a crimp connector. I have no idea why you would think I can't.

We favour using CAT5 cable and video baluns (they are baluns not ballons), for a number of reasons not least of which being our belief that you are future proofing yourself. The hardest part of an install is the cable run.

We have always felt that HD-SDI over coax was a temporary solution to make use of existing coax cable wiring. Once CAT5 cables have been run you have a number of different options available now and in the future.

CAT5 cable combined with Video baluns is extremely versatile and passive (non powered) baluns can be used for distances of up to 300 metres which suffices for 99.9% of our customers.

Henry

[LordFlathead]

We will have to agree to differ Henry. I cannot agree with 90% of what you say as you talk utter rubbish. I've laid my case out with video that is freely available from the net. It is factual and from established sources that have been in the industry a lot longer than 6 years. In that time you have only lived through minor changes. When I started we had Vidicron tube cameras and time-lapse VCR's. We had multplexers, telemetry and pan and tilt technologies. I've received training from the Home Office, SSAIB, Napco, Thurle, SONY Broadcast and Professional, Hewlett Packard, Cisco, Dennard, Sanyo and Panasonic over the years. What are your qualifications for this business you run Henry? Care to enlighten us?

Now thanks to the nasty cheap Chinese rubbish that is on the market, you can get four analogue cameras, a recorder as a complete kit for around £100. Would I trust this to capture mission critical images for my customers? NO WAY.

I guess you need to decide where your market is. Mine is not primarily based on equipment; it is the ability to offer the best advice from products I have used and would put my name to. I would not put my name to anything Chinese for this industry. I don't advertise either, my reputation keeps bringing me leads in because I'm established on my reputation.

The bottom line is:

• You still choose to sell old school technology which is not scaleable and offers no future-proof solution - it's dead technology.

• The quality of the picture is not comparable to old analogue as the video clips show - still you flog the dead horse.

• You dismiss the current accepted technology as no good when the entire world says its better in every way.

• You have talked a lot of rubbish when questioned and still continue to do so regarding lenses and angles. I have not mentioned varifocal - it is a tool for the job but not every job. We have been using them before your car business was started in Uxbridge.

• Clearly we approach the industry in different ways. I listen very carefully to what a perspective client requires, and will offer them only the best advice which is made up from researching the technology available to do the job at that time. If we disagree and they want cheap nasty stuff then I will walk away and not put my name to it. After all the customer is relying on you to give them "best advice".

• Your inexperience shows, by accounts from a third party, one of your team does not know which connector to use - in an industry that is based on making good connections as its daily objective, I really cannot scream from the roof tops enough that you are not doing what every other professional CCTV company does - using the correct tool for the job.

Yet still you go on...

How can you offer best advice when you do not install the current technology? Really it is that simple yet you fail to grasp that concept either.

Keep plugging on with your company spin, and hopefully most people on here will be able to work it out for themselves. I have been giving free security advice to people on here WAY before you started this little money spinner. And I will continue to offer free and accurate advice to the PH community.

Think what you are saying before typing away as the internet is full of information that everyone can check. You are wasted in this industry, with spin like that you should be a politician!

"I'm oot"

[DSLiverpool]

OP you don't need to know all this stuff, Samsung do a 4 camera system with all cables and a 30 day recorder and smartphone access for £300 it will do most domestic applications - get it from Argos

[dingg]

forget all of the above

get a dog (preferably a big fker)