Convert CCTV to Digital

[[email protected]]

Hello,
I have a question about converting CCTV to a digital signal. The
current setup is four cameras that connect to a multiplexer and then to
a VCR in the store (downstairs). It is also connected to two monitors
that display the four camreas on the same screen, one in the store the
other in the office upstairs. I would like to convert this to a
digital signal and have the images go to a computer hard drive in the
upstairs office. Is is possible to take the BNC connection coming to
the monitor in the office upstairs and connect it to a DVR card and
record all foru camera outputs from the single cable? If not what
would be the options.

TIA.

Regards.

 

[alarman]

Hello,
I have a question about converting CCTV to a digital signal. The
current setup is four cameras that connect to a multiplexer and then to
a VCR in the store (downstairs). It is also connected to two monitors
that display the four camreas on the same screen, one in the store the
other in the office upstairs. I would like to convert this to a
digital signal and have the images go to a computer hard drive in the
upstairs office. Is is possible to take the BNC connection coming to
the monitor in the office upstairs and connect it to a DVR card and
record all foru camera outputs from the single cable? If not what
would be the options.

Why not replace the multiplexer and VCR with a 4-channel DVR. You will have
4 true independent channels, one for each camera.
js

 

[[email protected]]

I am open to any solution. My main points are to get the image storage
up to the office so that if the store gets broken into they don't take
the video with them and to get it to a digital signal. Currently there
is only the one BNC cable that is going up to the office so I was
hoping to avoid having to run more cable and just use the one cable
coming up to the office.

Would it be possible to have the cameras connect to some kind of
multiplexer that could send the video wirelessly up to the office and
then to a DVR card?

 

[Matt Ion]

Hello,
I have a question about converting CCTV to a digital signal. The
current setup is four cameras that connect to a multiplexer and then to
a VCR in the store (downstairs). It is also connected to two monitors
that display the four camreas on the same screen, one in the store the
other in the office upstairs. I would like to convert this to a
digital signal and have the images go to a computer hard drive in the
upstairs office. Is is possible to take the BNC connection coming to
the monitor in the office upstairs and connect it to a DVR card and
record all foru camera outputs from the single cable? If not what
would be the options.

It is possible, but what you record will be the same as you see on the
monitor - four cameras in a quad layout. You'll have 1/4 the resolution
and no way to view each camera separately. You'd be better to simply
ditch the VCR and daisy-chain the MUX outputs into a 4-channel DVR... or
even do away with the MUX altogether and use a DVR that can provide the
split-screen output.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0551-2, 12/20/2005
Tested on: 12/21/2005 10:13:09 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

 

[[email protected]]

Is there anyway to do this without having to run more cables to the
office upstairs? All the equipment is down in the store except for
second monitor.

Regards.

 

[Matt Ion]

I am open to any solution. My main points are to get the image storage
up to the office so that if the store gets broken into they don't take
the video with them and to get it to a digital signal. Currently there
is only the one BNC cable that is going up to the office so I was
hoping to avoid having to run more cable and just use the one cable
coming up to the office.

Would it be possible to have the cameras connect to some kind of
multiplexer that could send the video wirelessly up to the office and
then to a DVR card?

The problem is, a multiplexer by definition takes the separate signals
and provides a combined output, so even wirelessly, the MUX output would
be the same as with your single cable.

You could always replace the cameras with wireless versions, but that's
expensive. If you really need to put the DVR somewhere else, extending
the existing cables is your best bet. At that point, if the only thing
you're worried about is theft of the recording device, you could just
move the MUX and VCR upstairs. The other option would be to secure the
recorder in its current location... either hide it (I've seen several
places hide them inside a T-bar ceiling, which isn't great because
they're really dusty places), or lock it in a heavy-duty lock box....
something like these:
http://www.cableorganizer.com/computer-cabinets/security-lock-box.htm
http://www.2mcctv.com/index-DVRandVCRLockBox.html
http://www.123securityproducts.com/vcrlockbox.html

(or just google "vcr lock box")


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0551-2, 12/20/2005
Tested on: 12/21/2005 10:33:09 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

 

[Matt Ion]

Is there anyway to do this without having to run more cables to the
office upstairs? All the equipment is down in the store except for
second monitor.

The only way to get all four cameras *separately* to the upstairs is to
use all wireless cameras, or wireless transmitters for each camera, but
that's gonna get really expensive - see my other subsequent post.

One other possibility is to use the one existing coax running upstairs
as a fish wire to pull through a CAT-3 or CAT-5 (four twisted paid)
wire, and use four pair of video baluns to feed the video over that to
the office. (see
http://www.muxlab.com/products/ve_cctv_modular_balun.html for an
example; there are several other manufacturers of similar devices)

That's still gonna be a few bucks (the cheapest baluns run me about
CDN$38 each, wholesale, and you'll need at least six of them), but a lot
cheaper than going wireless. Fishing a new wire this way will only work
if the existing cable isn't tied down, attached to, or wrapped around
anything, but even if you have to run the new cable separately, it'll be
a lot easier to do than running three more coax feeds.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0551-2, 12/20/2005
Tested on: 12/21/2005 10:49:26 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

 

[alarman]

Is there anyway to do this without having to run more cables to the
office upstairs? All the equipment is down in the store except for
second monitor.

You have one cable going upstairs, just run 3 more. What is the problem?
js

 

[mikey]

You have one cable going upstairs, just run 3 more. What is the problem?
js

ya, really. The lad even has a pull string, sheesh

 

[[email protected]]

It's all dirty!

How about this? The cameras connect to a DVR in a computer in the
store downstairs, but the software running on the store computer saves
the mpeg files to a mapped drive on a computer upstairs connected over
CAT5 instead of locally on the drive? I have a 100Mb hub in the store
that connects to another 5 port switch upstairs. Would that work?

Regards.

 

[Matt Ion]

It's all dirty!

How about this? The cameras connect to a DVR in a computer in the
store downstairs, but the software running on the store computer saves
the mpeg files to a mapped drive on a computer upstairs connected over
CAT5 instead of locally on the drive? I have a 100Mb hub in the store
that connects to another 5 port switch upstairs. Would that work?

That would probably work, but if you already have a "spare" CAT-5 run
between the two rooms, you'd probably still be better to go with the
video balun idea: the units would cost a little more initially, but it's
a damn sight less than the cost of replacing the DVR if it gets stolen
from downstairs. Just remember you can't route the video thru your
switch


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0551-2, 12/20/2005
Tested on: 12/22/2005 12:09:06 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

 

[Bob La Londe]

The problem is, a multiplexer by definition takes the separate signals
and provides a combined output, so even wirelessly, the MUX output would
be the same as with your single cable.

Nope. A quad does that, but a true multiplexor sends single full frame
images sequentially. Some can do it based on activity. A single channel DVR
that has settings for different standard multiplexors will record it
properly. The DSR2000e by Kalatel will work with multiplexors upto 16
channels. It has some other problems, but... I don't like that particular
recorder because of other issues.


--
The Security Consultant
Bob La Londe - Owner
849 S Ave C
Yuma, Az 85364

(928)782-9765 ofc
(928)782-7873 fax

 

[Matt Ion]

Nope. A quad does that, but a true multiplexor sends single full frame
images sequentially. Some can do it based on activity. A single channel DVR
that has settings for different standard multiplexors will record it
properly. The DSR2000e by Kalatel will work with multiplexors upto 16
channels. It has some other problems, but... I don't like that particular
recorder because of other issues.

Ah yes, you are correct... but then there's also the issue of missing
frames as they switch. If the MUX outputs at 4FPS, 1FPS per camera is
the most you're going to get on the DVR, which on modern units is pretty
minimal.

Either way, it's a rather inelegant solution.



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0551-4, 12/22/2005
Tested on: 12/22/2005 8:16:03 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

 

[Bob La Londe]

Ah yes, you are correct... but then there's also the issue of missing
frames as they switch. If the MUX outputs at 4FPS, 1FPS per camera is
the most you're going to get on the DVR, which on modern units is pretty
minimal.

Either way, it's a rather inelegant solution.

Have you done it? Actually a mux outputs typically at a much higher rate
than that. Also, if the DVR is configured for the unit in question and its
a decent mux you will have the capability to coordinate recording based on
motion.

 

[Matt Ion]

Have you done it? Actually a mux outputs typically at a much higher rate
than that.

On the VCR output, yes, but then you'll get one input on the DVR
recording a fast sequence of changing images. You could record it with
a higher frame rate, but it would be a serious bitch to monitor, because
you've have no way to selectively view only one camera. It would have
to selectively show every fourth or ninth or sixteenth frame during
playback, and you would have to have it record constantly to avoid the
frames going out of sync as they would with motion-detect recording
(actually, the motion-detect function in software would probably see the
switching as motion and trigger recording constantly anyway).

DVRs are typically designed WITH multiple inputs, to record a SINGLE
source per input. IF you could find one that will selectively show only
every fourth or ninth frame on playback, it would work, but there would
be little point to such a thing, and thus little point in anyone making
one. If you know of such a device, I'd be interested to be proved
wrong, but I'd expect them to be pretty rare, and subsequently fairly
expensive for a single-input machine.

The point is, as I said, even if possible, it's far from elegant or
efficient.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0601-2, 01/05/2006
Tested on: 1/5/2006 4:16:20 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

 

[Bob La Londe]

On the VCR output, yes, but then you'll get one input on the DVR
recording a fast sequence of changing images. You could record it with
a higher frame rate, but it would be a serious bitch to monitor, because
you've have no way to selectively view only one camera. It would have
to selectively show every fourth or ninth or sixteenth frame during
playback, and you would have to have it record constantly to avoid the
frames going out of sync as they would with motion-detect recording
(actually, the motion-detect function in software would probably see the
switching as motion and trigger recording constantly anyway).

DVRs are typically designed WITH multiple inputs, to record a SINGLE
source per input. IF you could find one that will selectively show only
every fourth or ninth frame on playback, it would work, but there would
be little point to such a thing, and thus little point in anyone making
one. If you know of such a device, I'd be interested to be proved
wrong, but I'd expect them to be pretty rare, and subsequently fairly
expensive for a single-input machine.

The point is, as I said, even if possible, it's far from elegant or
efficient.

Actually when I what I was originally thinking was an application actually
sduggested by Robot many years ago. Take a Multiplexor and feed all your
cameras into it, then send it all up one cable and hook up another
multiplexor to seperate it back out. However in this case I was thinking...
multiplexer to DVR. Then use a PC if available right there to monitor it
instead of monitor plugged into the unit. There are DVRs specifically
designed to work with multiplexors including the one I mentioned.

Still one must weigh the costs as you say. What would it cost to run more
cable? Is there any cat 5 or even telco you can steel pairs off of instead?
We know that modulating the individual cameras onto TV or cable channels to
send up the coax and then demodulating at the other end would be cludgy and
expensive.

Ultimately will the labor of one solution cost more or less than the
equipment of another.