Boost Camera Signal?

[pburns02]

I'm going to be doing a job where the camera's will be wired. The power is ran through the coax that provides the video. The place where I buy the supplies says that the camera's can only be 300 some odd feet away from the DVR.The problem I'm running into is, is there a way that I can boost the signal so I can only run 1 coax cable to the camera without having multiple DVR's on one floor. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

[SIW Editor]

an idea

I can't quite picture what you're trying to do, but I've seen these guys' products at tradeshows and heard good things about them -- they provide active transceivers & receivers for sending video at very long distances. I think it converts the signal so it can be run on Cat2 or Cat3 wiring, but again, you'd need someone a bit more technical than me to answer that one.

http://www.nvt.com/

BTW, welcome to the forums.

Geoff
SecurityInfoWatch.com

[pburns02]

I think this is kind of what I'm looking for. Thanks. I'll have to call them and ask them some more questions. Thanks a lot!

[CameraMan]

I'm not really sure what you mean when you say you're running the power through the coax- do you mean you're running siamese, with RG59 and 18/2?

In any case, I think you mean you want to get really long distances and you only want to run a single cable. You can run a CAT5 to a camera and use baluns from NVT. If you're going less than 750 ft, you can use a passive balun called the NV 214A-M. If you want to go more than that, you need an active (powered) balun, like the NV-653T, which can supposedly run a mile and a half.

What you do is, you run a 4 pair CAT5. You use a single pair for video (I like to use blue pair), two pairs for power (orange for positive, brown for negative- NVT says you can run power in the same jacket without interferance) and green pair, if neccesary, for telemetry.

If NVT is a little pricey for you, you can also use baluns from Arm Electronics, but be advised, you get what you pay for, you know what I mean? These baluns are prone to interferance, especially from fluorescent lights.

[pburns02]

Yes I want to only run one cable for each camera. The company wants to be able to view the cameras via Internet. So they have to be networked some how. Would it be easier and more cost efficient to just install IP camera's or would it be better to use CCTV camera's and have them networked through a DVR? There will be about 130 camera's on 13 different floors. Let me know thanks.

[CameraMan]

It depends on your budget. IP cameras are typically a lot more expensive than analog cameras. Then you have your server, your POE switches, your routers... that's not even considering your storage issues, which is going to run through the roof, and fast.

Why use IP cameras at all, then? Simple- infrastructure. There is no need to home-run IP cameras (assuming all parts of the building are on the same network). You simply have to run a single CAT5 to the nearest switch or hub, and put all your cameras in an area on a new switch. Basically, you need a single cable for a bus line, and then you can use a switch as an expander- theoreticly you could have an infinate number of cameras (you can't, of course, but you can get a whole lot of cameras). The problems are bandwith and storage.

The nice thing about IP cameras as opposed to analog cameras is that you don't need a DVR to digitize the image because it's already digitized, but the DVR is also a storage medium. Without the DVR, you need to add lots and lots of storage somewhere in the network, and have all the data from the cameras redirect there. That means having a server (which simply means in this context a computer dedicated to nothing but viewing and controlling and storing the data from the cameras) with lots of storage. A megapixel camera in a high traffic area could give you 6GB a day of data! That adds up, quickly.

Now, assuming you solve the data storage problem (either by having a "network-centric" solution, ie getting a whole big ginormous bunch of external hard drives connected to your server, or using an "edge-of-network" solution, ie an NVR, which might be more familiar with because it looks and acts like a DVR basically, except it's very limited in how much storage space you can cram into it) you have to worry about bandwith. To oversimplify, the data is the water, and the cables/switches/servers is the plumbing system, and the bandwith is the amount of water (data) that gets pumped down the plumbing system (wires etc.) every second. Overload the system and you have ruined carpets and mold everywhere. You have to make sure the infrastructure can handle the amount of date the cameras are going to be pumping out every second, quite apart from all the other data coming down the pipes (ie the data from your customer's day-to-day operations).

You might find it simpler and cheaper to buy multiple DVRs.

[MetzLyov]

I think this is kind of what I'm looking for. Thanks. I'll have to call them and ask them some more questions. Thanks a lot!

What is your average cable runs? Dependent on distance, you can use combination of "passive" and "active" video baluns..

NVT offer great solutions and they probably are the most expensive... there are many choices from other manufacturers, i.e. VU, American Fibertek and few others that offer great components and very reasonable price... You best bet is to determine your cable runs and then mix both passive and active balun solutions to minimize your costs...

As for running power next to video or even data using CAT5E cable, it should work just fine, except... the pair in CAT5E designated for power should not be stretched more than 100' - it encounters major voltage drop above this distance. Either you can designate separate power source per camers the camera, or my suggestion is to run separate 18/2 cable for transferring necessary power for such cameras.

As CamerMan said, IP solution is great, but it is the most expensive option considering costs associated not only for the IP cameras, but also for NVR with it software... Storage is and always will be major issue and more importantly, the bandwidth... The conventional camera equipment with DVRs will be less expensive and still deliver the goods...

If you need any recommendations on the brand and models, please let us know... I am sure we all will have our say and provide best options that are avail...

[integrator97]

Actually, and I don't remember the name, but I have run into some cameras that have the power run up the coax. Becomes a real pain when you go to repair it after someone else installed at, at a gate, hundreds of feet from the house, and all they ran was coax.

I have a facility with 130 or so cameras on 11 floors (actually a 5 story, a 4 story, and 2 single story bldg a 1/4 mile away). All analog with DVR's. Some fiber involved between bldgs for lightning and distance reasons.

Bear in mind, it is generally less expensive to use coax and 18/2 to each camera than cat 5 and baluns, unless you're going huge distances. Now, running multiple cameras from point a to point b, you can use a multichannel balun on each end and 4 cameras on a cat 5. Several hundred feet, and that can pay off. Also, if you have plenum rated ceilings, it only takes two or three hundred feet to pay off, as especially if you have long runs of multiple cameras.

I doubt in a single building (except skyscrapers) you will have the "distance" need for cat 5 and baluns.

[pburns02]

The multi channel device. Does that basically work like a switch would in the networking world? Sorry I'm new to the whole camera thing and am learning. Thanks

[integrator97]

The multi channel device. Does that basically work like a switch would in the networking world? Sorry I'm new to the whole camera thing and am learning. Thanks

No. A balun converts the unbalanced signal of coax to a balanced signal on twisted pair, then back again on the other end. So on a cat 5 cable, you have 4 pairs, which are your 4 channels. Balun's come in singles, 4, 8 & 16 channel units. They are typically passive devices, though for longer distances they can be active, meaning powered.

Also, you can get many cameras, with built in baluns as an option, though it's not my preference.

[pburns02]

Is there such things that act just like a switch in the Camera world? Could I run several camera's to one "switch" then to a DVR? Or does everything have to be ran to several centeral locations?

[integrator97]

Is there such things that act just like a switch in the Camera world? Could I run several camera's to one "switch" then to a DVR? Or does everything have to be ran to several centeral locations?

While their are switchers and multiplxers, they are old technology. Their are things like fiber, where you can put up to 16 cameras on a single fiber, but this is quite costly. What I would do it run all your cameras to a telecom room or something on each floor. Their you would have your DVR and power supply. The DVR is connected to the network their. Even it's own dedicated network.