Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thoughts on a new camera

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CameraMan
    replied
    Originally posted by integrator97 View Post
    We were just talking about a job yesterday, where the customer asked us if we could punch down the 66 block. The company doing all the telephone and data cabling and jacks didn't know how. They could do the 110 block but not the 66. A 66 block is old school, but still used. It's been around since Jesus Christ was a mess cook and Moby Dick was a minnow.
    I can punch down a 66 block!

    Leave a comment:


  • integrator97
    replied
    I didn't address the blame, but Silva's right. It ultimately lies with the integrator and designer. If Pelco's techs didn't realize it on tech support calls and if they were given correct information, they deserve some of the blame too.

    But most tech support people aren't very experienced. Don't know how many times I've gotten the "I've never seen one do that........... Let me know what you find." Or the "It can't do that!" "Well it is!" conversation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chucky
    replied
    Or your client might say!!
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Silva Consultants
    replied
    Originally posted by ScottFree View Post
    That all being said, who do you think is really at fault, and who bears how much of that fault (myself included of course).
    Your situation is not that unusual when trying to integrate the products of different manufacturers. In the more than 35 years I have been in the business (I guess this makes me an old guy, too), I have had more problems with multi-manufacturer integrations than anything else. It gets even more tricky as the systems begin to age, as the manufacturers each change their respective products and no longer provide support for the original integration.

    If I had to assign blame here, it would go to the systems integrator/installer. In addition to installing the equipment, the value that they add (or are supposed to add) to the equation is the ability to sort out technical issues between each of the manufacturers that they represent. As their name implies, the integrator is suppose to "integrate".

    Many integrators want to sell the product, but when there is any type of problem, they throw up their hands and blame the manufacturers involved. They act as if they are an innocent third party caught up between the manufacturer and the customer. Technically, if the integrator sold the system to the customer, they are ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the project. I don't see how you (which appear to be the end-user) bear any of the responsibility for this problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • integrator97
    replied
    I love when they drag the old guy from the backroom. That's when you get the real answers Pretty soon I'll be the old guy, I'm almost there. And I have a couple old guys on speed dial.

    We were just talking about a job yesterday, where the customer asked us if we could punch down the 66 block. The company doing all the telephone and data cabling and jacks didn't know how. They could do the 110 block but not the 66. A 66 block is old school, but still used. It's been around since Jesus Christ was a mess cook and Moby Dick was a minnow.

    Young guys just don't know the art of the industry. Newer alarm techs use wireless if it's existing. They couldn't do a difficult wire fish to save their lives. Serial and RS232 baffles them, cause there's no IP address. They think IR is just poor english.

    Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now.

    Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?

    .
    Last edited by integrator97; 12-12-2008, 02:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • CameraMan
    replied
    I think I speak for everyone involved- Pelco, Avigilon, your integrator, and all us here keeping score at home- when I say:

    Oh, sh*t.

    That one came from the heart. Sometimes you just have that 'oh, sh*t' moment. Like the time when I had tried my best to get a PTZ to work an hour drive away, including shipping it for repair twice and replacing it twice, and then I realized that a wonky reading I had been getting on my meter meant that the power swapped with the telemetry somehow or other.

    Glad all turned out well.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScottFree
    replied
    I come ready to eat some crow for what has happened, but since im not %100 sure whos to "blame" i will just say that this is what transpired.

    As i started this post, i was new here and asked for someone with experience with Avigilon to perhaps provide any useful information.

    Since that day a nightmare of non functioning technology has descended upon me, until yesterday at 1420 when a EUREKA moment occurred.

    This is the setup i have.

    Pelco Spectra 2 and 3 cameras over bnc to IFS fiber converters into Avigilon encoders to a PELCO CM 9760 CXT Coaxitron.

    Now during this entire 3 month ordeal (the initial conversion to Avigilon was September 17th), everything worked as promised except the PTZs didnt P, T, or Z.

    Well my installer tried everything under the sun, Avigilon even swore they had shipped a 9760 to their main office, and were using the same configuration i had, and their stuff worked.

    I was being told it was everything from DIP switch settings on the coaxitron (which we were told runs PELCO D) to the parity settings between the software and the cameras.

    Now i did learn an awful lot during this situation, but it never seemed hard to me, and it seemed like, as everyone involved was saying, that it simply should work.

    Thursday at 1400 the installer and i are on the phone for the 20th or so time to PELCO tech support, and we get what sounds like an elderly gent, and we are both thinking "oh great, weve called so many times they are shipping us off to the old guy in the back room"

    the installer looks at me and says "well maybe he knows something no one else does"

    Im thinking "well at this point we are grasping at straws, so im willing to try just about anything, since this is the final attempt i am going to make at salvaging things before we scrap it and start over"

    BINGO. Elderly gent gets on the phone and says " oh, youre using one of them CXT models, you do know it has a different instruction book than the CXTA"

    The installer and i both hit the ground with our jaws and say "WHAT!!!!, everyone involved has said that the CXTA and the CXT are the same. PELCO only lists the CXTA manual on their website, and the senior PELCO rep gave that manual to everyone involved and said our coaxitron runs protocol D"

    Elderly gent says "i dont think thats the case, let me use that email thingie, and i will send you a copy of the CXT manual"

    3 minutes after we get the manual, we both realize the CXT runs protocol P, we set the dip switches accordingly, and VOILA, i have PTZ.

    I have to come here and say once it functions correctly, ( and i personally feel that avigilon is not at fault here) the software and its features are top notch.

    I can view recorded footage, export it in several formats, and make a variety of adjustments all from the interface, which is very intuitive.

    I thank anyone who bothers to read this long winded diatribe, and i really hope that anyone who considers using avigilon will contact me, so i can give them the real insight on what i feel to be a great product.

    That all being said, who do you think is really at fault, and who bears how much of that fault (myself included of course).

    Leave a comment:


  • integrator97
    replied
    Has anyone used a single processor or DVR for recording D1 or better at a decent frame rate? I've seen but not used 32 channel DVR's. I have some ViconNet software running on servers, and they recommend 24 cameras max, which we have and it's fine.

    Leave a comment:


  • CameraMan
    replied
    Did you get any of these promises in writing?

    Because it sounds like you have a lawsuit on your hands.

    Though I have to say, it sounds like you have a bad rep, a bad installer, or both. The equipment should be sound.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScottFree
    replied
    Yet more on Avigilon. After upgrading to a newer software version, having reps come out and try to sell us more stuff, tell me they will bring out an even newer and more improved software (which they didnt do), and generally acting like they were going to solve the problem, they did NOTHING!!!

    Well ok, they claimed that if we just paid for a better camera, and more software, things would magically improve to back up the original claim.

    This week i have a possible protest happening at my facility. My boss is happy since he thinks the system is going to capture some hi res photos of people. I have to tell him that the system is now randomly disconnecting cameras.

    Avigilon tech support tells me that their software was never designed to handle this many encoders but (this made me chuckle) the newest version will clear all these problems up, as well as address the "issue with parity" that is causing our PTZ's to not P, T or Z.

    All in all this appears to be a great system for a new install or a relatively few cameras, but i was assured at least 4 times that our little 48 camera system would integrate so easily that merely installing the software and hooking up the encoders would give us what their salesman promised

    Since it didnt, i want anyone who is considering this to beware of Avigilons promises

    Leave a comment:


  • ScottFree
    replied
    Update on Avigilon.

    BEWARE!!!

    I finally got the integration done, and lo and behold. After being promised by the Avigilon rep that that his software would integrate into our CCTV system, i find that he was incorrect.

    I have to start by saying that while our video quality improved dramatically, the software has crashed a half dozen times, and my PTZ,s DONT work.

    I have recieved a firmware upgrade for the encoders, but to no avail. I would be wary of any promises made, since the clear promise was that it would fully integrate with our system, and it failed to meet that promise.

    All in all it appears to be a software issue, and once addressed i think this system will stand on its own merits. For now be wary of it if you are considering it

    Leave a comment:


  • CameraMan
    replied
    Originally posted by integrator97 View Post
    CamaraMan,
    Other than losing all the hi tech gee whiz giszmos, aren't we just as well or even better off storage and cost wise to use 4 fixed cameras to watch the same area?
    Plus, the maintenance costs. If that puppy goes TU after the warranty, versus a fixed camera (and it's unlikely for all 4 or even 2 cameras to fail early).
    Just throwing some thoughts out.
    Well. If you already have megapixel cameras, you can turn some of them into dPTZ cameras by simply swapping out the lens and replacing it with a rectilinear lens for about a quarter the price of a (non megapixel) IP PTZ.

    So in a case where you would normally use a PTZ (ie you need to prove an action, you need to prove movement, or you need to 'drill down' into a picture to analyze a scene), dPTZ is a cheaper and more efficient way to go.

    Leave a comment:


  • integrator97
    replied
    CamaraMan,
    Other than losing all the hi tech gee whiz giszmos, aren't we just as well or even better off storage and cost wise to use 4 fixed cameras to watch the same area?
    Plus, the maintenance costs. If that puppy goes TU after the warranty, versus a fixed camera (and it's unlikely for all 4 or even 2 cameras to fail early).
    Just throwing some thoughts out.

    Leave a comment:


  • MetzLyov
    replied
    Hey CameraMan, excellent observations man... you are really hitting the nail in the head... great job man.

    Leave a comment:


  • CameraMan
    replied
    Wow, what a sucky, unethical, soulless, commsion-hungry rep you have.

    Here's the thing. I don't know how big of an area you are trying to cover with that 2MP camera, but I'm going to hope for the best and assume it's an indoors area with bright, constant lighting, with the camera mounted about 12-15 feet high looking at an open area (no aisles or displays or desks!) about 35 feet by 35 feet square.

    Assuming this is the case, or similiar, you may be able to get away with a 2MP camera and a 180 degree rectilinear lens (NOT FISHEYE!!!) for your dPTZ (digital PTZ- remember this term for later) camera.

    Basically, what you are trying to do is get a VERY wide picture, and then blowing up portians of the picture later, like they do on CSI. Unfortunatly, on CSI blowing up a picture actually makes the picture sharper, where in the real world blowing up a picture means a loss in detail. Therefore, you need a very sharp camera, a great lens, ideal 24 hour lighting, and wonderful storage and compression protocols. The actual software is pretty simple and your existing DVR could theoretically do it using the zoom feature (if your DVR could handle such detailed pictures without compressing the hell out of them, which it can't of course).

    Now since most CCTV or security people are unaware of the very existance of rectilinear lenses (but YOU aren't, are you, because your good buddy the CameraMan linked to the definition earlier in this rant), so most people wanting to set up a dPTZ camera actually use a fish-eye lens (or buy a camera with a fisheye lens already installed) and use fancy, sofisticated software packages such as the one I'm assuming you're looking at from Avigilon, which actually uses a bunch of very sophisticated programs working together to 1) zoom into a sector of the fisheye picture (ie the easy part) and 2) flattening it out (the hard part). This is very cool, except for the fact that it doesn't quite work the way you need it to work because, well, the picture is still distorted, and a distorted picture JUST may give a jury reasonable doubt.

    So jsut buy a rectilinear lens. The best ones are from Theia. I sell their products, so you can send me a private message for pricing.

    Now, the other thing the rep should have told you is: storage. This camera is going to eat up storage and eat it up fast, and I assume you need to store video for a goodish while because I assume you are a meduim to high risk site because otherwise you wouldn't be using so many expensive cameras and such an expensive NVR package. So. Learn about RAID arrays and buy Seagate Baracuda SV35.3 series drives by the case. Have fun, and kiss your budget goodbye.

    At this point, assuming you are still reading, you may be wondering why the hell you should get this setup- wouldn't be easier to just get a freaking PTZ and be done with it? The answer is no. Now, a rectilinear lens plus a GOOD 2 megapixel camera plus a boatload of storage is the same or even a little more than a normal PTZ plus a keyboard plus an encoder BUT dPTZ has an enourmous advantage over traditional PTZ, and that is: you never miss any of the action.

    Remember, if you point the PTZ north, and someone gets stabbed to the south, you are basically screwed (a technical legal term), but with a dPTZ setup, you are looking at EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME.

    Let me know if you have any further questions.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X