Security Cameras - A Newbie's Observations

DotNetDog

Active Member
OK, I'm doing the pre-wire planning for a new home that I'll build soon and I am currently researching cameras in order to decide where to run wires. During my research I have formed a few observations that I would like to run by you guys for your thoughts/opinions.

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a security/camera guy. I am a humble computer programmer that enjoys being a DIYer. I claim little to no knowledge about security cameras. I need help! :(

So I've noticed that there are some good things, some bad things, some right ways and some wrong ways. However, I LOT of what I read here on over at the CCTVForum site seems to fall in one of several "religious wars". These are:
* IP Camera -vs- Analog Camera
* Dedicated DVR -vs- PC based DVR
* A few expensive, high quality cameras -vs- lots of cheap cameras


IP -vs- Analog
The arguments against IP cameras seems to be mostly the cost. However, it seems that IP cameras are now competitive in price so this argument seems mute. The difference to me really seems to be about how you want to use the video stream from the camera. IP cameras have different considerations than analog cameras. This is merely a matter of preference. For the record, I have no preference here.


Dedicated DVR -vs- PC DVR
OK, here I definitely do have a preference. I feel that a PC-based DVR will offer far more capabilities that a pre-defined dedicated DVR. My preference may be based partly on the fact that I'm a programmer; although, I really don't want to spend my free time programming at home. I've been doing this for nearly 30 years...I like doing other things in the evenings...there's beer, billiards, beer....did I mention beer?


Expensive -vs- Cheap
Now this religious war is somewhat interesting. I realize that over at the CCTVForum site most of the knowledgeable people are professionals who prefer higher-end solutions. That's fine, but I also wanted to hear from the DIYers...so I researched here, too.

You can buy a few expensive cameras and hope that you capture the perfect angle to identify any intruder. Alternatively, you can buy lots (10 to 12, or more) cheap cameras in hopes of increasing your chance of capturing an intruders face.

I struggle on this one. No idea which way I'll go. I supposed I should run wire everywhere that I might want a camera and just add cameras in a phased approach.


OK, so what are your thoughts? Did I get this right or am I off in another world?
 
IP cameras are the way of the future, so run Cat6 everywhere. You can still use baluns to pipe an analog signal over them, so might as well future-proof it as much as possible.

Other than that, I think everything currently sucks. The cameras out there now are:
- cheap and sucky
- expensive and sucky
- really expensive and good

My standards are probably different than other people's. But, here's the way I look at it... If I can go buy a 7 or 8 megapixel Nikon point and shoot that does 1.3 megapixel video at 30fps WITH built in Wifi for $160 at Costco (probably less now), then why can't I buy a 1.3 megapixel wifi/wired IP camera with no viewfinder, no autofocus, no zoom, and no microphone on it for the same or less money? These companies are cranking this stuff out for way less money than they are selling them for. Prices are coming down, but not very fast.

There's always this:
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/p...IMX27_IP_CAMERA

It's $2k. But it's a reference platform. Anyone can manufacture the thing. I suspect that some company out of china will eventually be turning these things out fairly cheaply. I saw a demo of this thing, and it's how a camera *should* work.

As far as DVR's go, I'm running ZoneMinder on a linux box. It works, but my Lumenera 3MP camera hammers the crap out of the CPU when doing motion detection with it. I guess that's what 40Mbit/sec of video stream will do. I'd rather have a hardware/standalone DVR, but ZoneMinder was free and I had the box laying around. The problem with the standalone units is that they are not very upgradeable, except for maybe the drive in them. Once the manufacturer discontinues the hardware, they will usually stop providing updated software for it (if the unit is even upgradeable), so you have to buy a whole new box to get new features.

Ideally, all of my cameras would have *decent* motion detection built in, and then just be able to record to a network share somewhere. Then I wouldn't need some beefy box to do the motion detection. And for the display, I could just make a stupid simple web page with my video streams embedded in a table. The motion detection in my cameras is crap, and I'm limited to FTP for recording video to a server on motion detection, which has caused weird problems with the end of the video not making it up, or corruption.

Personally, I'm probably going to wait on buying anymore cameras until something cheap and not too sucky comes out.
 
Expensive -vs- Cheap
Now this religious war is somewhat interesting. I realize that over at the CCTVForum site most of the knowledgeable people are professionals who prefer higher-end solutions. That's fine, but I also wanted to hear from the DIYers...so I researched here, too.

You can buy a few expensive cameras and hope that you capture the perfect angle to identify any intruder. Alternatively, you can buy lots (10 to 12, or more) cheap cameras in hopes of increasing your chance of capturing an intruders face.

I struggle on this one. No idea which way I'll go. I supposed I should run wire everywhere that I might want a camera and just add cameras in a phased approach.
Well it really is going to depend on the goals of the system. If it is just to see someone walking around the property or house, then cheap cameras will work. On the other hand, if the purpose is to identify a person or car (license plate, etc), then you are into a whole different realm. You have to have good enough resolution in all lighting conditions to make a positive identification. This requires some very good equipment which ups the cost tremendously.
 
...
Personally, I'm probably going to wait on buying anymore cameras until something cheap and not too sucky comes out.

That might just be a good plan. I suspect that I'll wire for the "possible" future but I will install a few low-end cameras until some decent mid-price cameras become available.


...
Well it really is going to depend on the goals of the system. If it is just to see someone walking around the property or house, then cheap cameras will work. On the other hand, if the purpose is to identify a person or car (license plate, etc), then you are into a whole different realm. You have to have good enough resolution in all lighting conditions to make a positive identification. This requires some very good equipment which ups the cost tremendously.

I've heard that statistically, most home robberies occur in the afternoon. While I would like to find a decent night view camera under $300, but I'm not hopeful. However, I do think that the low-end cameras can do an OK job in the daytime. I supposed I'll find out soon enough. :(
 
I'm running ZM too and found it to be a learning experience have started with it a few years back (currently on 3rd revision of PC). I had to do a commercial project and at the time compared the Windows security capture applications versus the Linux based (whether HW or combo) and found that the MS Windows where kind of kludgy and not impressive.

Another issue I had with the commerical endeavor is that the client wanted video and PTZ. The misunderstood perception was that the client thought he could use PTZ after the fact. IE: Like checking out a license plate using PTZ after a recording was made. I explained that theoritically you could get a motion detecting hi-res camera that could move and focus to a field of motion or that he could get a high res camera that by default would provide a high resolution picture.

Over the years have played with various cameras. I have noticed that the first IP low cost cameras (100-300) sacrificed optics for electronics. An example is the Panasonic PTZ IP camera. On the low end it works decently but the optics are poor. If you move up to their high stuff you will notice that you can get good optics and decent networking but the cost is significantly higher.

One of the novel approaches to said matter was what Axis did. They too provided a low end cheap plastic lens IP camera that actually wasn't too bad but not nearly as nice as their higher end camera. This could be said for many MFGs now. On same topic though Axis created a single small web based digitizer which could be adjacent to the camera of your choice. Again though the costs start to climb.

We live in a small 100 house community and last year a group of three teens decided to "pickpocket" a number of vehicles left in the driveway with their doors unlocked. After a few thefts (and nights) they decided also to start breaking windows in vehicles. During the night and typically my outdoor security cameras never catch anything but maybe a coyote or a car driving thru our court. This time after review I did get a decent set of videos. One video showed two of the teens scoping out the neighbors one outside vehicle but didn't catch the theft. In my driveway one teen decided to check out the one car in the driveway and the same teen triggered the motion sensors, lights and video security. Its kind of funny but he looked up when all of the lights went on and actually without knowing it looked straight into the camera, thus providing a nice picture that was handed over to the local authorities investigating the thefts. Basically when all of the outdoor lights went on the teen left the area (I have the video). I believe for that night what deterred the teens some was having all the lights go on. Taking it a step further woud be noise (day or night) but you would have to be considerate of your neighbors. Another thing at night that would work would be to put discretely placed spot lights which would turn your property into daylight.

So based on the first post -

* IP Camera -vs- Analog Camera - You can get a decent optics analogue camera right now for the price of a so so IP camera and digitize the video yourself like with ZM or an external IP digitizer. (costs goes up though). As the technology is changing every day and getting better whatever you buy today will be cheaper tomorrow.
* Dedicated DVR -vs- PC based DVR - Today's dedicated DVR's are mostly Linux HW digital recorders. There are some old analogue DVR's still but you are typically paying for a digital based recorder with may HW features and options. So when you look at a PC based DVR you are kind of looking at the big brother to a dedicated HW DVR with less bells and whistles on it. Typically a PC based DVR will be dedicated to the job of video security. I have a friend who decided he could use his office PC (dual core, fast CPU, lots of memory, big HD) as a dual function XP based security PC and his regular PC. I told him that that wouldn't work too well but he insisted. My ZM PC is dedicated to only running ZM. My HA server is dedicated to only doing HA. Other folks run multiple applications on their HA box unrelated directly to HA and it works fine. And yes today with the speeds and storage you "can" multitask but my preference for security is not to multitask. On the other hand with a commercial national endeavor of providing an all in one solution for card access systems I did test a number of the available card access systems on one box running VMWare and created separate "etitities" of three different commerically available card access applications and all worked fine on one box. Each of these applications were able to communicate using IP directly to controllers 2000 miles away or locally whether they were IP based or IP/serial based. The most difficult part of being able to have the VMWare session talk to the HW connected to the box.
* A few expensive, high quality cameras -vs- lots of cheap cameras - To me cameras are the easiest variable to play with. The transport is basic still being purely analogue and now digitized to purely digitize and self contained. Today though you can run Cat5-6 cable and provide both power and picture with an analogue camera with baluns or use same said CAT5-6 cable to provide a POE network connection. If you run coaxial cable with power (simese) you will still most likely digitize the video unless you go with a purely legacy style analogue recorder. If you want you can split the signal to provide a digital copy and a live analogue copy or a mix. So maybe start cheap and move up in cost as you learn.
 
....... I've noticed that there are some good things, some bad things, some right ways and some wrong ways. However, I LOT of what I read here on over at the CCTVForum site seems to fall in one of several "religious wars". These are:
* IP Camera -vs- Analog Camera
* Dedicated DVR -vs- PC based DVR
* A few expensive, high quality cameras -vs- lots of cheap cameras

You've figured out the concerns... and of course I bet you've already realized that the best solution may be to "just give peace a chance".

I started with cameras simply because I can't see my driveway from inside my home. I just picked up a wired cheapie IR camera from a big box store... and so it began. I built a system of mixed assorted cameras. I have wired, wireless, IR, IP, domed, hidden... a little of everything. It would be simpler to operate.. if all were the same. But I don't think any one camera or camera type could make the setup better.

Cameras are very easy to defeat! I don't care what the resolution of your camera.... if an intruder pulls his hat down over his sunglasses and flips up a hoodie.. you can't ID them. It will generally take a bold drug crazed intruder... or a hidden camera to get that "as seen on TV" bad-guy-video. But if you hide your cameras... they won't deter the criminal. So add the hidden camera -vs- seen camera to the this or that debate. So I say... mix and match. I keep a big chunky IR camera that anyone looking around would surely spot and another that isn't so hard ether. The rest you really have to look for.

My cameras also watch each other. That means my cameras are in view of my other cameras. Tampering with a camera... will be done on camera. Looking away from the camera... will mean looking towards... another camera.

Buy yourself a camera.... any camera. Use it to test and learn from... move it around. You'll be surprised how much you'll learn.
 
Since you haven't started building yet, you have the luxury of waiting a year (or so) to buy the cameras.

Over wire now - cable is cheap. Think of all the locations where a camera may be located.

I'd go IP, if I was buying cameras a year from now.

Here's my disclaimer - I don't own any cameras, but I've been researching them quite a bit.

Oh, and I like beer too. :rockon:

Edit - and like Dave said, you probably will play with cameras for a while, and buy piecemeal, so it won't be a few years until you're done, when prices have dropped more.
 
petec - Excellent post. (where's that Thanks button?)


Dave X10 - Great advice. In fact, I had already considered "hiding" a few cameras for the very reason you stated. Thanks.

Neurorad - I battle insomnia and last night was "one of those nights". On the up side, I spent lots of time thinking about all this stuff. I came to pretty much the same conslusion as you suggested. I'll wire for everywhere that I might one day want a camera and simply begine with 2 or 3. We'll see where it goes from there.


Another question guys, the WAF concern... How you cover the wired drops on the exterior of the house for maximum WAF? (see, told you I'm a newbie at this)
 
My 2 cents worth as one who installs for a living.

Run Cat6 or Cat5e anywhere you could possibly imagine having a camera during construction. If you go with IP cameras you are set and if you go with analog you just use baluns.

I have never liked pc based systems, mostly because of Windows and it's constant crashing. My guess is that these days with Linux and better versions of Windows it may be better. If you are a programmer you may like what you can do with the pc based versions better. I like walking on to a job, rack mounting the stand alone dvr, connecting the cameras and network and then remotely doing the setup and monitoring. At that point I can walk away and very rarely do I need to do any call backs for problems. Most of my clients are commercial and they want something that just does it's job and requires little of their attention.

As for cameras, IP cameras are great but still cost prohibitive for the vast majority of users. As for analog cameras I agree with others that they should cost a lot less for a quality camera, but the fact is they don't. It may be a trite, old saying but it's true with cameras, you get what you pay for. There are a lot of cameras in the $200 and under category that are cheaply built so they give poor video, they don't hold up over time and are just plain disappointing to people. I feel that it is better to spend a little (or a lot) more and get quality.
 
I put in single gang box in, everywhere I was going to put a camera on the exterior of the house. This gave me a place to put the wire before the camera went up, and a nice way to mount the camera, without having to penetrate the exterior. I would highly suggest doing this in a new install, rather than just have wires popping out here and there.

I personally went with analog cameras when I did my house, however, I am in the process of swapping out our analog camera system at work with an IP system, so I will share some of the things I have learned.

There are good quality IP cameras out there, the aren't too much more than a good analog camera. An example is the Acti 4201, which can be had for about $240. It is a megapixel IP camera, so the image quality is amazing...way better than the analog cameras that we currently have. I can clearly read small text in the pictures.

Most IP cameras still have a ways to go with low-light capture. While you can get a good low-light IP cam, this will definately cost you more than an analog one. Having said that, most analog cams that you see for low-light use infrared illumination, which just sucks in an outdoor setting. Bugs are attracted to the infrared, it reflects off of rain and fog, etc.

Here is a night time shot from an Arecont AV3100 DN, without any type of illumination:

http://www.cctvforum.com/files/1__139.jpg

Same camera in the day time:

http://www.cctvforum.com/files/4__404.jpg

Now, that is a $650 camera, which is very expensive in my book (although a lot of megapixel cameras are over $1k)


Here is a night shot from an ACM-1231, which goes for about $475 (it is also outdoor rated, so you would not need a housing with it) This IP camera does have built in infrared illumination:

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg286/T...n/FrontActi.jpg


Here is a day time shot from the Acti ACM-4200 that I mentioned above (same as the 4201, but without PoE):

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/7711/acti2.jpg


I would highly recommend going with megapixel IP cams, unless you have some areas that you want to record at night, than do not have ANY ambient light. I would also pick your low light cams carefully. Acti makes some very good megapixel cameras for the price, and they give you a copy of their NVR software for free with any camera that you purchase. The software is pretty great for a bundled product, and should do everything you need for a home system.

As for running it on windows, as with most things, if you have the machine dedicated to a single task, and don't screw around with it, it shoudl be very stable.

Long story short; wire everywhere you think you want a camera now. Install single gang boxes in those locations (and leave plenty of wire slack in the box). Keep researching cameras so that you can make an informed decision when it comes time to purchase.
 
When I wired my home in 2007, I wasn't sure what I needed, so I ran CAT-5e and siamese cables to six locations. As it turns out, I went IP with POE, so only needed the CAT cabling. However, if I was to it today, I'd make sure to run the CAT and 18x4 cable for alarm output and other I/O.

If you're looking to be able to prosecute individuals from what you capture, you'll need very expensive cameras and luck. Luck that the intruder looks the at the camera and the lighting, etc. is right. I'm attaching a few examples of snapshots from my IP cameras taken today. Each camera can detect motion and email photos. The garage photo is me leaving from work about 8am this morning. It's taken with a Panasonic BB-HCM403A camera, and costs @ $300. Max res is 640x480. As you can see, you couldn't positively identify me from the picture. The rest of the pictures are the pool guy servicing the pool today about 10am. These are much better cameras, IQEye 711 1.3MP, and cost $800 or higher depending on lens. I will be upgrading the lenses on these at some point that should give clearer pictures. You would still have a tough time getting positive ID if you didn't know the person. That said, I like having the cameras as a deterrent and as a way to check on my home when I'm not there.
Garage.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Equipment.jpg
    Equipment.jpg
    134.3 KB · Views: 139
  • Pool_1.jpg
    Pool_1.jpg
    149.8 KB · Views: 129
  • Pool_2.jpg
    Pool_2.jpg
    150.5 KB · Views: 96
I was able to run cabling for the exterior cameras without being too invasive in my already built home. I have one located in my 2nd story roof eave and ran the cable into the attic. Using Cat5 makes it a simpler task. Currently some of my cams have tamper sensors so thinking about it you could run two sets of CAT5 cable for camera. You could use the second set for PTZ on an analogue camera or "other" features on your cameras.

I have a friend that is just completing a home and we set up for future security cams by running cat 5 to exterior boxes either mounted in brick or wood siding. I did the same in FL with new construction.

In the 80's-90's played with wireless cameras (900 Mhz, 2.4Ghz, 5Ghz and 802.XX). My last "experiment" was mounting an 802.11 wireless camera about 100 feet from the house in my yard shed. It wasn't really a wireless camera but rather an analogue camera plugged into a terminal server running windows 98 with a wireless card on it (kind of more expensive way to do video security though). This methodology still worked and provided a "cleaner" picture than just plain wireless cams. I still advocate a real wire connection though versus a wireless solution. You still have to have a means of providing power to the wireless camera though....but I guess you could build a solar powered wireless camera...get directional with a small yagi antenna etc....

KevinL, whats the logo on the rug/mat next to your car in the garage...I've seen it somewhere....
 
In the midwest I used metal - smallest one I could fine. In Florida I ran the cabling to known location in the attic- interior walls but didn't use any gang boxes for outside stuff. I should have though because I ended using a toner to find some cables there about a month ago and it took longer than I wanted it to.

In the midwest the older gang boxes (5 years) that were already mounted to the outside were not rusted. Plastic would work fine. It would be beneficial though that you put some sort of cover plate on them before you installed cameras.

Thanks KevinL - wife is a banker (35 years)
 
Back
Top