pc cctv

SB118 said:
No, it isn't. Trust me on this. A 420line picture run on good RG59 cable is still a 420line picture.

Resolution isnt the only factor in picture quality you know, 4:3 ntsc is only 480 lines and there is a big difference between coax and s-video.
 
Oblivious said:
You ever fitted a CCTV system?

You still haven't answered this one ;) We're talking about fitting a CCTV system, using CCTV componants. Do you have experience of this kit?
 
SB118 said:
You still haven't answered this one ;) We're talking about fitting a CCTV system, using CCTV componants. Do you have experience of this kit?

Like I said, a vcr is almost the same output, my school use coax in the library and it looks awfull, there is no definition, you can hardly make people out, in the hall however with the same cameras, they use s-video and it looks much better.
 
Energize said:
No like I said, a vcr is almost the same output.

No it isn't. All my systems are digitally recorded. You go to great lengths to suggest all the wonderful cables you can use to ensure good signal, then you want to record it into an crabby analogue vcr?
 
SB118 said:
No it isn't. All my systems are digitally recorded. You go to great lengths to suggest all the wonderful cables you can use to ensure good signal, then you want to record it into an crabby analogue vcr?

My point is if you connect a vcr by coax and scart you notice a big difference. At school they record both pictures in digital but the s-video one is better, since the cctv cameras output is analogue and low res though it doesnt make a difference between recording formats.
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
My point is if you connect a vcr by coax and scart you notice a big difference.

Ahah, i think i see where the confusion is here. Think you're confusing RG59 coax with the RF coax you'd run an aerial signal with. What cable would you use to connect the camera to the scart socket? Coax. Or a composite signal? Coax. The signal type is the same.
 
http://img439.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ocuk24bw.jpg

Night shot, its pitch black we have no street lighting here and these are the cheap swann cameras, so for the money there quite good. Going to get two pan tilt and zoom cameras later this year.

Camera 2 is a wireless camera.


Spinal2k2 you can also view this setup anywhere in the world just enter the ip and password and can watch your home.
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
A coax cable combines all the signals down 1 wire wheras others split the signal giving a better quality picture.

Which is obviously why Sky, NTL and Telewest use.......oh look, coax. :rolleyes:

Lord save us from the mighty wisdom of schoolkids.
 
Von Luck said:
Which is obviously why Sky, NTL and Telewest use.......oh look, coax. :rolleyes:

Lord save us from the mighty wisdom of schoolkids.

Because the signal going down the coax cable in those services isnt uncompressed analogue video its compressed digital... :rolleyes:

Which means it takes up 10x less bandwidth and chroma/luma data doesnt need to be cut out of the signal. However if you connect your tv to the box using coax the picture quality suffers because the box would be outputting analogue video through the cable.
 
Last edited:
Bear in mind that unless you plaster your property with "CCTV in operation" signs, nothing you capture will be admissable in court. I learnt this the hard way. :mad:
 
It's getting late and i'm gettnig bored of repeating myself. In the real world RG59 coax cable is used for CCTV installations because it's the best thing for the job.

You don't get (or at least i've never seen) a camera with anything more than a BNC connection (ok, you get an RCA connection on the cheapo CMOS based cameras, but the signal type is the same). It doesn't matter if it plugs into a BNC, an RCA, a scart socket, the signal is the same.

Energise, i understand that you have a wealth of technical knowledge on the subject, but real world installations are done to a standard, not a theory.
 
emailiscrap said:
Bear in mind that unless you plaster your property with "CCTV in operation" signs, nothing you capture will be admissable in court. I learnt this the hard way. :mad:

It seems to vary for police force to police force. I've recently handed over footage (megabytage?) of a bunch of scrotes vandalising an area. The camera was on the back of a shop, with no warning signs in view. The police were quite happy to use the video evidence.

I've also heard of some viewing it as once a person comits a crime they forego the right to be warned their actions may be monitored. Or something like that, it's late!
 
I have footage of local scrotes vandalising my car. Contacted the police (Met) wh asked me if I had signage warning of CCTV. When I said I didn't, they told me that they didn't even want to see it as it would get them nowhere. I was fuming, as even if they couldn't be prosecuted, if the police could identify then culprits, they could at the very least let the parents know that they were aware and watching.
 
Wow that has to the dumbest rule I have heard in a long time. What is the reason for having to display signs?
 
SB118 said:
The cameras only have a BNC output. How can you split that down into multiple channels? :confused:

Get a better camera.

SB118 said:
You don't get (or at least i've never seen) a camera with anything more than a BNC connection (ok, you get an RCA connection on the cheapo CMOS based cameras, but the signal type is the same). It doesn't matter if it plugs into a BNC, an RCA, a scart socket, the signal is the same.

Energise, i understand that you have a wealth of technical knowledge on the subject, but real world installations are done to a standard, not a theory.

You can get digital cameras that have better than coaxial outputs like I said, I was trying to make a suggestion to the op so he wouldnt have video like the screenshots posted earlier, so he could actually make out the people on the video, Ive seen crimewatch and the cctv most places use is crap, you can barely make peoples faces out its a wonder they catch anyone, bad cctv is as bad as not having it at all, if you cant get a clear picture theres not much point in having it and a digital camcorder is a cheap way to get a great, sharp picture at a decent resolution.
 
Last edited:
However, the problem with digital cameras is that they're generally much more expensive, more nickable, not designed for 24/7 operation, and probably need attention (i.e. switching on) after a power cut etc…
 
Back
Top Bottom