Home surveillance build thread (part 1)

[SPDguns]

There are typically 2 kinds of people, application users, those who want to turn it on, click a couple of predefined panels with default config settings, and watch it run from that point. They want set it and forget it, they don't want to learn the intricacies of a new OS, and all of the underlying infrastructure. These comprise the majority of people.

Then there are the folks that like to build and play, they don't mind messing with the system, setting it up using commands, getting down in the weeds to make it work. Most people aren't in this category.

Don't confuse learning as the issue here, it's more of a desire. I'm sure most could learn how to make it work, but many don't want to. They have other things that are more important to them.

I understand how it all works, and could invest the time to do it from scratch, but I don't want to, my time is more valuable than that. I would prefer to be an application user on this one. Doesn't mean I don't have the ability to learn...

Not true. There are THREE kinds of people- Those who can count and those who cant.

 

[NightShade]

Just a side note on this. . . while IP cams "can" be hacked. If you run a system with two NIC's and set all your camera's on a separate network from the rest of the computers it gets a lot harder to even begin to mess with. Set a static IP for each cam and the computer's secondary card, the camera's would not have access to the internet but the computer would. If you only want the camera's to record and be accessible from in the place of use then there is no need to even hook up to the internet at all unless you are going to run updates or something of that nature.

You could use the same router and switches and have the router set to DHCP and manually set static for everything you want to be able to interface with the camera's. More than one network can exist on the same cables if you want to do a little work with it. Leave DHCP on for the everyday just hook up go and Static IP for everything else.

Even an old windows 95 computer is secure if it doesn't have a connection to the outside world or someone other than you sitting in front of it unless they come up with a way to hijack a computer wirelessly that does not have wireless capabilities.

 

[JB Books]

I agree with this. That said I have 4 fake cameras mounted outside. $7 each on amazon and they look very real. I hope this is a deterrent as I imagine it to be.

That explains why you have not complained about me and the Fat Boys dancing nude in your yard.....or maybe you enjoy the show.

 

[1krr]

I like to hear the rest of the install.
But what resolution do you have?
I'd be interested in 1080i/p camera capability.

Otherwise, If you just want some basic video security, (i.e. 420-720 Tvl):
Just go to Amazon and search for Zmodo camera systems. Cameras, wires, DVR, $200-300, one box has it all. and it's ready for install.


I'm interested.
Please continue.

I've got a couple 1280x720 (an ACTi cameras) and the rest are 680x480 (cheaper foscams). Cameras can be a rabbit hole on price with guys spending 1k+ for upper end Axis and other IP cameras. The nice thing about IP cameras is that they run like any other device on your network. Some of my foscams are running over my wireless network which is something you can't do with the dedicated DVR cameras which require you to pull cable to all the locations you are using them. The cameras are cheaper but require that DVR and they tend to be limited on integration capabilty (this many not be a problem for many though). On my system, my CCTV is integrated with my home automation and DVR so I can send alerts to TVs, other computers, etc but this does require a little more seat time than a basic install.

For this, I'm focusing on a Ubuntu based install of Zoneminder running a cheap foscam pan/tilt camera which gives some cool functionality and is also directly expandible. Ubuntu server really is very easy to install so I was hoping to challange some of you guys to take a crack at it. It's not so much a time/value proposition as when scaled out to larger installs, it really does offer a compelling alternative to equally capable commercial systems. But also wanted to help families who don't have a ton of extra cash have a very powerful CCTV system to help them protect their homes. I see some of my geeky brotheren (sisteren?) jumping into the thread which is awesome.

 

[rhodesbe]

Camera companies often overstate the importance of resolution at the expense of low-light performance, Gain noise (fuzzy images at night), and a huge spike in bandwidth/storage needed at night.
It is much more effective to improve ambient/white lighting, better position the camera (hang it lower) than to spend huge on a multimegapixel camera that just wastes money.

"Pixels per foot' is the key metric to focus on, or how many pixels occupy your target Field of View. Even a cheapo 640X480 of 1CIF camera can be effective if mounted in the right spot.

In summary: more pixels doesn't alway mean 'better'.

 

[-Pjackso]

"Pixels per foot' is the key metric to focus on, or how many pixels occupy your target Field of View. Even a cheapo 640X480 of 1CIF camera can be effective if mounted in the right spot.

Good point - I agree.

So if your camera is at your front door (i.e. who's at the front door?) - the other person has to be close to the door (and camera) - and you typically get good video pictures.
On the other hand...
If your camera is for the driveway parking area - the "pixels per field of view" drops significantly - and a high rez camera is needed for crisp license plates or a good image of the intruders.


Another point to consider is camera technology. Cheaper cameras usually are CMOS sensor technology, and better cameras use CCD sensors.
In my experience, the CCD cameras have a significant advantage in low-light applications - with much better nighttime picture.

 

[Okey-Dokey]

Tagged for later.