DarrenRainer Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Hi all, I am trying to configure a 96 camera PC based DVR system. Does anyone know of any cards that can do this with software to support it. SO far I have looked at X-Vision and Geovision but the maximum they can go to is 32 cameras. Obviously the PC will need to be very high spec. I intend to use RAID storage and PTZ cameras also. The problem is finding a system that will allow multiple cards to be used. Any ideas Regards Darren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baywatch Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 We are running Geovision systems with up to 54 cameras, but 96 is a lot of systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrenRainer Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 Yes, it's not going to be easy I think, but I need to get this all in one PC (probably industrial rackmount PC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest paraffinlamps Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I would imagine physically trying to connect 96 bnc`s to a pc based system would be difficult .Even with a breakout box. Does it have to be PC based ,if not how about a Pelco DX 9100. Alternativley you could use 5 X 20way Fastraces connected to a 100meg switch and then use a standalone PC to view . The disadvantage is that you wouldn`t be able to see all cameras at once ,just 20 at a time .You would in effect have 5 " Sites ".Also cost may be an issue . And each Fastrace is about the same size as a rack mountPC Advantages are ,the PC could be anywhere ,you have the ability for remote monitoring via broadband etc .Each Fastrace would have 30 Alarm inputs and 20 configurable outputs . HTH Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterR Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 It would be better to use a few smaller systems or DVRs and then control them via CMS software. PC's rely on windows and windows is not the best OS when it is having to work hard (which it will with that many cameras connected) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rockford Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 It would be better to use a few smaller systems or DVRs and then control them via CMS software. PC's rely on windows and windows is not the best OS when it is having to work hard (which it will with that many cameras connected) 70292[/snapback] I agree. If you use decent network DVRs, you should be easily able to have them record to a unified location, giving the impression of being a single unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lee Tracey Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Hi all, I am trying to configure a 96 camera PC based DVR system. Does anyone know of any cards that can do this with software to support it. SO far I have looked at X-Vision and Geovision but the maximum they can go to is 32 cameras. Obviously the PC will need to be very high spec. I intend to use RAID storage and PTZ cameras also. The problem is finding a system that will allow multiple cards to be used. Any ideasRegards Darren Not a problem! I have just designed a 96 camera system for a City Centre Control room. It consists of four DVR's of 24 cameras per DVR and 6.4 terabytes of RAID 6 per DVR. It has been done this way as they wanted the DVR and storage together and then use the network to mirror the storage far away over the network. They could have taken a different route and put 48 cameras in one DVR and 48 in another and networked them together as one and put all the storage in NAS units on the network. Everybody has a different idea. I prefer the 24 camera to 6.4 terabytes ( or less if you want ) machine as it is 19 inch rack and 4U and has 16 hot swappable drives. It is a balanced match and a much neater installation. It is also easier to carry. Your critical issue is the algorithm you use to compress. Get that wrong and you will spend much more than you need. The system I designed cost the installer £72,000 for 25 images per second on all cameras at the same time with lip-sync audio on every camera at the same time and recording in DCIF resolution 538 x 384 and working in RAID 6. 25.6 terabytes. The next nearest design was £182,000 with many many more terabytes. If you are designing for an upgrade from an existing multiplexed analogue system then watch out for a trap. You may be removing about ten cassette recorders that have been multiplexed. But you are not going to multiplex you are going to connect each camera directly to your digital DVR's. There may not be enough spare BNC sockets to make all 96 connections. You may have to intercept between the multiplexers and the cameras and insert distribution amplifiers in order to obtain the extra connections. You may also have to leave the multiplers in place as they may be part of their existing PTZ control setup. If you are starting from virgin then wonderbar! Lee Tracey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mavrick_001 Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 Lee you applied for trade yet? CCTV Intruder Access Control Tony Hughes, Proprietor, TRADE MEMBER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whistle Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 lee you need to get in the trade section Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracytye Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Did you end up finding a solution? Incident Video Systems have a modular 4 channel DVR (24 will do 96 cameras). Each unit has its own hard drives in RAID configuration if required, but the modular design means that the whole system will never fail, so RAID advantages are minimal. They also provide a software package that is an Incident database for extracting important video from the modular recorders. I think the price is about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.