Guest spirochete Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Hi All, Not so much a question as a comment on such systems......which some might (?) find helpful...... I recently had the chance to evaluate /try a wireless camera system-( & not exactly a cheap one either!) and found that you can rapidly run into a problem if the premises has a wireless basestation (i.e for PCs), hanging on the broadband or intranet connection. The first thing I noted is that the receiver is limited to a maximum of 3 cameras - why? ( clue here in hind-sight !). The 2.4Ghz band (from a wireless router perspective) is divided up into 12 channels, of which selection is usually automatic but can easily be 'forced'. With all 3 cameras up and running I soon noticed that the PC's wireless internet connection had 'died', - obviously an interference problem.....turn cameras off.......back came the internet. Not a problem I thought, reset the wireless router to another channel.....but no, (& this is why you can only have 3 cameras on a system), each camera uses 4 channels to operate- turn on 3 and thats all 12 channels gone ( and your router!). So........ it would appear that if the house / premises has a wireless router in operation in the vicinity AND considering wireless CCTV, 2 cameras is the maximum you're going to be able to use ( i.e. leaving the remaining 4 channels for use by the router). Thought it might be worth flagging this up as so many premises are going to the wireless internet solution..........and God knows what'll happen if there is any other type of kit on the 2.4Gig band! Again, really looks like hardwired is the best / most reliable solution. (Unless you know better?) Regards, Spiro'
Guest Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Again, really looks like hardwired is the best / most reliable solution. I have been (along with many other members) saying for a looooooooooooooooong time that wireless is ****. (Unless you know better?) I do know better as well. Hardwired really doesn't look like the best / most reliable solution. It IS the best / most reliable solution Regards,Spiro' Regards.. B)
Guest Rockford Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 As I've said before on this forum, wireless cams interfere with wireless networks because they're "baseband", ie, They consume the entire 2.4GHz spectrum. Unlike wireless networks, of which twelve can fit in the spectrum (broadband as opposed to baseband). Anyone who doesn't know this should stay away for fear of interfearing with wireless networks. I agree with anyone else who has said previously: stay away from wireless unless absolutely required. It is potentially insecure, suffers from and generates 2.4GHz interfearance and can easily be intercepted. Its just not good enough a technology to carry analogue video. End of.
Guest Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 ... Its just not good enough a technology to carry analogue video. End of. nor digital. obviously.
ian.cant Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 It is good to know they do that to wireless routers, nothing to stop us fitting them as wireless network jammers and if we hide them well we can make a killing repairing the knackered wireless kit hehehe! Funnily enough im fitting one next week (vizbox k2.4 i think its called) and there really is no choice to use cable. Hell im nailing this one for a large sum of money with all the warnings that it wont always work etc and they still wanted it. best not say where just yet though incase i wreck some networks.
Guest frosted Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 if you ip all the cameras and then run them over a deicdated wireless network? would that not work well ?
Guest Rockford Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 if you ip all the cameras and then run them over a deicdated wireless network? would that not work well ? Probably, but we're not talking about IP cameras, sunshine... These are "real" cameras. The key word here is baseband. Nothing at all to do with IEEE802.11
Guest frosted Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 Probably, but we're not talking about IP cameras, sunshine... These are "real" cameras. The key word here is baseband. Nothing at all to do with IEEE802.11 um yes ok im a sunshine was just a comment chucked in there. and these "real" cameras can be run over ip and over wireless using converters. not new.... and i know its not baseband. but since the chappy wants to run it only for a short disance i was thinking not a bad idea using it tech.
Guest Rockford Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 um yes ok im a sunshine was just a comment chucked in there. and these "real" cameras can be run over ip and over wireless using converters. not new.... and i know its not baseband. but since the chappy wants to run it only for a short disance i was thinking not a bad idea using it tech. yeah, that's a fair comment... Its just not particularly common practice so I assumed you were using baseband. I've never done it, but I'd expect to loose quality quite a lot! Don't be so sensitive to banter! Just having a laff... Its a puppeeeettt!!
Guest Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 ... I've never done it, but I'd expect to loose quality quite a lot! ... if you can arrange 4Mbis bandwith you don't even notice that analogue video signal is going over ethernet.. saw this at Finnsec2005 in action. i didn't believe it first but you really don't see the difference.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.