Convert CCTV to Digital

Why not replace the multiplexer and VCR with a 4-channel DVR. You will have

I am open to any solution. My main points are to get the image storage up to the office so that if the store gets broken into they don't take the video with them and to get it to a digital signal. Currently there is only the one BNC cable that is going up to the office so I was hoping to avoid having to run more cable and just use the one cable coming up to the office.

Would it be possible to have the cameras connect to some kind of multiplexer that could send the video wirelessly up to the office and then to a DVR card?

It is possible, but what you record will be the same as you see on the monitor - four cameras in a quad layout. You'll have 1/4 the resolution and no way to view each camera separately. You'd be better to simply ditch the VCR and daisy-chain the MUX outputs into a 4-channel DVR... or even do away with the MUX altogether and use a DVR that can provide the split-screen output.

Is there anyway to do this without having to run more cables to the office upstairs? All the equipment is down in the store except for second monitor.

Regards.

The problem is, a multiplexer by definition takes the separate signals and provides a combined output, so even wirelessly, the MUX output would be the same as with your single cable.

You could always replace the cameras with wireless versions, but that's expensive. If you really need to put the DVR somewhere else, extending the existing cables is your best bet. At that point, if the only thing you're worried about is theft of the recording device, you could just move the MUX and VCR upstairs. The other option would be to secure the recorder in its current location... either hide it (I've seen several places hide them inside a T-bar ceiling, which isn't great because they're really dusty places), or lock it in a heavy-duty lock box.... something like these:

The only way to get all four cameras *separately* to the upstairs is to use all wireless cameras, or wireless transmitters for each camera, but that's gonna get really expensive - see my other subsequent post.

One other possibility is to use the one existing coax running upstairs as a fish wire to pull through a CAT-3 or CAT-5 (four twisted paid) wire, and use four pair of video baluns to feed the video over that to the office. (see

That's still gonna be a few bucks (the cheapest baluns run me about CDN$38 each, wholesale, and you'll need at least six of them), but a lot cheaper than going wireless. Fishing a new wire this way will only work if the existing cable isn't tied down, attached to, or wrapped around anything, but even if you have to run the new cable separately, it'll be a lot easier to do than running three more coax feeds.

You have one cable going upstairs, just run 3 more. What is the problem? js

ya, really. The lad even has a pull string, sheesh

It's all dirty!

How about this? The cameras connect to a DVR in a computer in the store downstairs, but the software running on the store computer saves the mpeg files to a mapped drive on a computer upstairs connected over CAT5 instead of locally on the drive? I have a 100Mb hub in the store that connects to another 5 port switch upstairs. Would that work?

Regards.

That would probably work, but if you already have a "spare" CAT-5 run between the two rooms, you'd probably still be better to go with the video balun idea: the units would cost a little more initially, but it's a damn sight less than the cost of replacing the DVR if it gets stolen from downstairs. Just remember you can't route the video thru your switch :)

Nope. A quad does that, but a true multiplexor sends single full frame images sequentially. Some can do it based on activity. A single channel DVR that has settings for different standard multiplexors will record it properly. The DSR2000e by Kalatel will work with multiplexors upto 16 channels. It has some other problems, but... I don't like that particular recorder because of other issues.

Ah yes, you are correct... but then there's also the issue of missing frames as they switch. If the MUX outputs at 4FPS, 1FPS per camera is the most you're going to get on the DVR, which on modern units is pretty minimal.

Either way, it's a rather inelegant solution.

Have you done it? Actually a mux outputs typically at a much higher rate than that. Also, if the DVR is configured for the unit in question and its a decent mux you will have the capability to coordinate recording based on motion.

On the VCR output, yes, but then you'll get one input on the DVR recording a fast sequence of changing images. You could record it with a higher frame rate, but it would be a serious bitch to monitor, because you've have no way to selectively view only one camera. It would have to selectively show every fourth or ninth or sixteenth frame during playback, and you would have to have it record constantly to avoid the frames going out of sync as they would with motion-detect recording (actually, the motion-detect function in software would probably see the switching as motion and trigger recording constantly anyway).

DVRs are typically designed WITH multiple inputs, to record a SINGLE source per input. IF you could find one that will selectively show only every fourth or ninth frame on playback, it would work, but there would be little point to such a thing, and thus little point in anyone making one. If you know of such a device, I'd be interested to be proved wrong, but I'd expect them to be pretty rare, and subsequently fairly expensive for a single-input machine.

The point is, as I said, even if possible, it's far from elegant or efficient.

Actually when I what I was originally thinking was an application actually sduggested by Robot many years ago. Take a Multiplexor and feed all your cameras into it, then send it all up one cable and hook up another multiplexor to seperate it back out. However in this case I was thinking... multiplexer to DVR. Then use a PC if available right there to monitor it instead of monitor plugged into the unit. There are DVRs specifically designed to work with multiplexors including the one I mentioned.

Still one must weigh the costs as you say. What would it cost to run more cable? Is there any cat 5 or even telco you can steel pairs off of instead? We know that modulating the individual cameras onto TV or cable channels to send up the coax and then demodulating at the other end would be cludgy and expensive.

Ultimately will the labor of one solution cost more or less than the equipment of another.