Economic solution to view IP CAMs on TVs

icerabbit said:
How many live view channels will you be viewing that way?
Because that little box is old school standard def.
That's the quality of one substream, and so things will look like an old webcam feed, robbed of detail. Several of us are looking beyond HD for live viewing and you're going the oppsite way.

Yes, you could use a pc to do surveillance, or to look at the live view. But both can be a bit resource intensive. And I'm confused what you are saying about time consuming, backups, photo galleries and users etc as it sounds like you'd give up your synology.

I have the impression you are complicating things and are going to lose the practical qualities you need ... or something is lost in conversation, and/or I need more coffee.
Click to expand...

For live view I will be using 640x480 at 2-5fps. So standard def won't hurt much anyway (I believe).
For recording 3Mp at 5-10fps.

For less than 100 euros I will be getting feed at all the house Tvs and I will be able to switch views using any pc/smartphone/tablet.

If I need more resolution I can use the pc/smartphone/tablet.

Also it's the easiest setup ever I think.

Can you all describe your setups to see If I might miss something?

Thank you all for your advice :)
 
Using sub streams and rescaling likely will give very poor visual detail. Does the source have RCA out? What exactly will it show on screen? Borderless footage or with wasted space and borders making the visual even smaller. Then all your TV sets are presumably 720 or better 1080. So, they will all scale up the SD the image to fit the larger screen. And since you are in Europe, then your basic signal is some type of PAL/SECAM 576. Could be better or worse scaling results than in the US. ...?

The thing I am missing is, that you have nice HD cameras, 3x cat6 lines per room, live view is important, you want it in every room, ... but you go SD? Just go for HD, whether hard line video signal or android sticks with ethernet, pay a bit extra up front; or start with just one or two most important TV sets, try one of each, and grow from there. Enjoy the quality for years to come. I would not waste money on sd / analog stuff, because in x weeks or months I know I'll be so fed up with low quality (unable to see who's who or what's what) that I will upgrade to hd anyway and need to toss the analog stuff in the bin.

My setup is currently 6 HD cameras into a live view of 1920x1080 showing the sub streams. Duplicated to additional 1080 TV sets. Crystal clear digital image on all sets. No line switching, scaling, analog losses, sd on tv, hd on the tablet, apps, ... Instant view. Crystal clear. In the grand scheme of things (of the whole network and security upgrades to get camera surveillance in) distributing live view is a very small extra cost, I use the distributed live view a few times every day, and it is worth every cent and extra time spent of me crawling around running extra wires.

I would say that plugging in an android stick to the back of a tv is the easiest, with better quality, as others have said and done, even though I have a different setup.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All we want is an overview so we know if we need to unlock the loaded gun and what the basic situation is; I am not going to spend half a second trying to identify the person on the screen if I see someone crawling through a window.. I'll do that before I pull the trigger... more detail is just more information for my head to process.

In my case the bedroom TV's wont be a regular source of viewing; and they do have Streaming boxes that can display it in HD (720p for these sets).. We use these sets mainly to watch something when your having trouble sleeping and when your sick and stuck in bed.. my son is not old enough to care right now but when he's old enough to be left home alone he probably will; or maby just he wants to use it to help catch the schoolbus, ride with a friend, see when mom comes home, etc..

I want to be able to turn my TV on; press channel up/down and look through the cameras without exiting plex/netflix on my streaming box and twiddling my thumbs while the cam app loads.. with the TV remote thats always in the same spot because its mainly just used to turn TV on/off and set sleep timer.

I dont really want to watch the cameras in the bedroom; if I did id just put another display up there and yeah it'd be HD 16:9 split-quad.. like I am installing in my office right now.

Ideally id like to RF Modulate each camera onto its own channel; I'll erase all the local OTA channels and CH UP/DOWN will just cycle through cameras.. but having one channel with all 4 mux'd would be nice too, even if it shows little detail.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
99% of what I want is an overview too, so I think we are on the same page.

The bedroom tv thing wasn't for continuous review, though one could put it on screen while reading a book to keep an eye on the kids, but for when something wakes up you in the middle of the night (or day if you work nights or took a nap due to jet lag), like happened to me this morning at 2am, power on, instant overview of all cameras (it was wildlife btw), which in my opinion saves reaction time over fumbling with a phone or tablet (unless you have on continuously display), I don't even have to put my glasses on since it is on a larger screen. And you're right, if somebody is trying to get kick in a door or breaking a window at 2am, all you need is a general sense of what is happening, I'm not going to sit around and take notes, make a sketch etc ... but I think an instant overview of all cameras is better than waiting for cameras to cycle or manual operation, time that in an adverse situation can be used to unlock whatever, dial 911, wake up other family members, ...

I like your idea though of making every camera channel a tv station. Creative thinking.
 
The link is 404 for me, but I know the type of product that you are talking about [ category link ]

How many feet of cable did you try to use?
Have you tried a shorter end to a regular computer monitor?
How exactly are you feeding that link to the TV? (extra pc port, duplicated port, ...)

In theory the pin-through should work, which I say because I haven't played around with it myself, but it may be limited to certain # ft. Maybe 25ft? Beyond that you may need a sender & receiver, like my HDMI kit. Would need to look at the max advised cable length. [Edit] Well, monoprice sells VGA cables all the way 50,75,100ft long with positive reviews. So, vga should be able to go the distance (beyond what I recall). Though no certainty about the resolution. Have you tried something like 1024 or 1366*768; or 800*600?

PS: Just one relevant example / source on cable lengths ... http://www.teammead.co.uk/itsupport/maximum-cable-lengths/index.html
VGA - Maximum of 30 Metres (lower resolutions), 7.5 Metres (higher resolutions)
VGA differs tothat of HDMI above, as the signal is analog rather than digital. Over a distance the signal will start to fade and degrade. Its is similar however to DVI in that it depends on the resolution being used. For lower resolutions, 1280×1024 and lower you can use a cable length upto 30 Metres. For resolutions of 1600×1200 and above a 7.5 Metres maximum cable can be used.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
(PS2) This is relevant too with regards to wire gauge and length distance, even if it covers HDMI. They don't cover this for VGA and others. And typically with VGA cables you get shielding and ferrite cores too on the cable ends. Not something you get when you extend using ethernet. So it may be a good idea that is tough to put to practical use due to analog and electrical considerations.

http://www.monoprice.com/home/home.asp?pn=help&idx=12

HDMI® Cables - AWG Explained
A cursory examination of the Monoprice HDMI Cables pages will reveal that there are more choices than just Standard and High Speed. What is likely to jump out at you are the different AWG (American Wire Gauge) ratings of the different cables. There are 28 AWG High Speed HDMI Cables and 22 AWG Standard HDMI Cables. What does all this mean?
First, AWG (American Wire Gauge) is a measure of the thickness, or gauge, of a wire. The system is based on the number of times a wire could be wound around a spool of a given width, so a 30 AWG wire could be wound 30 times, while a 20 AWG wire could handle only 20 windings. Therefore a 20 AWG wire is thicker, with a larger diameter, than a 30 AWG wire.
Wire gauge directly relates to the amount of electrical current that can be carried on the wire. The larger diameter of wire, the more current it can carry. In terms of HDMI this means that a larger gauge wire (smaller AWG number) is capable of higher bandwidth than a smaller gauge (larger AWG number). Therefore, a 22 AWG wire is capable of higher bandwidth than a 28 AWG wire.
If you look closely at the HDMI Cables pages, you will see that there are cutoff points for High Speed HDMI Cables in each AWG grouping. Beyond the cutoff the cables of the same AWG are rated as Standard HDMI Cables. The longer cables are not made any differently, however. As the length of a wire increases, so does the overall resistance of the wire. Increased resistance means decreased current capacity and therefore decreased bandwidth in HDMI terms.
The cutoff points for High Speed HDMI Cables of each AWG rating are:
28 AWG = maximum 10 feet
26 AWG = maximum 12 feet
24 AWG = maximum 15 feet
22 AWG = maximum 25 feet
So a 12 foot 28 AWG HDMI Cable is not rated for the full 10.2 Gbps required for the High Speed designation. However, it doesn't just jump down to the minimum 2.25 Gbps required for Standard HDMI Cables. It may be capable of 9.5 Gbps, which is almost enough for the High Speed rating, but because it isn't 10.2 Gbps, it must therefore be classified as a Standard HDMI Cable. The longer the wire, the lower the bandwidth it will be able to handle. However, all of our HDMI Cables are capable of at least the 2.25 Gbps minimum required for Standard HDMI Cables.
Click to expand...
 
I tried both a 6' (to monitor) & 50' (to TV) lengths of known good 24AWG Cat6 550MHz UTP Bare Copper Ethernet Network Cable, run would have to be around 30' to work.
VGA adapter is connected to the NVR's VGA port and then to VGA type component port on TV.
From looking at the ones still listed up to 50m should be possible, 6' for sure.
I gotta rock?

172eb14cc4705fcaceffda80fbefbaa8.jpg
 
Interesting. Does the VGA work knowingly, whenever a screen is attached? Does any display show anything you unplug and replug the cable? Straight VGA cable from the NVR to the PC monitor? Or does it have be attached first, then it needs to detect it, maybe have to set the resolution, ... Is the NVR dual out, simultaneously, or one out at a time?

Just trying to think of something else that might come into play. Because I would think it should work when you only have 5ft of distance with a computer monitor.
I had wondered initially about the handshake and edid or so, whether in this thread or another, regarding going from 15pin to 8.

Actually. Maybe the wire is too thin. I'm not near the parts closet, but I looked around the office quick, and one of the 6ft VGA cables reads 18 AWG, with ferrite cores. Several others don't have gauge indicated.

So, maybe the signal doesn't carry well enough? (over the thinner ethernet cable)

Have you tried putting that ethernet cable on a different / regular computer & monitor?
 
icerabbit said:
Interesting. Does the VGA work knowingly, whenever a screen is attached?
Click to expand...

Yes

Does any display show anything you unplug and replug the cable?
Click to expand...

No

Straight VGA cable from the NVR to the PC monitor?
Click to expand...

Yes

Or does it have be attached first, then it needs to detect it, maybe have to set the resolution, ... Is the NVR dual out, simultaneously, or one out at a time?
Click to expand...

Other inputs (Roku, Wii & DVR) activate when remote input is changed, VGA maybe different? Resolution tried at 1080P and 720P. units advertise as 1080P compatible.
NVR is dual out.

Just trying to think of something else that might come into play. Because I would think it should work when you only have 5ft of distance with a computer monitor.
I had wondered initially about the handshake and edid or so, whether in this thread or another, regarding going from 15pin to 8.

Actually. Maybe the wire is too thin. I'm not near the parts closet, but I looked around the office quick, and one of the 6ft VGA cables reads 18 AWG, with ferrite cores. Several others don't have gauge indicated.

So, maybe the signal doesn't carry well enough? (over the thinner ethernet cable)

Have you tried putting that ethernet cable on a different / regular computer & monitor?
Click to expand...

I have not, I may try later prior to file 13-ing these.
If I had a continuity tester I bet it would tell the tale.
Thanks, appreciate the brain storming.
 
You are welcome :)

I've never had trouble with a VGA port one a vizio, going on 10 years, I figure.

One thing I'm still not clear on, is if you have had live dual screen output from the nvr?

Beyond that, I guess you'll be forced to look at trying an "official" long cable or a more involved solution to extend the line. When I researched solutions I did get a sense that HDMI is easier and cheaper to extend. The problem gets to be a bit that, if you don't start out with HDMI, you either need an adapter or converter prior to sending it out over ethernet. Though VGA to HDMI isn't cost prohibitive, some conversions aren't worth it, to me.
 
icerabbit said:
Does your Synology have some type of video output?
Because that will simplify things and save electricity, if the nvr (your synology) has a video out.

Also, running that many cams requires a pretty beefy disk station to handle the live view.

I wanted to carry the signal on multiple screens as well and did not want the maintenance, configuration, app compatibilities etc that came with a series of android sticks. Plus I was concerned about their cpu power to carry the signal of 9 cams.

Since I have the live view on screen that I want on the TVs, I could just multiply the hdmi signal and use extra long hdmi cables. But the cost of long hdmi cable adds up very quickly ($1/ft). Plus you need to know the lenghth for every run and cable is hard to snake. And at some point the cables get too long or can't carry it.

I considered wireless hdmi distribution, but cost, range and interference were concerns.

Enter ethernet extenders. You can transmit all kinds of stuff over ethernet. It used to take two ethernet wires per video, but now one cat 6 works between the transmitter and receiver. And ethernet cable is a lot cheaper than hdmi, custom length, self crimping, ... ($135/1000ft). Plus the video network does not interfere with any wifi and doesn't even take up network bandwidth.

So, I multiply the computer hdmi video signal from my pc nvr and the extend that over ethernet to the TVs, where a small reciever converts it back to hdmi. You can either do a standalone video (hdmi) multiplier of your choice and however many hdmi ethernet extender kits. Or there is a multiplier box with built-in transmission for x4 or x8 and extender receivers.

If monoprice search worked like it should, I'd copy the url or product number here; but I'll get to that in the next post. Don't want to lose this post.

Of course my solution requires running ethernet, which may or may not be possible, practical, easy, a diy project for some properties and/or homeowners.

URLs:

1x8 hdmi extender
http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=101&cp_id=10113&cs_id=1011308&p_id=8160&seq=1&format=2


1x4 hdmi extender
http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=101&cp_id=10113&cs_id=1011307&p_id=8159&seq=1&format=2

In its simplest form you can use a regular hdmi splitter and a extend with a couple extenders. athen expand as needed. I picked the kit as it simplifies things on the distribution end and I need less outlets.

And to come back around to the synology ds, if it doesn't have video out, you'd need to use the android stick or something else as the video source.

I thought about injecting the surveilance signal as tv station on coax, but couldn't find a solution. That would be the simplest. If one could make an HD channel 0 or 1 on the line where it comes in the house.
Click to expand...

I like this idea of using the HDMI extenders. Perfect for my application. As a test I have tried having Firefox run 24/7 on a PC with the BI client running to show the camera views, with the plan being that this is the PC display output (HDMI) I would port via Ethernet to my TV. However, when I check in the morning, Firefox has crashed and he BI client is no longer displayed. :-( Perhaps Firefox is not up to this? Do I need to use MS IE?
 
I had to go back and read the OP, and I think there is a much simpler solution. This does for me what Karateo is trying to do.

I cast BI using a Chromecast to my 80" display in the entertainment room. To do it use chrome browser on the machine hosting the BI software. Select Google cast. There will be a small hard to see down arrow which allows you to select (Cast entire screen (experimental) ). Select that and what every is displaying on your PC will cast, with sound, to the display.

I've been using this for several month and it works flawlessly. I have Chromecasts on several T.V.'s and only need to select which room to cast to. You can only be in one room at a time so I guess this might work for Karateo. BTW, I cast movies from my hard drive library using the same set up and it streams beautifully. Totally different solution but might work for some.
 
Yes, there are a few different options, depending on a combination of:
- hardware or software nvr
- native mosaic or rendered stream
- additional cpu load for nvr or not
- wired or wireless
- independent of the local area network or not
- single display or multiple displays
- additional devices to maintain or not
- browsers and apps or not
- pushing or pulling from the nvr

For me personally having to set the display to cast to in the nvr is a no-go. It is not practical to go change that continuously and murphy's law would have it casting to the wrong tv in a moment of need.

But it is all about identifying the solution that works based on needs, wants, practicalities and some cost.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sounds great, except that I want to use a wired connection and Chromecast uses WiFi. I did, however, switch over to Chrome with the hope that it is more stable displaying the BI client 24/7. Sadly, when I checked this morning, Chrome, while still active, was telling me that the server (BI) stopped sending data (or something, I cannot recall the exact message). So, this does not look like a solution either. :-( I do not understand why the browsers do not simply keep running and displaying the client screen. I'm sure there is a reason, so if anyone can enlighten me I would appreciate it. Thanks!
 
Inefficient programming, memory leaks, ... who knows. It is a miracle it sometimes works at all. One runs into so many compatibility issues every day between os updates, browser updates, website updates, plugin updates, app updates, ... that you start turning updates off.

I tried looking at one of my cameras yesterday and tweaking its settings using OS X 10.10. Worked fine under 10.9. Now I get a measly 2 FPS and it takes 20% CPU in Safari using web components. Using QuickTime it gives nothing (probably blocked, didn't bother to look further). Switch to FireFox, at least there you can activate both web components and quicktime plugins, but both are a stuttering 1-2 FPS, on the fastest computer in the block? In the mean time you get 20fps HD on a 5 year old machine with a quarter or eight of the capabilities. Power isn't everything; but too many times stuff breaks due to firmware, software, etc. and unless you dedicate the device and lock it in / turn off all updates, imo, it'll likely break.

Which is why I went the hardware route for our extra displays.
 
Agreed. That's why I'm thinking use the existing BI server-client setup, run an existing browser (Firefox, Chrome, etc.) and then simply extend the HDMI output over Ethernet to a TV. My weak link seems to be the browser and BI client.
 
True.

Ultimately, between all the various scenarios I had drawn out and/or read about, even ignoring cost as a factor pro/con; that is why I went as KISS and foolproof as possible.

I just copy the primary / main view screen. So, no extra streaming or serving load on the pcnvr. No extra network data I/O. No wifi that can be interfered with. No browser, client, app ... never anything to start, load, log in, ... nothing else to worry about.

It shows me remotely whether the pcnvr is running, whether it is seeing all the cameras, whether it is recording motion, etc. What the nvr sees is what you get.

And with an added utility it also shows CPU load, network I/O, hard drive I/O, etc. so one actually keeps an eye on the health of the system.

Pretty sweet in my book.

And, if you still want to tap into a camera directly, or use some extra system or device, for a custom display, nothing is preventing that.
 
Reporting back, .... I have two HDTVs (Sharp & Samsung) on which I wanted to be able to switch quickly to view my camera streams. After considering the suggestions in this and other threads, I decided to try a HDMI-to-Cat5e-to-HDMI converter to display the HDMI output of my NVR display (which is the BI host) on the TVs via Cat5e. I bought a dual stream unit for $93.30 from Monoprice:

http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=101&cp_id=10113&cs_id=1011306&p_id=8158&seq=1&format=2

It works great. Now when I want to view the camera streams, I switch the TV over to the HDMI input where the downstream Cat5e-HDMI converter is connected and there they are. No LAN bandwidth issues and easy for the wife and kids to use. Highly recommended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: icerabbit and fenderman
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom