unique job coming up, multiple nvr vs wifi bridges

[pal251]

I have a client that wants 8 cameras at least with 1 in each building setup. All buildings have internet access , unsure if he has wifi or not. I will be scoping out the job next week. Basically he is using them in a horse stable and wants to make sure the farm hands are feeding horses properly and such.

He said only a couple days of recording was ok so I could do cameras with built in sd card slots, but I really don't trust those. I am looking at lower end NVRs since he only needs to record 1 or 2 cameras per NVR. Other option is to bridge all the buildings together with access points and create a private network for the ip cameras, then if the network goes down or one of the access points quit working then I may loose video recording. UGHH. He said he called two other companies but they won't even come out.

 

[nayr]

built in SD will only hold about ~3 days of D1 video @ 15fps w/64gb cards.

since its a farm with farmhands the best solution would be for the property owner to rent a trencher for a day have him add a data conduit to each building deep enough that tractors and stuff wont crush it driving over... you can go 330ft with copper ethernet; and basically limitless w/fiber.. it will be future proof so when he decides 1-2 cameras isint enough it can sustain whatever he demands; if he wants to put local WiFi in the barns so his workers have better access to communications (email/etc) build it up off that without interfering with the cams wifi.

WiFi can be done; and pretty reliably.. but a Point-to-Multipoint setup thats bulletproof isnt going to be cheap; or just plug-n-play (hint lots of tweaking/tuning/surveying); you'll probably need to go onsite at least once a year unless your lucky.. 5Ghz directional back-hauls between each building, perfect line of sight between all points in all seasons (in a month when there is no foliage it will be easy then fall apart next spring when line of sight is lost from trees) and very sturdy mounting positions (cant put it on a wobbly light pole with directional antennas and expect good results).. Plus WiFi equipment needs to survive outdoors in harsh environments and be well protected from ESD/Lightning or it will be the end of everything on the local wired link... if the WiFi is still running in 10 years you did a bang-up great job; fiber will work forever if nobody cuts it.

If the farm has heavy trees up by the buildings then dont bother with WiFi; without a clear line of sight its not reliable enough for cams and just connected through reflections off other things.. each building would need a very high mast that you'd have to climb up on to stay well over the tree line.

If ur looking at 8 out buildings; direct burrial wont be as expensive as you'd first think.. especially when comparing cost of 8x NVR's w/8 HDD's or 8x Access points + Install/Maintenance of WiFi networks.. I bet he already has access to cheap labor and heavy digging equipment

 

[bp2008]

I agree with everything nayr said. Running fiber sounds like the best option.

 

[paarlberg]

I have used Engenius ENH500 to link buildings with some vegetation between. I was feeding 9 cameras across the link with an average of about 35-50mbps across the link reliably for well over a year, a bit less before that on the ENH202 version. I stress tested it to just over 98mbps. You can get a pair for about $150 from newegg. Depending on the layout of the buildings, you might be able to link them together with the conduit option above then feed them back to a central location with a single wireless link.

 

[nayr]

I personally would recommend Ubiquiti's AirMax line for a Point-Multipoint setup like this.. 5GHz will give you the most speed and it'll be less prone to interference but it wont tolerate any vegetation in the way... 2.4GHz can get through a lil vegetation but it becomes less and less tolerant the further you get.

if out buildings are spread out in various locations then I'd put an AirMax 5G w/Omni Antenna on main building w/internet, NVR & network facilities and Nanobeam on the outbuildings for the bridge.. with Ubiquiti Tough-cable and Alpu Poe 48v Transtectors going right into a fresh grounding rod outside the building, as close to the AP as you can manage.. each outbuilding would get its own wired LAN with a 4-8 port PoE switch put in a outdoor sprinkler enclosure (to keep em clean and dry) and perhaps a small UPS if power is unreliable.

 

[paarlberg]

The Engenius that I listed above is 5Ghz. They perform great and survive in the elements very well. I have had success with them, that is why I recommended them.

 

[nayr]

Engenius has good Wifi Kit, Ive used it several times; but Ubiquiti's is better.. The company I work for makes WiFi kit as well; and its highly regarded as one of the best.. but I hold my ground, UBNT has great support and very well engineered hardware that cant be beat for the price.

I actually have a farm wireless bridge network I installed/maintain 600 miles away in Kansas @ my father-in-law's.. I think its getting close to 4 years old now and I havent touched it since I installed it.. It connects laptops/phones/tablets between two trailer homes, a house, a barn and a pool area to satellite internet; so speed isint a huge concern here but reliability is paramount because I only visit once a year..

heres the only pix i can find

 

[paarlberg]

Either will work well for the project.

 

[Shockwave199]

Put in obvious fake cameras that they know about. It'll keep them honest without all the hassle

 

[vector18]

Didn't you say in your OP that each building has internet access? Why not put the NVR in one building, installing IP cameras in the other 7 buildings, port forward each camera and use the DDNS service of the camera, than enter the Domain name/IP address of each camera into each channel in the NVR? I have done this repeatedly with success. I can record anyone's Dahua IP camera on the NVR in my home as long as their camera has remote access.

 

[harrijs]

Didn't you say in your OP that each building has internet access? Why not put the NVR in one building, installing IP cameras in the other 7 buildings, port forward each camera and use the DDNS service of the camera, than enter the Domain name/IP address of each camera into each channel in the NVR? I have done this repeatedly with success. I can record anyone's Dahua IP camera on the NVR in my home as long as their camera has remote access.

While this would work, it would also eat up a lot of upstream bandwidth on the camera ends, as well as a lot of downstream on the NVR end. I think that the expense of the ubiquiti radios and ethernet cable at each end would be a better use of dollars than relying on internet access at each building. In fact, with a proper wireless installation here, the owner could possibly cut their operating expenses by discarding individual ISP access at each building.

We are operating some of the ubiquiti airmax bullet M 2.4 radios at 31 miles with ~65Mbps throughput. We have the advantage of ~300 ft towers on each end with 10' dishes connected to the radios, but they are definitely capable of providing the connectivity that is described in OP.

 

[pal251]

Nayr when you coming to ks again? Lol. I'm in manhattan area

 

[Shockwave199]

Didn't you say in your OP that each building has internet access? Why not put the NVR in one building, installing IP cameras in the other 7 buildings, port forward each camera and use the DDNS service of the camera, than enter the Domain name/IP address of each camera into each channel in the NVR? I have done this repeatedly with success. I can record anyone's Dahua IP camera on the NVR in my home as long as their camera has remote access.

If each building has internet the question I have is, is it all one tied together LAN? Then you could put an NVR in, POE switches in each building, and import the cameras into each channel of the NVR. A traditional setup, no?

 

[vector18]

Even if they're not on the same LAN, and each has their own modem/router, if your putting one camera per building, your not going to notice any bog on the network. And, who is using the internet in each building anyway? The workers that your worried about from the get go? Than, who cares, if their wifi slows down a bit, they're supposed to be working, not surfing the web anyway!

 

[Shockwave199]

Yeah, interesting that all the buildings have internet. That actually helps what could be a drag of a job. Still though, if they all think the cameras are real, but they are actually nice looking fake cameras, easy peasy, and they shape up!

 

[nayr]

until someone figures it out and spills the beans to all the other farmhands.. What happens when something does get stolen/broken/missing and the employees wonder why the hell your not just checking the cameras.

fake cameras have there place; but employees tend to want to find cameras blindspots and would probably figure out if a camera was completely blind pretty quickly..

In an environment like this I'd only use fake cameras to corral people into a discrete area they think is in a blindspot but is actually covered by a very well hidden camera; this will provide much more intelligence... (ie someone ducking off for a smoke/drink/nap/phone call).. then you nail em in real time and make it look like you stumbled upon em; keeping the camera's location secure.

 

[vector18]

I would never suggest dummy cameras ever. The building that I live in has some real cameras here and there. The super decided recently to put up some dummies and right next to the dummy camera a big sign saying that you are under 24 hour surveillance. BIG MISTAKE!!!!! I called the management office and explained that someone could get into big trouble if something happens and someone asks for the video footage from those cameras. When the management office tells them they are not real cameras, that persons lawyer is going to have a field day at the park! They obviously have not listened to my suggestion and have not taken them down. I'm dying to have someone call in and say that they were mugged right in front of one of those cameras and they had 10K on them! I would say that's 5k for him and 5k for me, no? LOL

 

[Shockwave199]

Yeah, true. It's a thought, but not a viable one really. I'd surely go with the real deal.

 

[nayr]

@vector18, thats easy to get out of lol.. oah look that camera is broken; it dont even have a wire plugged in... oops, shit happens.

If I am on someone else property and I read a sign saying "Warning you are on camera" I presume that is not for my own safety or am I just nuckig futs?

 

[vector18]

In NYC nayr, we have a state law that says you are not allowed to install a fake camera in a public area. Having a fake camera causes a false sense of security to the person who is in that public area. The state feels that if that person did not feel safe because there were no security cameras, they would have left that area and possibly the crime would not have taken place. But, if she saw a camera there, and said to herself, I am going to walk my dog in this spot every night because there is a camera here and I feel safe about it, well, if something happened to her, and law enforcement investigates and concludes that there was never even a wire or anything connected to that camera, than the person who installed it will face the consequences of the law. Trust me, they will not be able to say, oops, shit happens, maybe the wire got unplugged.