vector18
Getting comfortable
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,317
- Reaction score
- 264
You tell me..........
Attachments
-
507.4 KB Views: 237
-
355.7 KB Views: 230
Why is cabling a bigger pain in the ass with analog? Pulling cable is pulling cable. Most analog systems now a days are done with Cat5 and baluns at either end. I guess if you are still pulling RG59 siamese cable, it is a little bulkier, but I wouldn't say it's much harder. As I said pulling cable is pulling cable.For one thing the cabling, much more of a pain in the arse for analog, it is far easier to setup digital, and is more future ready. It really will depend on your application - how you intend to use it. For the average home user digital is much more flexiible (can you say WiFi), however, in a commercial environment analog still has its place (its cheap).
To be fair analog has some advantages at lower resolutions, ones that will disapear as digital progresses (like it has in movie production).
I disagree with both statments here.Why is cabling a bigger pain in the ass with analog? Pulling cable is pulling cable. Most analog systems now a days are done with Cat5 and baluns at either end. I guess if you are still pulling RG59 siamese cable, it is a little bulkier, but I wouldn't say it's much harder. As I said pulling cable is pulling cable.
This is very subjective and really depends on your application. You say mediocre analog vs. digital, I'd like to know what you think that is (pixel vs TVL), and I'd like to know the price point. Analog cameras are on their way out and so the deals on them (from a price point of view) are hard to beat (sales on them everywhere).As for the original question, the megapixel clarity for the price of the equipment is exceptional. With a mediocre IP cam compared to a mediocre analog cam in the example similar to the above, the IP cam you can clearly make out the bills in the drawer, the analog cam you could probably make out that you are looking at a cash drawer, but it would probably be hard to make out one bill from another.
It would help if they were at the same perspective and you specified the resolution of each camera, the pictures were worthless for a direct comparison. My comment was on the general question itself - not the pictures.I was actually letting my picture sample answer the original question, rather than áctually' asking the queston. LOL
I could be wrong - but I believe he posted those pictures to show how clear they are even when you digitally zoom in. (its the same pic in both shots).It would help if they were at the same perspective and you specified the resolution of each camera, the pictures were worthless for a direct comparison. My comment was on the general question itself - not the pictures.
Agreed, pity you didn't just stop with this statement.Guys, I guess it was my mistake. I should have been more informative.
Actually you never asked that question in your post, there is only the thread title and the statement "You tell me...", and there is absolutely NO description of the photos and their meaning. If you had actually asked that question and put in that information about the photos, you would have gotten an appropriate response.The two pictures are of an IP camera in normal state and the other picture is of the same camera digitally zoomed in. I asked why use IP over analog because an analog camera would not digitally zoom in like this and I wanted to show what a digitally zoomed IP camera is capable of. Now, if the two pictures were of the same EXACT image, and one was clear and the other less clear, I can see the confusion.
If we are talking about pulling Cat6 vs straight up RG59, they are very similar in size. Looking at some specifications they are both roughly .24 inches. The little bulkier part of my statement was if you use siamese cable for analog, it's pretty much like pulling 2 cables at once.I disagree with both statments here.
1. Pullling Cat5/6 cable is NOT the same as pulling RG59 (more than "a little" bulky) cable. Besides the obvious difference in cable size (plus analog sytems will have seperate power/audio - unless its a combo) the cabling for analog systems is more expensive, ugly, and dead technology (IMO). POE camera cabling is far easier (and less expensive).
I agree and disagree, most analog systems out there are using coax. Most analog systems installed in the last few years are using Cat5/6 with baluns, and not using coax. Once again the cabling cost for analog is higher even still since you have to add the price of the baluns at both ends in the equation.I disagree with both statments here.
2. Most analog systems do NOT use Cat5/6 cable. You have to use ugly adapters for that (similar to POE injectors - except you need them on both ends) and you reduce quality in that setup (not always, but still, yuck!). The inexpensive (cheap) analog systems they typically sell in retail box stores are pre-packaged with cable/NVR/cameras, which makes them attractive to some people (I'm not one of them).
I agree, there are some great deals on analog equipment out there, and analog could be fine for a lot of peoples situations. As for cost, you can get a superior quality IP camera for little to no additional cost over the analog (nothing bank breaking here). The original vague question was just a comment of the picture superiority, nothing more.This is very subjective and really depends on your application. You say mediocre analog vs. digital, I'd like to know what you think that is (pixel vs TVL), and I'd like to know the price point. Analog cameras are on their way out and so the deals on them (from a price point of view) are hard to beat (sales on them everywhere).
Not all camera applications require hi definition (remember before digital everyone thought 480 TVL was oh sooo good - and it wasn't THAT long ago). There are many applications where an analog sytem is fine (not that I would install one - ever).
I'm not a moderator and I must say, you're over the top and should chill. No one cares that you didn't get it. It's a misunderstanding of the intent of the original post, that's all. No need to be so bent out of shape.Agreed, pity you didn't just stop with this statement.
Actually you never asked that question in your post, there is only the thread title and the statement "You tell me...", and there is absolutely NO description of the photos and their meaning. If you had actually asked that question and put in that information about the photos, you would have gotten an appropriate response.
So for the half apology I offer you half of a "no problem, forgiven".