Video to Network adapter - Is there such a thing?

It seems that if cost IS an issue, it's cheaper to buy a direct-to-network camera than to buy a converter from CCTV to network. The fact(?) that you already have cameras does not figure in that.

Without making an exhaustive search, the cheapest "network camera server" (which appears to be the nomenclature for what you want) I can find is $184, and $129 will buy you a network camera that does not need a "server". You might well find lower prices, but I suspect that you'll find the prices stay in that relationship - it's much less expensive to fiddle a digital image onto the network than to convert an analog image to a digital image and put that on the network. There's also more economy of scale working to support the direct-digital versions.

Periodically, Fry's has SIIG NTSC to USB converters for as little as $4.99 after rebate. Still need a computer on the network.

On a sunny day (Thu, 8 Dec 2011 11:41:18 -0800 (PST)) it happened "Dave, I can't do that" wrote in :

As otehr have pointed out, get a network camera. The reason is this: For a medium speed network the image needs to be compressed to mpeg or H264, else the bitrate is too high. Modern cheap network cameras output for example often mpeg4. A separate converter from composite to ethernet would have to do the mpeg4 encoding too, on top of the digitising. That is most of what is in the network cameras, except for the sensor. So then from a price point if view, new cameras seem more logical. On top of that there are now cheap network cameras (about 100 Euro or so), that allow pan and tilt remotely, maybe that even reduces the number of cameras you need.

Thanks Guys,

The CCTV cameras output H264.

We have the cameras that were our old zoom security cameras ($490 each new) from when we had higher resolution ones recently installed.

I can get a CCTV-ready DVR for $140 so it is about break even with the Network cameras.

I guess we can try running coax from several cameras to the DVR and see what degradation in image we get from interference.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Dave

On a sunny day (Thu, 8 Dec 2011 15:48:34 -0800 (PST)) it happened "Dave, I can't do that" wrote in :

If your cameras already output H264, and are connected to an etehrnet network, then you can use ONE Linux PC with monitor to view them all.

If thse cameras can stream H264, and you can specify the ports the cameras are sending on, and assuming tcp/ip protocol, assign via each camersa's web interface (if possible) a different port to each camera. Then for each camera type in a terminal:

netcat -l PORT_NUMBER_CAMERA1 | mplayer - netcat -l PORT_NUMBER_CAMERA2 | mplayer -

Use netcat -u -l ... for UDP protocol

Now you have 2 picture on screen. Add a line for each camera.

If you need to record it too:

netcat -l PORT_NUMBER_CAMERAX | tee /dev/stdout | mplayer -

or something along those lines...

netcat is cool. Most mpeg4 cameras come with at least some java code to get a picture into a browser window, so that would save you all of the above.

Well all of the above should be scripted of course. If all else fails, wite some C code, as I did for my network camera that does output jpeg format:

If you don't know Linux, bash scripting and C you are at the mercy of whatever they want to charge you in the market place.

Hi Dave,,

How are the machines arranged, "physically"? I.e., are they in reasonably close proximity to each other? Or, spread out across the plant?

If the former, consider a cheap 4 input camera card and and only PC to serve the images onto the network. The PC should (essentially) be "free". The camera card can set you back $20 (assuming you can't get one for *free*)

N.B. There are also bigger (e.g., 8/16 channel) cards but I suspect you can come up with another PC (or three) instead of having to string long lengths of COAX...

(YMMV)

This would allow you to use your existing cameras and a bit of labor to do the job. (these cards are often used in "poor man" security systems)

HTH