10 replies to this topic

[zenbrew]

anyone had or heard of any experience with this setup? http://www.geeks.com...4...CAM&cat=VID

thanks,
corey

[giaps]

anyone had or heard of any experience with this setup? http://www.geeks.com...4...CAM&cat=VID

thanks,
corey

I bought a nice 4 channel stand alone dvr on ebay......I also bought my cams on ebay. 4 cams and a standalone dvr setup cost me $340. It's reliable, has motion detection, loss of video alarms, time search, event search, and a 160gb hard drive. It attaches to my computer with a usb cable and I can render in avi or mpeg format.


I was warned to stay away from the cheapo wireless setups.

here's the dvr I got
http://cgi.ebay.com/...oQQcmdZViewItem

[fester]

Wireless cameras and audio, while convenient are not very reliable for investigations and can actually taint your evidence. No matter how good your evidence is, any skeptic would immediately discount your evidence due to the fact that you used a wireless setup.

[damckie]

anyone had or heard of any experience with this setup? http://www.geeks.com...4...CAM&cat=VID

thanks,
corey

I bought a nice 4 channel stand alone dvr on ebay......I also bought my cams on ebay. 4 cams and a standalone dvr setup cost me $340. It's reliable, has motion detection, loss of video alarms, time search, event search, and a 160gb hard drive. It attaches to my computer with a usb cable and I can render in avi or mpeg format.


I was warned to stay away from the cheapo wireless setups.

here's the dvr I got
http://cgi.ebay.com/...oQQcmdZViewItem

I checked out the system that you purchased. I envy you on your new product! How has it worked for your investigations? Dave

[jason82]

I would agree wireless is bad not only because of interference but just distance concerns you'd have to get a super duper antenna and even then....
I've seen some DVR stand alone systems on ebay for around $280-$300 that was 500gb had a normal vga monitor output, usb for a bigger harddirve or file transfer, has a network port so you can watch remote or attach to ur home network to move stuff around. has BNC connections....

sorry i dont have a link just look around and be careful who you buy from. Remember one thing with a stand alone system itll take any BNC or RCA(with adapter) camera. So you dont have to buy super fancy ones to start you can start with a few cheap ones and upgrade them as you go along.

This is our groups next purchase right now we run a DVR off a laptop works pretty good but doesnt have a whole lot of options

[OMPRDave]

One thing I've decided not to do is gear towards wireless setups. There is a chance of signal interference, and it's enough to keep me spooling wires.

The alternative I've found works extremely well are some cameras I found on eBay. These average from $29 to $100, but the two models I am using right now I bought there for $29 and $59. Here's some links to comparable models:

1/3 Sony CCD 420 tv lines

1/3rd Sony ccd 30led IR

The research I did before I bought these said that 420tv lines is more than adequate for the type of applications we use them for. After seeing the smaller camera I have in action (my second camera only has 12 IR leds and it illuminated an entire basement with no backup illumination at all), I was hooked at using these low-cost alternatives. The way I see it, I'll use them until they crap out, and still have saved enough money to replace them over spending outrageous amounts for a brand named comparibly-equipped model.

The kicker for recording has been these units - readily available and VERY cheap on ebay:
Insignia NS-1DVDR Multiformat DVD-R/-RW/+R/+RW Recorder

I can run the camera to the individual DVD recorder through a single 13" television, and record up to four hours on a single disc. Plus, it finalizes the recording as soon as I am done, and can edit them simply by running the disc through my home player into my home dvd recorder. I can zoom in on interesting points, and have basic but very functional control over the final product. How much did I buy all three of my dvd recorders for?

$70 including shipping! (One note...some vendors through eBay don't offer the remote control for these Insignia units, so watch for which online stores include it in the sale).

So, using these simple alternatives, I've eliminated any chance of wireless interference and got a nice cctv system that is simple to use and low cost enough not to break the bank and as I said, if they break, it's cheap and easy enough to replace them.

Hope this helps! If you have any questions, feel free to write me.

Blessings,

Dave

Edited by OMPRDave, 28 May 2008 - 12:22 AM.

[OMPRDave]

Edit function is messing up again...I also got the 150' CCTV Video/Power Cable with 2 Free BNC to RCA Adapters for $12.95 each, and the simple cable winders at Walmart for $0.99. No tangled wires; simple fast set-up times.

Dave

[CaveRat2]

I agree fully about wired versus wireless systems. I will not use any wireless system, nor even any wireless communications systems while investigating. Reason is not only does the data collected via a wireless system compromise its quality and credibility, the wireless system is also a source of RF which might find its way into some of your other equipment and cause false positives. Best to minimize all chances for stray signals whenever possible.

Since the original question involved IR, I have to ask why bother? From research I have conducted I have seen no advantage to using IR over visible light for video or photographic work here. It is true that using IR allows you to illuminate outside the visible light spectrum, but that also opens the door to false positives since some materials do react differently to IR and UV than they do to normal lighting. Consider how certain dyes and paints used on black light posters glow under those conditions. If some of this type of material is present as an airborne contaminate it would cause a bright reaction not seen with the eye. This could lead to concuding something paranormal was responsible but in reality it is simply the extended spectrum.

I am not saying not to use wider spectrum equipment, only be aware its limitations and the increased chance of false positives. Also note that no paranormal activity has ever been confirmed under either UV or IR that was not also seen under visible light. Which leaves me wonder, why not just use normal lighting and eliminate the risk of the false positive? I will admit though that I too use IR at times so I can't say it shouldn't be done, only that any evidence captured this way is subject to more scrutiny than conventional light. But it is not something I would rely on as primary evidence, it would only be acceptable as supporting evidence for something also captured under normal lighting.

[OMPRDave]

I agree fully about wired versus wireless systems. I will not use any wireless system, nor even any wireless communications systems while investigating. Reason is not only does the data collected via a wireless system compromise its quality and credibility, the wireless system is also a source of RF which might find its way into some of your other equipment and cause false positives. Best to minimize all chances for stray signals whenever possible.

Since the original question involved IR, I have to ask why bother? From research I have conducted I have seen no advantage to using IR over visible light for video or photographic work here. It is true that using IR allows you to illuminate outside the visible light spectrum, but that also opens the door to false positives since some materials do react differently to IR and UV than they do to normal lighting. Consider how certain dyes and paints used on black light posters glow under those conditions. If some of this type of material is present as an airborne contaminate it would cause a bright reaction not seen with the eye. This could lead to concuding something paranormal was responsible but in reality it is simply the extended spectrum.

I am not saying not to use wider spectrum equipment, only be aware its limitations and the increased chance of false positives. Also note that no paranormal activity has ever been confirmed under either UV or IR that was not also seen under visible light. Which leaves me wonder, why not just use normal lighting and eliminate the risk of the false positive? I will admit though that I too use IR at times so I can't say it shouldn't be done, only that any evidence captured this way is subject to more scrutiny than conventional light. But it is not something I would rely on as primary evidence, it would only be acceptable as supporting evidence for something also captured under normal lighting.

Fully agree with you on the use or non-use of IR or UV caverat. I use the IR function only to basically see the area in the dark, not for anomalous images. I have already learned to dismiss any orbs or other bright floaters in my IR work as nothing more than airborne particulates (yup, even those neat ones that seem to have a mind of their own - aren't air currents a funny thing?). I only look for the movement of existing objects (ie. trigger items, furniture - not little bright globs of light) and anything that may interact with a researcher such as clothing being pulled or tugged, etc. The cool part about using the cameras I mentioned is that they work just as well in standard light, and only give the added feature of being able to shoot in 0 lux when needed.

I am interested in using a standard hi-8 Sony Handicam without nightshot ability in conjunction with a stroboscopic blacklight I have to work on filming different stroboscopic lighting situations as detailed in one of Joshua Warren's books. It may not produce anything, but still it will be interesting to put his hypothesis to the test. Working on getting a standard strobe light with stroboscopic controls for this use also.

Dave

Edited by OMPRDave, 28 May 2008 - 11:16 AM.

[CaveRat2]

Dave, sounds like a viable experiment and I await the results. That is similar to the type of research where UV and IR actually have merit. That being a specialized application outside direct evidence gathering.

My complaint is not with this kind of work, rather it is against the myriad number of videos out there where people insist on recording in total darkness resulting in a poor quality image filled with anomalies that likely are simply matrixing on the part of the viewer. We've allseen them, blurry images that look like the only light is a dim flashlight. Why do some insist on recording this way when visible light would provide a much better illumination and eliminate the possible artifacts? Those are the cases I would like to see modified, IR is not advised for that type of work.

[OMPRDave]

Honestly, I have no idea. One group I did a co-investigation with recently used a large red light in a shop-light housing, and the illumination was spectacular. I agree with you completely on recording under normal lighting, though. I almost don't even like watching anything recorded with substandard or poor-quality IR.

Dave