Good question. The answer is simple, but not nice to hear. Each codec requires a decompression part to play the video, and each vendor typically has a slightly altered version of any or all of the codecs used. For example, MPEG4 could be used for compression, but what does that really mean? Apple, Windows, Real Media, Adobe all have their own CODEC of MPEG4. So in short, if you use VLC or Windows Media player to play back video, these have installed codecs from these major media vendors. But the DVR manufacturer can't have access to these without paying royalties, which for security video makes no business sense. Plus, less then 20% of systems use audio, and so they drop that part to reduce bandwidth. So in reality Mpeg isn't always Mpeg, even when it is. Make sense? The DVR vendor should offer just the codec in a form that could be loaded on a different system, instead of a full binary.

The second point is your avi. The problem is two-fold. You can't record in uncompressed avi format. You'd get only a few hours on a Tb hard drive, and security applications require days or weeks of recording. Once you have your video in MPEG4, for example, and you have a vandalism you want to export, if you transcode it to avi you lose all evidentiary value, since the video was altered in the transcoding. Plus you might need 15 minutes of video, and uncompressed avi then would have trouble fitting on a DVD. That all said, most credible DVR vendors allow for avi export as a fall back.

Police review is an industry problem. Its not just your DVR. American Dynamics, and a few others, allow for a CD/DVD to playback in any windows system without having to install anything, and with having only user (nor super or admin) rights. This makes it easy. But because of the lack of this feature in many systems, Police in the UK now are requiring DVR manufactures to provide their codec to a independant software house which makes simple and universally compatible playback software.

Why do you believe you'll get better performance on the Mac? There are vendors which provide non activeX clients, such as Exacq or American Dynamics, but those won't work with the system you have now. If you have VGA monitors and splitters something isn't designed correctly. If you use mostly direct monitor viewing, then you probably don't need a client system, unless you need to review stored video. But then you don't need a dedicated system. If you have an IE client, use a normal workstation for the search functions only when you need it. Most DVRs have a spot/alarm monitor output, which can often be programmed to sequence between camera views. This might be enough for you. If not, you'll need someone to take a closer look at your system.

Sorry, but your completely wrong. The idea of motion detection on digital video recorders is over 10 years old. All DVRs of any value have motion detection built in, and the BT878 MJPEG cards mostly used with Zoneminder are garbage. The MJPEG codec is the wrong one to use for most applications because of the high storage requirements. Yes, you can process motion detection faster, but you loose out on bandwidth and storage. Zoneminder can use IP cameras, so that is a plus in its favor.

Also, your point about no CPU usage at full 24/7 is also incorrect. The BT878 cards require software compression, which means CPU overheard just to lay down the video. There are other cards, such as from Vidicon, which allow for hardware compression thus offloading the bulk of th CPU requirements.

Again this is nice, but very home-brew type of solution. If you are a professional or just a larger business who takes into account the man hours required to build, and most importantly to maintain this system, you should go to one of the "commercial DVR systems". These will give you the required reliability and low maintenance, in addition to a smooth interface usable by more then the IT guy.

As I have been commenting on this post, I have realized I should have said this years ago on /. There are well paid jobs in Security for the IT savvy. I'm talking more for network admins, and general IT skills then programming, but progamming is also needed. The whole multi-billion dollar Seucurity industry is moving quickly into software based, network infrastructure and away from stand alone systems. Its been happening for the last 10 years but it is now accellerating. There is a especially strong need for customer facing technical sales support. People who can design robust Video and Access Control systems which transport TB's of data across local and wide networks. Integration of building management and other sub and super systems is also key, but most of the integration is minimal programming, more like some scripts and good network know-how.

And don't, REPEAT don't try to fake security knowledge. They'll teach you. Tell them your IT background and tell them you want to learn.

I really suggest to everyone here looking for work to contact a large security Integrator or Manufacturer in your area. Tyco, UTI, Honeywell, March Networks, Pelco, Verint, Genetec, ONSSI, Bosch, Siemens, Panasonic, Sony and many others have locations close to you.

Good Luck!

Agreed. But the problem is most IT people won't admit they know nothing about security, while almost all security people will admit they know little to nothing of IT.

In fact, over the years I've seen /. posts about how IT jobs are dwindling while security has been increasing. If more slashdotters moved over they would be welcomed into a well paid industry. But keep in mind, you need to start from scratch and learn the basics of Access Control, Video, Intruder and more. But that said, although its complex it is still easier for IT to learn physical security then the other way around.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Non-free software systems, which means just about all of a multi-billion dollar industry, don't all use ActiveX, and the ones that do almost universally don't need IE6 only. Those that do use web based clients are often Java based, but those that do use ActiveX usually have a full software package in addition to the web portal. Web interfaces are very limited in their flexibility and thus are usually only used as a stripped down client. Again another reason why I believe Zoneminder is nice, but not at the professional level. An example is on their own website. If you look at their use of zones for motion detection they show an image outdoors. Sorry, but motion detection does NOT work outside. You need complex analytics to accomplish this, and even then its very difficult.

This is a solid recommendation, but I don't really agree. Zoneminder has nice features, and it a long way towards a real DVR, but it is still a home-grown solution. If you are a private home, or a very small business I would still recommend one of the very cheap embedded DVR systems available. You can find 4-8 camera systems for under $250 USD which are still quasi professional grade. You'll still need cameras, power supply, mounts and maybe housings. If you are wanting a bit of fun tinkering with your linux CCTV system then ZoneMinder is your solution. If you're serious about security, Zoneminder still needs a few years and probably a serious round of funding before you should choose it.

There are hundreds, no, thousands of security embedded linux based DVR systems on the market. But the reference to ZoneMinder leans the question into the area of windowing linux based DVRs. This is a shorter list, but still you find a few. A few quick examples of servers which use a Linux OS you find: VideoEdge (Tyco), March Networks, SeeTec (Germany). All of these offer a client which operates on a Window's workstation, but the recording is done on a Linux box. The Tyco version actually uses the non-journaling EXT2 as the database, so as to take full advantage of the speed and maximum hard drive size. Keep in mind that video systems record multiple TB of data in a normal 30 day record cycle. That is to say, most end-users require between 2-4 weeks of video, and a small number require 6+ months to be saved.

The fact is the most Linux systems are too complex for the majority of security applications. A lack of skills in maintenance of the OS, networking, and configuration mean that the vendor needs to provide a fully pre-configured kernal+apps which is then loaded on a server, and this means that most professional vendors offer Windows systems as the rule. SeeTec does allow for normal SuSe as the OS and then their application loads on top, but the reality is that 95% of end-users don't choose this because they are window's houses. This means SeeTec develop the Windows version as the priority.

There is also the politics to consider. The IT department and the Security dept. couldn't come from more disperate worlds. Generally speaking they don't like each other, and don't want to talk to each other, and no matter what the /. readers will flame at me, the IT dept doesn't have the first idea of what to purchase in a physical security system. I've seen this hundreds of times. The IT guy says "IP please", but this translates into a horrible final system purchase.

The take-away is that as an IP guy, don't look for a pure Linux system if you are serious about security. Integration into Intruder, Access Control, Fire and Building Management (almost all of which are also Windows based systems) will require you to most likely stay on a Windows platform. If you're from the IT department you'll need A) a professional Integrator/Installer to recommend the right system and B) you'll need to remember you're no longer an expert. Security is not IT even though it might be loaded onto a Windows or Linux box. So please don't tell the Integrator what you "need". First get at least 2 opinions and then start to shape your requirements.

Wikipedia is excellent at reporting events well, and historical events even better. Once the information is in the wild, it takes time to consolidate into a Wiki primarily because the contributors are not committed 100%, i.e. professionals, to their Wiki entry. Sure you might get a few that have little more to do then chat online entering up to date Wiki info, but is this who you want reporting breaking stories?

The issue here is timing. If you want events as they are unfolding to be reported accurately you can do it in an open source format, but if you want them to be in "CNN" realtime, you can't rely on a non-paid community to take the time whenever it is required. They will do it, but that evening, or the next day when they are online. Even with "always on" internet connections, your coverage of events will still have a time lag in most instances.

We need to pay people who will be both neutral, and available at a moment's notice, if we want a reliable news source. If we had a major news outlet, such as CNN or NYT online (or a new one), paying for up to date information with attached mobile phone photos, then we might be getting closer to a freelance/opportunistic approach to a paid open-source news outlet. But we would still have a problem with reliability and neutrality. That would be hard to solve without a large number of entries which you could "average" into a story.