How about 5: This is the mount the customer insisted on, for whatever inane reason. Maybe someone making the decision think it looks cool or high-tech, or maybe it's something they spec'd years before and never changed the spec because there was no need to...
And yes, I've seen both these... in one case we spent years battling to find a specific discontinued housing because "that's what we've [the customer] always used", and the person making the decisions refused to be told any better. Thankfully, he was eventually promoted (yay Peter Principle) and his successor was much more receptive to change when we explained the additional cost (to them) of sourcing the old housings.
I vote for #6: The Integrators needed something to hang their monitor on while installing the cameras.
#7 - Integrator guy doesn't know that there is a "check box" or a "drop down menu" on the software to flip the image 180 degrees...
IP camera with analog "test" output (which cannot be flipped) connected to an analog PVM.
Could it be possible that the camera view was blocked by something so the only way to avoid it was to "drop" it using this mount?
Wouldn't an upside down camera look weird, dogey and "unprofessional"?
Q: How high very the ceilings? perhaps the ceiling were too high and they wanted a face on view of the scene?
Do they still retain water ingress ratings upside down?
IPVMU Certified | 02/11/13 03:25pm
Bohan: Because ingress ratings are scaled, some ratings are more 'watertight' than others. The mounting orientation of that housing, especially lower IP rated housing that could be constructed with weep vents or covered hinges.
Funny thing is, ingress ratings (at least at IP65 and 66) are based on the housing's ability to withstand a water jet of a given pressure, which could come from any direction... I don't know that it would necessarily have any direct relation to its sealing against standing water on a seal, which is what some housing designs may give you when mounted upside-down. I suppose, in theory, IP67 (full immersion) should handle it, but it's amazing the way water can find a way through over time.
At least in the example above, the housing is undercover, if not actually indoors. In the instances I've seen, they too were under cover, so weather sealing wasn't really an issue... but it did look awfully cheezy.
Keeping with this theme, then, I'd like to share some pictures of an install I came across a couple years ago... and yes, this most definitely was NOT a professional install.
Plastic no-name housing in the style of your standard Pelco EH-3512... but with vent holes in the bottom. Oh, did I say bottom? Not the way it was mounted:
Yup, those vents are actually open to the sky:
Obviously this thing has had some water buildup inside of it:
Good news is, the seals on the front of the housing were so bad...
...the water never rose high enough to actually immerse camera - two of these housings, same setup... both cameras still working!
Dude, you have no idea... and this was one the MINOR horrors from this site! The others probably deserve their own thread - anyone for an official "hall of shame" topic?