Souljah

Possibly, but we wont know for certain for some years yet. Currently it doesn't look that way, but things do change. Personally I see Hybrid systems in the future, not just NVRs. They still have a ways to go with the IP cameras though, to match what is available in the CCTV industry. Ofcourse there are always video servers to work with CCTV cameras, and many here have used them already. It becomes extremely useful in large Wireless applications, either with decoders and DVRs, or an NVR using something like Milestone, and that has already been pointed out on other threads. Luckily there arent many CCTV technicians left that do not have any experience with IP networking, IT work, etc. The majority these days use it on a daily basis either with DVRs or other devices. So with their added extensive knowledge of CCTV, Video Cameras, and the Security Industry in general, when and if they do ever start to use a Webcam, IP cam, or NVR, they will be at the top of their game. So you see it is not that they cannot do it, or have not used it, but more so that if they are not using it, there is no need for it in the security applications they are dealing with. After all, it is actually easier to install and setup, and does not require much knowledge of Video Surveillance. From there we get back to price; typically it will cost much more than the "average" DVR application (notice i said average). Anyway, I think that other thread is a better place to discuss any pros and cons of both technologies mentioned.. Good points, but as everything begins to migrate to NVR's, expect the real decision making on which vendor/products businesses will be going with falling upon the IT staff. I can gaurantee that the IT staff that maintain their own data networks will be real weary who they let on their network if they are not up to snuff. If a vendor is not really too familiar with IP Networks, I can gaurantee that will play a big part in their decision making who they will go with. Ive already seen some customers asking for networking certs (mainly cisco) before they even let you think of looking at their current infrastructure. I simply think its alot easier for an IP savy business to fall into the CCTV market then the CCTV market falling into the IP world. After all, its just another end device on the network to us.

Thats fine, I was simply pointing out that the CCTV market was where the voice market was 5-6 years ago. All the vendors that didnt go with the new IP Market simply got pushed aside and went out of business. Im simply trying to make the point that within time, NVR's will be the primary means for security and DVR's will become obsolete. Its up the vendors if they either want to go with it, or simply fall behind. I wish all the CCTV guys luck because I saw how hard the analog/digital voice guys struggled with IP when it first came out. I recommend taking a IP networking course to start preparing for the future.

"Also, if you plug your laptop or some kind of non-PoE ethernet device into a port energized with PoE, it may or may not harm your devices." No, it WILL hurt your non-PoE devices. Theres a reason it states "Power over Ethernet." The 802.3af standard was created to protect non-PoE devices that are plugged into a PoE port. 802.3af works by detecting if the remote devices requires Power.. it simply does not just send raw power across the cable. It will not transmit power until the end device and the switch negotiate power is necessary. Running raw power across those extra pairs is definately not the right way to do it.. I gaurantee any PoE camera manufacturer will not support your method for injecting power. But if you feel comfortable doing it, by all means go ahead.. just let me know how many seconds it takes for your PC's NIC to start smoking.

"Power Over Ethernet". Ethernet or CAT5, consists of four twisted-pair 24 gauge wires. Only two of the twisted-pair, (orange and green) carry data in ethernet configuration. This leaves the brown and the blue twisted-pair wires available to carry DC electrical current to a device such as a camera, a switch, or an access point. I custom make all my ethernet to carry DC current on the brown and blue wires so I do not need to run an extra wire to power a camera, even if that camera is not POE capable. That is one hell of a way to ghetto it. Im guessing your getting quite a bit of CRC and frame errors too. Why would I get any errors? If you comprehend my procedure, then you would know there would be no more errors than any device using a POE adapter. If you are insinuating you actually know something about networking, then why not just come out and clearly state what you think is wrong with my cable conversions, and why you think it couldn't possibly work. So far I have a 50 plus success rate with no failures on these conversions. Ever heard of the 802.3af standard? lol. If you think its all good to split your pairs like that, then by all means go for it. As for a good PTZ with PoE, I prefer the Panasonic WV-NS202. It does MJPEG as well as MPEG-4.. and is day/night. You can set quite a bit of presets with the capability of utilizing triggers. It also accepts SD cards for storage, and has SDIII capability as well. Plus it has a built in microphone with a line output for hooking up an external speaker.

"Also cat5 is the same cost of coax in most parts of the world." What about the extra cabling needed for power + ptz control? "As to reliability, maybe in the US, but most of the world's ISPs are not that reliable. I come from the Burglar alarm industry, and there is no way VOIP would ever be satisfactory, not even in the US." If your comparing VoIP to those stupid free internet long distance providers like vonage, then you need to do a bit of reading on this. Do you really think a business with 1400+ employees has their phones going out to the internet for phone service? LOL! And as for the statement for me to go back and research old CCTV systems is like asking a automobile mechanic who works only on fuel injected engines to go learn carburators. Whats the point? If you can point out some benefits the old analog/digital systems have over the newer IP systems, then im all ears. Just please dont make the regular stupid assumptions that its "unreliable" and "expensive" because obviously its not.

LoL. Are you serious? ever heard of 5 9's of reliability? I've personally setup systems for customers over 4 years ago and not once have they ever had an outage.. Nearly every fortune 500 company is using VoIP as their means of telephony. Not to mention the possibility of no long distance charges. As for CCTV, I just dont understand the logic behind the systems Ive been seeing the past few months from other vendors. It seems every vendor in our area continuously stacks DVR's as their camera needs grow.. I cant see this being cost effective for the customer. Every time the 17th camera comes into play, another DVR must be added. If more storage is needed, then just add another NAS. Theres even the possibility of NAS replication for even more redundancy. As for other costs.. lets look at cabling. Cat5E is pretty inexpensive when you consider going against coax + power + PTZ control. With IP, you can get it all with just one cable. And if you want to place the argument that data switching gear can be expensive, lets just throw that out the window. 99% of the customers that need surveillance currently already have an internal network for you to use. With setting up proper VLANs and QoS mechanisms as well as implementing the right transport method, video quality doesn't become an issue. Better camera control, ease of use, remote monitoring capabilities, less power usage.. i could go on and on. It just seems that the vendors in our area seem to be making a killing at the customers expense. As you can see im new to the board, and still learning about CCTV, I just simply dont see the benefit of the old analog way vs the newer IP systems.

I think its pretty funny how everyone tends to bag on IP when it starts coming out in their market. I remember when Voice over IP first came out. All the traditional TDM and Analog phone system guys use to bag on IP, stating it was unreliable, difficult, and too expensive. Now you cant find a customer wanting anything but IP for their phone system. I see the surveillance market exactly where the voice was 5-7 years ago. Its just a matter of time till you cant find an analog camera being sold in the market. And lets be honest with the price. We currently went to bid on a surveillance system for a casino. Our competitor bid all analog.. ended up around 3 million. Our bid, around 700K. Ill let you take a guess who won.

"Power Over Ethernet". Ethernet or CAT5, consists of four twisted-pair 24 gauge wires. Only two of the twisted-pair, (orange and green) carry data in ethernet configuration. This leaves the brown and the blue twisted-pair wires available to carry DC electrical current to a device such as a camera, a switch, or an access point. I custom make all my ethernet to carry DC current on the brown and blue wires so I do not need to run an extra wire to power a camera, even if that camera is not POE capable. That is one hell of a way to ghetto it. Im guessing your getting quite a bit of CRC and frame errors too.