survtech

Like Avigilon, Genetec has supposedly been working on the problems. Security Center 5.2 or 5.3 supposedly fixes the buffering issue, according to Genetec.

No we didn't. Phase 1 was brief and we didn't have time to test IP cammeras. Besides, IP PTZs are low on our list. With ~200 PTZs, we're in no rush to replace them.

IndigoVision has apparently resolved their financial issues since they replaced their CEO. They have also become much more open to third party IP cameras, etc. Two vendors brought Genetec Security Center 5.1, which had numerous bugs and neither vendor brought Omnicast. Among the problems: it often displayed "buffering" whenever we tried to play back, especially salvos and most especially in reverse playback. Sometimes that would disappear quickly but other times it would start play - buffering - play - buffering continuously, especially playing back "synched" salvos. It also puts a huge "status" box on the screen during clip creation which prevents the user from performing other tasks and which can't be minimized. That may not sound like much of an issue until you realize we often create 8-1/2 hour clips of someone's full shift. Security Center takes approximately 7-8 minutes for a 1-hour, 1-camera clip so an 8-1/2-hour clip would leave that status window, which covers at least 2/3 of the screen, up for over an hour. 7-8 minutes to make a 1-hour clip is par for the course. Most systems took similar times except IndigoVision. I started it on a 1-camera, 1-hour clip, started a stopwatch, looked up and it said it was done. I tried that a few times and finally had it make an 8-1/2-hour clip. It did that in 1 minute and 46 seconds. Repeatable. Amazing! I finally had someone else start/stop the stopwatch while I created a 1-hour clip. I believe it took less than 10 seconds on an analog camera and around 13 seconds on a 720P IP camera running at 4Mbps.

Yep. It was either that, or spend the time pulling the wings off flies. The last eight months have been... enlightening. Every other VMS/NVR and third party encoder manufacturer demonstrated latencies under 200ms. That includes all 5 third party encoders (Axis, Bosch, Sony, TKH and Verint, tested with Genetec Security Center 5.1), Geutebruck (tested with their own MPEG4CCTV encoder and with the Axis and Bosch encoders), IndigoVision (tested with their own MPEG4 and h.264 encoders and with the Axis and Bosch encoders) and Dallmeier, (tested with both their single-channel blades and SMatrix encoders). Latencies measured as low as 130ms.

Who is we? The manufacturers and Integrators. They all received 4-page RFI detailing our needs and wants. In fact, latency and PTZ control were bullet points. We stated that PTZ latency must be less than 200ms, with a goal of 100ms. If they either can't read or choose to ignore our specs or don't know their own system, it's not my problem.

Dallmeier, Geutebruck and IndigoVision made it to Phase 2. Dallmeier was then eliminated so Geutebruck and IndigoVision have made the final cut. Still more negotiating to do before the RFP is issued, then we choose a system and Integrator. Hey, we could test systems for years. There are always new versions being released (including of the ones that made the cut). Both Geutebruck and IndigoVision have a roadmap of changes, at least some of which are in response to our testing. What do you expect? Evaluations and negotiations take time and we are not going to keep all the systems here for the better part of a year to see if the manufacturers magically fix them. They all knew what we wanted, based on our original stated goals. That's the way multi-million $$$ purchases work. Bring your best or go home.

I didn't ask. That would have been a question asked during Phase 3 of our evaluations and Endura didn't make it past Phase 1. Phase 1 - Basic VMS and encoder testing - approx. 1 week per system. Phase 2 - Intense VMS testing including with multiple IP cameras - approx. 1 month per system (in progress). Phase 3 - Continuing discussions with manufacturers who passed Phase 2, Integrator discussions. Phase 4 - RFP

I guess I should give Avigilon at least some credit for (eventually) recognizing they had problems. The thing is, they tried to blame our system for the PTZ control problems. They insisted we had a bad control cables, despite the fact they were new cables "home run" from each of the two Spectras and despite the fact that both PTZs worked perfectly fine when the same cables were connected to our matrix through a CDU-T. They kept insisting we should put a PTZ in our control room for testing purposes. And what would that prove? What could we demonstrate in a small room?

http://ipvm.com but it's subscription only. You mean the National Inquire of cctv world? That's "National Enquirer". Sheeesh!

Not for larger camera counts. Axis has a simple VMS for small camera counts and Milestone has a lower grade but most VMS systems charge license fees - many charge per camera. Some also charge annual update/support fees.

http://ipvm.com but it's subscription only.

Too little, too late! Still, interesting that the updates came approximately 5 months after we evaluated the Avigilon system. Guess they did read my evaluation...

Not sure. Endura was evaluated in September/October. It was supposedly the latest version. It doesn't really matter. Based on many dealings with them over the last 17 years, I haven't seen much improvement from the dismal support they started offering after Schneider bought them. Gone are the days when Level 1 support could answer just about any question. Also gone are the days when Level 1 would kick you as high as product engineering if you had a question or problem they couldn't answer. - example: I lost documentation of how to program a time correction factor into autoexec.bat on the CC1. I called Pelco and asked Large Matrix Support what the command structure was. He didn't know and couldn't or wouldn't refer me to someone who did know. I complained to our Distributor who finally got me in touch with an ex-Pelco employee who answered my question.

Semantics, semantics. Ok, I'll rephrase that. Pelco Endura encoders had the second highest latency we measured. With that, Pelco wouldn't agree to let us test their system with any third party encoders, so WYSIWYG. And Endura still exhibited many other shortcomings, including the ones I listed and more (I have my full evaluations at work). Besides, Pelco already recieved a copy of our evaluation, warts and all. They claimed they would send Endura engineers to discuss the perceived shortcomings, but never followed up. What Pelco brought was their decision, based on the need for 1,200 channels, 90+% analog. If they had something better (and the 5100 would definitely not be it), they could've brought it.

Of course not. Why else would I mention the lower latency on all of the other encoders? All other encoders (tested with Genetec, with the Axis and a Bosch continuing tests with Geutebruck) and all other systems with their own encoders and/or the Axis and Bosch encoders showed latencies well under 200ms on our analog cameras. The only encoder that came close was either the Siqura or the Verint (I don't remember which). Then again, we tested the Bosch X1600 XF using both Baseline+ Profile and Main Profile. Baseline+ had the lowest latency, with Main Profile 'IP' having a bit more. As I added 'B' frames, latency increased.

That isn't really a fair statement. Endura is a VMS. What do you call Avigilon, Genetec, IndigoVision, Dallmeier or Geutebruck (the other systems we've tested)? Chopped liver? What's not fair. Pelco had very high latency, compared to every tested system and third party encoder (Axis, Bosch, TKH Siqura, Sony and Verint), except for Avigilon's. Endura also failed our evaluations for a number of other reasons: 1. Slow operation - it took a long time to switch from "live" to "playback" and back. Other functions also took forever. 2. Poor "live" and "playback" video quality. 3. High required bitrates for even decent picture quality. 4. Clip saving was a joke. Clips must be saved into a temporary folder based on how the user is set up, then moved to their final location. We have approximately 20 different save locations configured as network drives. I can't expect the users to learn how to move every file they create after creation and would expect many errors would creep into the process. That is the dumbest thing I've seen! 5. Playback video skipped and stuttered more than any other system tested. And so what if we could use our existing 9780 matrix to eliminate the latency? We could do that with any system. The point being then we would need one set of monitors for analog and a second set for IP cameras. Users would have to learn which cameras can be called to what monitors. And, we would still have matrix bays eating up rack space, power and cooling.

By the way, when I asked Avigilon what caused such high latency, they stated that their encoders buffer six frames of video. That's 200ms alone. Pelco Endura wasn't much better. It had >300ms of latency.

Connect any analog camera to the encoder. Aim the camera at a time display in milliseconds (we used the stopwatch on a cell phone). Put that camera up on a screen "live" and point another camera at both the screen and the stopwatch simultaneously (you have to hold the stopwatch near the screen) and record that. Play back the result, pause, and note the difference between the stopwatch and the screen shot of the stopwatch through the VMS.

Did I say "D"? 500ms in h.264. 560ms in MJPEG. Worst latency of any system tested.

Ok, say something happens at 09:00. Is that AM or PM?

Thanks. Exactly what I thought. But I still work for a manufacturer that has more systems in casino's than any other manufacturer " title="Applause" /> That and $1.00 won't buy coffee at a Starbucks. There are a many VMS systems installed in casinos that, IMO, aren't worth the price of one Grande Pike Place Roast. And number of installs means doo doo. I call it "The Blind Leading the Blind Effect". Among the "losers": Pelco Endura, NiceVision, Synectics, Cisco Sypix, American Dynamics Intellex, Sanyo DSR-M8xx "Casino DVR" and anything from Honeywell. And I'm not thrilled with Genetec Security Center 5.x and think Avigilon is only suitable for smaller venues. It is especially problematic with analog PTZs, since Avigilon's encoders introduce 500(+) milliseconds of latency and have trouble with Pelco "P" protocol.

Thanks. Exactly what I thought.

Speak for yourself.

You don't need 2MP for standard half-moon-shaped 6 foot diameter gaming tables. That's overkill. 1280x960 or 720P is sufficient, and will save you storage costs. For 8 foot poker tables, 1080P would be a good choice. For the cage, depending on how many positions and the angle to the cash drawers, 720P would likely also be sufficient. You should be able to see inside the cash drawers and the entire counter depth so you can't locate the cameras at too much of an angle left or right.

mikeek3, Table games and cash handling/counting are the two or three most critical areas and the ones where problems are most likely to occur. That's where your first priorities should be. Slots would be second; back-of-house third and any outdoor cameras could be last priority.