WirelessEye

Carrseom- I never described myself as an expert, nor am I trying to sell anything, nor is anyone else I believe. I do agree that there are "slick shoes" salesmen that do burn you, but that can be said about analog as well. Rory/Thomas- It is true that anything can be done with code, and that both NVR's and DVR's are extensible in that fashion. However- I asked for a specific DVR that can do everything that a specific NVR can do-- not what you can modify them to do after tons of programming. I can almost bet that any DVR that is "turn-key" is not going to be able to compare to a "turn key" NVR. Just for giggles, post the best DVR you can find (I don't care about storage) and post its features. Remember, this is something that does not need to have custom scripting done. I want to see something that is off the shelf-- as the NVR I will post will be off the shelf.

I just need to mention that if you are trying to access a server that is behind a firewall, you'll need to enable NAT and set the appropriate port.

I realize that, but you can do much more as far as networking, multiple-sites, virtual matrixing, remote access, etc. on an NVR than with a DVR. Pelco and GE use Bilinx? I was under the impression they used their own communication protocols. If that is the case, isn't this quite similiar to IP manufacturer A doesn't work with IP manufacturer B? Nonetheless, our NVR already has built in support for all of the manufacturers you mentioned, and a lot more, so they do all work together and on the same network. The fact that they run on different firmware and use seperate API's is completely transparent to us and our end users. So if I understand you correctly, if I point out everything that a single (specific) NVR system can do in a list, you can site a single (specific) DVR system that can match its capabilities in every way? I'm certainly up to the challenge if you are.

It does depend on the power consumption of the 12VDC equipment and the wire gauge. With 18AWG and a 2amp peak draw (2.3 amps being the highest you should go for 18AWG), you shouldn't go beyond 38 feet as you will drop below 11VDC at anything further. At 250ft and 18AWG with a 2amp load, you would have 5.42VDC at the end of the line. If you are looking at power over ethernet, you are even worse off. 9 feet maximum for a 2amp load just to keep you above 11VDC. Most 12VDC devices can operate between 11VDC-13.5VDC range.

What does the $50 cam look like at night and how long does it last?

Milestone/ONSSI is very expensive, no doubt about it. But at the same time you could go with D3 Data for $5,500 and put as many cameras on it as you want. So that's $9,000 for DVR based vs. $5,500 for NVR based. Granted, 64 IP cameras x $200 more expensive for each one does add up to $12,800 - $3,500 for the system difference which equals $9,300 more for the IP system. 64 cameras cannot be brought into a standard linksys by any means, however since I'm wireless all I need is an 8 port router (gigabit) < $100 to handle my access points. The wireless/cabling debate is completely different monster. Obviously, both have their place and "their place" is whatever is the most cost effective for the situation. If doing a multi building outdoor installation, wireless is by far cheaper than trenching from building to building. If doing a multi camera, single building installation, wired is better- that I can admit. You have to realize, the service that my company provides is *specialized*. Basically we are for people that want temporary surveillance (less than 2 years) or people that have multi-facility needs where cabling isn't feasible. Video transcoders do exist, but you are at a severe deficit of choices in manufactures from what I see (definately a fraction compared to analog to IP devices). Again, I know there are $50 cameras... but I've never seen one that I would buy, even if I did use DVR's. I don't think I've ever bought a camera under $700 to be quite honest. I did do some checking however, and found the cheapest IP camera that I could find was $249. This reminds me of something. When I was a kid, everyone thought microwave ovens were a fad and overpriced at $500/ea. Now, almost everyone uses them and they are around $70. This is how the IP market is going.

The systems are *claimed* to be unlimited. Obviously you cannot test unlimited claims because you will never be able to reach unlimited. It is an unobtainable number..... My argument is that a single NVR, whatever it is, can handle a lot more cameras anyway you put it, as it is not limited by how many BNC inputs you have on it. I'm sure you'll come back with a bandwidth argument, but I think you already know that is invalid. They may be able to do the same things as an NVR once the footage is recorded, but what can it do live? So all Bosch PTZ's can do this, but it sounds like this is a Bosch Only feature. Since HTTP is an open standard, all IP cameras can be controlled via the same protocol. Who is misunderstanding who? I was pointing out that bandwidth is irrelevant if you have to worry about recording space. Perhaps if you would have fully read my post you'd notice that. Since NVR and DVR people usually only record at partial frame rates, bandwidth concerns are null and void. Also, the cost for NVR's and DVR's are about the same. Our IP PTZ's cost ~$200 more than a comparable Analog PTZ. Even if I put 64 cameras on an NVR, it would be about the same price once you take into account you'd need (4) GV-1480-16 combo cards @ $1,100/ea. That would actually cost more than the NVR software. Perhaps it was only pointless because of the preceeding argument from you. I was simply making lemonade from lemons. Please read your post on if how you were stating that if x and y happened I'd lose all of my recordings....and get back to me. But I don't have expensive hardware on my end doing the compression, so where was your advantage again? Your CPU load will be higher than mine because you will have to run Geo cards and I don't. It doesn't matter if the Geo's have onboard CPU's or not, your main CPU still has to interface....I wouldn't be surprised if the system CPU was doing most of the work. My point only changes to meet your new arguments: 1/ Maybe. They have explosion proof cameras. 2/ But your capture cards were not, and I don't need any. 3/ Not if your DVR gets blown up with the camera.... wouldn't they be on the same rig? 4/ You also have one more piece of equipment to be tampered with/stolen in an uncontrolled environment. I fail to see how additional risk is also a positive to the system. And I won't mention the brands either. I can use ANY camera on my system. True some are aided in the use of a video server, but at least I have the option. Ok, so now that we've established I can use any anolog camera and nearly any IP camera (I have yet to find one I can't use)-- now the next question.... what IP camera can you use with your DVR? I was unaware that you were in the same type of business I was in. Please explain. And when you explain please tell me: how many remote feeds you monitor, how many of them are located in areas where there's no power, no copper, and a ton of property to protect.

Agreed. The Sony IP cameras that have H.264 built in have beautiful quality in H.264, but are limited to 10FPS @ full resolution due to the massive processing power needed to encode, so it is a tradeoff.

My mistake, I thought that streamed video had a lot to do with CCTV and IP Video. Many of the Broadcast companies are switching to H.264 from MPEG-2 (Broadcast Quality) because they are they are nearly identical in quality and this allows them to up their resolutions to HD without increasing the video streams size. The same is true with CCTV and IP Video. Or is MPEG-4 better quality than MPEG-2 now also? I believe your bad experiences with H.264 are related to the hardware you are using.

Then why are HD DVD, Blue-ray, BBC HD, DirecTV, Dish Network, Euro1080, ProSieben HD & Sat1 HD, ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG, SkyHD, SVT HD, etc. are using H.264-- and not MPEG-4 or Wavelet. Perhaps they could give you a demo so that you won't think it's all talk.

Interesting. H.264 is broadcast quality encoding. On some of our stuff, H.264 looks as good if not better than MJPEG. (Not to mention the size of the video is 1/15th of the size.)

Wow that's wierd. Why would Geo's Mpeg4 be better than H.264? The definition of H.264 is Mpeg4-10 and is dramtically better in quality and smaller in size. Perhaps Geo has encoder problems?

If it can hadle it, switch to H.264. Better video quality and less space required for storage than MPEG-4.

I will have to agree with you. There cannot be an "unlimited" amount of cameras. Just like there cannot be an "unlimited" amount of servers on the internet (in theory). But just like the internet adds clusters and routing capabilities, you can do the same with a networked system. An NVR is different than a DVR. Many NVR's use a "relay server" that opens a single connection to the IP device then splits it into however many concurrent connections wish to connect to it. You are connecting multiple times to the NVR, NOT the IP camera. This allows for MANY more connections and bypasses the OEM limits on connectivity to the IP device-- and also saves a lot of bandwidth to that side of the connection. I've used Pelco's and Bosch before, never seen anything having to do with Coax Comm. Perhaps you have to have a DVR controller to use this functionality.... Of course I'm talking about wireless... I believe I've stated that many times. I have little or no interest in running wires. Even a balun can't send streaming video over 20 miles. I believe I've already agreed on this part... you can only do this on small systemsk if at all. I never said IP was as cost effective. Only more capable-- which is why it costs more. Bandwidth isn't a concern? So you don't record anything at all-- or are you pulling in 2FPS at full resolution? I know that I can build a PC Based NVR that has more storage for much less money and record WAY more video. Most of us here are recording under 10FPS anyhow, I don't see how 1Mbit of bandwidth @ D1/10 FPS is going to come close to bogging down any network-- even a 10/100 base. An NVR can't be standalone? I've seen plenty of Windows bases systems crash. I haven't seen too many 2003 Server boxes crash though, certainly not more than 1 in 3 years-- of course that one that crashed was because the power supply died... Not only that, but since I can use any high-end hardware I want when I build NVR servers, I can make them much more powerful than most custom built DVR's and leaps and bounds over pre-assembled DVR's. Our dual Xenon NVR's for example are at about 4% processor utilization (hardware compression is done before it even gets to the NVR) with 50 cams on each. FYI- Network utilization is 1%. An NVR is already your control room software, redundacy is not needed as all the video is stored in a safe place on a Raid setup. You don't have to be affraid of technology, it is supposed to make your life easier-- and no the camera would not be hurt-- remember the part about IP enabling a pelco ex-site explosion-proof cam?... Exactly how is it an issue with most products? Please explain? If you mean some NVR packages only support certain cameras, that's true. Just like some DVR's are proprietary in what they'll control. It all depends on what you buy. All I'm going to say is we use expensive NVR software and expensive cameras, and they work fantastically together. Interesting to know, but certainly the functionality-- on the rare case it is integrated with the DVR-- is limited compared to the flexibility of multiple archiving times for network balancing, etc. of the NVR. (and yes, you DVR guys have to worry about network balancing if you are backing up to a NAS or SAN). I make it a point to say that I don't SELL anything that I buy. My company sells the remote monitoring capability and service that only IP can deliver. We probably monitor more remote customer surveillance feeds than any other privately held corporation on the West Coast. Sure customers can have an IP enabled DVR for us to monitor from our command center, but that is one more point of failure for us and another issue to worry about from an integration standpoint. IP is simply easier to install, configure and maintain remotely than analog. Period. Redundancy is important, and if you are doing an IP based CCTV system, you must build it into your system much like an analog installer would. Both are surveillance systems and both should be installed correctly. Some of the IP cameras we use do have onboard storage, others have an inline DVR that records and digitizes for IP. Either way, we don't use them-- nor in 4 years of operation have we ever needed one, but never say never- they say. [edit by mod - fixed quote tags]

Perhaps there is a limit, but the software we use is a distributed system that uses a master/slave setup to allow for "unlimited" control a single NVR server or Multiple NVR servers. As far as I know, even if you network ethernet capable DVR's you cannot manage them all from one master Server, in one interface. Perhaps I am lucky, or perhaps its good planning and preventative maintenance... Not a lot of PTZ cameras can do up the Coax for comm. At least not a lot of the higher spec cameras. None of the analog cameras I've dealt with have that capability. We have only done a couple of existing network installs, and none have had to require reducing camera quality for integration. However, I do agree that a separate network is the most reliable way to go for a large IP setup, that's not a point of arguement. If you are going to cable for analog cameras, you are technically doing the same thing as installing a new network-- it's just a coax network. How is that any different then installing cabling for new IP network? Its not cheaper, it's better and more organized due to the lack of wiring. Better usually doesn't cost less. Please explain. Can I firmware flash a Pelco and have it take less bandwidth without image quality loss? Or am I just going to get some new window blanking options? This is not apples to apples. I am talking about a hardware failure, and you are talking about sabotage. You can take measures to prevent sabotage, you cannot take measures to ensure that electronics don't die. We actually have an outstanding bid to an oil-rich country that has 8 off-shore rigs they want watched.... If you are talking about what ifs: People can tamper with recordings (the people you are watching) and lets also remember that if there is an accident on the rig, all the footage would be lost. But didn't I just say you don't have to with analog integration via videoserver? If you are talking about an IP camera to an NVR, then yes- limitations do exist, but very few. I haven't found a new IP camera that I wanted to use that my NVR doesn't support. Ok... so you are telling me that a DVR is as easy to backup to a SAN or NAS as a PC? Can you set your DVR to keep XX amount of days and then automatically remove the oldest stored video every day to keep storage consistant? If you can, I'd like to see that DVR. But yes, IP can send at much higher resolutions-- this does take bandwidth, but how much bandwidth do you really think it takes? A full resolution H.263 cam can stream @ 10 FPS with only 1Mbit of bandwidth. On a dedicated Gigabit LAN (with some overhead) you could easily do 700+ cameras. Doesn't seem like much of a limitation to me. I didn't make the other statments, so I won't comment on them. However, stating that an IP installation is limited by bandwidth is absurd. Just as with an Analog/DVR installation that is done right, an IP/NVR installation that is done right will work great. Sure you have to take other things in to consideration with an IP system, but you can forget some of the other things having to do with Analog/DVR setups.

Firefox is a great program, no doubt about it. As a former web developer, I know that it has great functionality to test code validity. The reason some stuff only works in IE is because it is OS integrated and has a lot of executing capability and permissions-- also the reason why it is much less secure and prone to executing malicious programs.

I agree completely. Let's just remember that to each their own. I think the Analog vs. IP debate is much like the people going back and forth on Windows vs. Linux-- each have their own place and both have a devoted following.

What is it with DVR people and their fear of Network crashes? Listen I've been in IT for 9 years and I have yet to have a network crash at any of the places I've worked at. Nor has my company had a network crash in the 4 years we've been in business. You have as much chance of DVR equipment dieing as you do a network crashing for that matter anyway, so I don't see what your arguement is here. If you were doing full resolution with limited compression, then you would be correct in stating it would be difficult to integrate any existing network for the job (unless it's a gigabit lan with multiple subnets and switches)-- and I admit Fiber is a great addition to wired installations. I was talking about a wireless job however and with that, you would only have to have power. But even I, an IP and wireless proponet can freely state that both have their place, and muliple indoor cameras with tons of HVAC and electrical interference is not one of them. I understand that. There is also the fact of easier installation to consider, which is at times paramount for rather large installation. Take an IP PTZ camera: No comm cables to run or terminate for movement. Obviously the fewer connections, the easier to test, troubleshoot and install. Also if you take into account that the camera on my cell phone has over 4 times the resolution of an analog camera, there are also resolution issues to think of. I understand that, was simply pointing out that analog technologies are available for IP as well. There is hardly any wiring with Wireless, which is what I was referring to. But again, I will state that DVR's are appliances as well, which are just as prone to failure as IP appliances. The only difference is that you can have redundant appliances for automatic failover with IP. True, it is up to the company who is installing to protect their equipment every bit as much as they are protecting the customer- if not then both IP and Analog systems are equally prone to tampering. Again, I have been in IT for 9 years. Every company I have worked for has trained technicians with years of experience in proactive network reliability measures. I can honestly say that I have experienced zero network failures/crashes. I agree, QOS only goes so far. But if you're using QOS enabled hardware on a network... it is not going to be an "older" network. Gigabit Lan equipment is not that expensive anymore, and even businesses not doing IP CCTV would be wise to upgrade for the minimal amount of money it costs to do so. What a Gigabit Lan and QOS hardware allows you to do is network share, obviously if you have a large office infrastructure or large IP CCTV system, you would want to seperate the two. All of our cameras are less than 3 feet from a router. Why you ask? Because they are wireless-- which is what I was referring to. We don't like miles of wire around here. What benefit do you get from flashing firmware on an analog camera? Does it have a built in computer? I understand this has been possible for quite some time, but doing so doesn't unlock any features. I know that Axis products and Sony products have flashes that have added new codec's to the products. That's a fact, because I've done it tons of times. I wouldn't know about a "compression chip" on a DVR as we don't use them, but one could certainly assume that flashing the DVR's software could allow for different features and camera support. You must also consider that if your DVR dies, you lose all connections to those 32 cameras. If you lose 1 of your 32 IP cameras-- well you get the point. Well, if you are using Pelco Exsite Equipment on an oil rig 15 miles offshore, and it needs to make it back to land: Wireless! Or if you prefer, you can run a fiber line on the ocean floor. Also, how long has analog been around, and how long has IP been around? Video servers were invented to take advantage of the existing analog market to begin converting it to IP, until more IP cameras are available. Actually ANY analog cam will work on an NVR as well via a supported video server. Bending the rules a bit you say? The same can be said about using a transcoder to modify an IP cam to analog for use to a DVR. It's true not every camera is supported by every NVR (although our NVR supports nearly 100 different models). However, since hardware support is only a matter of SDK integration, every camera is capable of being supported. DVR's do have benifits, but most of the people I know who use them are so limited by the DVR's available disk space, you cannot take advantage of the massive resolutions they offer. With our NVR, we actually back up to a SAN and can from that point have all of our video stored (for 30+ days) in full D1 resolution. I don't know what an DVR is capable of as far as resolution, but I was under the impression that D1 was about as good as it gets for analog. A network admin does not have to remedy a faulty security system, but they should be there to make sure all the hardware, etc. is running smooth. If you do IP CCTV, then it makes sense to have one on staff. You make good points too, possibly why the 2 types of systems are both in existance today is because they both have their place-- not only that, but they are both the same type of setup with processing done of different sides of the system. We just do IP because we've done both, and IP is easier-- especially wireless.

A stupid statement? Please don't post if you haven't done your homework. If you don't believe me try here: http://www.d3data.com While no one can substantiate an "unlimited camera" claim, certainly well-ported software does not have any physical limitations like: The number of BNC connectors you have. Sorry to make you cough.

Ever hear of 1080p resolution? Primo picture for Blue Ray and HD DVD.

I wouldn't install any CCTV system that was $500. I wouldn't install anything that's less than $2,00 for that matter. There's simply no money in it, and using equipment that is inexpensive generally yeilds unfavorable results. Not only that, but we don't do residential because there is little or no profit margin like there is for commercial and industrial. Also, since we don't sell hardware, we sell service, we keep the equipment and must warranty it for the life of the contract. I don't want to have to replace cheap equipment that has a lot MTBF. Anyhow, DVR's do have their place, albeit a shrinking place. You must at least admit that. Anyone who has been going to security shows for the past 4 years has seen the trend of DVR booths getting fewer and fewer. It is important that we discuss what a DVR really is-- it is a computer with hard drives in it, that uses software to do a job. Now lets discuss what an NVR is-- it is a compuer with hard drives in it, that uses software to do a job. The only difference is the NVR can use any software you want it to, and you can upgrade it more readily. True, DVR's can be upgraded as well, but not as easy as an NVR as the DVR is limited by it's internal software and hardware setup. Our NVR can support UNLIMITED cameras. As far as I know, that isn't even possible with a DVR. For what it's worth, I know there will always be DVR's. However there will be fewer as time goes on, and that's not because analog cameras aren't great. It's because just like with 50" plasma tv's started off at $15,000, they are now < $2,000 and the same is happening in IP.

1/ I agree. However high frequency wireless is difficult if not impossible to jam, and impossilbe to cut wiring on. 2/ Wireless is cheaper if there is trenching and conduit isn't free either... 6/ We have a protected Network room. Unless an employee cuts the IT guys eyeball out to get past the scanner, no one is getting in. 9/ I am talking about wireless. 10/ True- But you generally cannot update their technology (for example sony camera flashes can allow for new codecs and features). 13/ DVR's for security are still alive and kicking, but let's be honest, they are a dieing breed. They are generally proprietary and typically limited in expansion. NVR's on the other hand can use numerous software packages and since they are running on PC's that are much more upgradeable than a DVR based system, you aren't stuck in a couple of years when more cameras are needed, etc. 14/ If it is a small business or a luxury home, then the network would be bare bones anyhow. Believe it or not, we are starting to have some clients that RFQ'ing "sold systems" that require DVR's. However, we have built and maintained a very successful CCTV business and have not used a single DVR while doing it. What that allows us to do is change with the times-- without changing all of our hardware.

1/ Unless someone has wire cutters. 2/ Only if you don't have to trench more than 3 feet. 3/ Not sure what you mean here. 4/ Any anolog camera can be IP adapted. 5/ When someone cuts your wiring the recoding stops too. 6/ Have you ever unplugged a BNC cable? 7/ Never actually seen a network "die". 8/ QOS networking allows you to use equipment on any existing network without effecting the existing network. 9/ I would rather have 3 feet of Cat5 going into a router than hundreds of feet of RG-59 into a DVR. 10/ Most IP cameras have firmware flashes that make them relatively future-proof. You cannot flash an anolog camera. At the same time, when you IP enable an analog camera, you can easily upgrade the device that IP enables it. 11/ All you have to do is get an Ex-site from Pelco (or anyone for that matter) and hook a video server up to it. 12/ We have numerous IP brands, all running on the same system and flawlessly. 13/ DVR's are old school. The latest compression technologies are being implemented faster in the IP arena than in "retrofitted" DVR's. Our NVR can bring in full resolution MJPEG, MPEG-4 and H.264 and then stream it to remote clients in any resolution and/or codec. I don't know of any DVR's that can do that. 14/ Not if you have a Network Admin on staff.

Runs like a champ for me.... I really like the tabbed interface (stolen from Opera of course) and the cleaner look. Haven't notice it being slower, although it's probably optimized for the new release of Vista rather than XP.

What I'm talking about is using the Pano with a video server so that it can be IP. The NVR controls the guard tour via the video server. But there would be a "disconnect" between the analog auto tracking feature and the guard tour running on the video server and the NVR, correct?