All I see is Geovision Information Here

[IPSecurityPro 0]

Guys...there are tons of other applications out there:

 

D3Data's (Network Video Management (NETVM) product)

Milestone's XProtect product line

IPConfigure

Livewave

Broadware

INETCam, and on and on and on...

 

research some other alternatives.

[Thomas 0]

Geovision gets discussed quite a bit because they have a big chunk of market share. But other companies do come up, and quite a few of the embeded market is mention. And all you stated is IP Camera software. Most of the people here are working in analogue cameras rather then IP Cameras. From what I gather, most of the industry views IP cameras Price/Quaility ratio to not be high enough.

[IPSecurityPro 0]

I understand your perspective, but all that an individual does is take IP Camera software (that can support analog, as well) and install it on a PC and they now have a "DVR" - a networked DVR, granted - but a DVR none-the-less. Or - as we like to say - an NVR (Network Video Recorder). You can bring hybrid systems together, utilize the intelligence of IP cameras and support existing analog systems with video servers. That is where the industry has been going...away from capture cards.

[Thomas 0]

Which we do. The near term future is probley in mixed systems, but it's much more cost effective to use analogue for smaller installs. And big companies have X thousands of dollars of equipment already invested. Most of the mixed solutions are just moving the capture card to the camera rather then the PC.

[IPSecurityPro 0]

IP Cameras have come a long way and to truely utilize the power of their intelligence you need a true NVR solution - one that lives and resides on the network can be pulled up via any common web browser.

 

For small installation - I know of a service: http://www.hostedvideo.com where you can install one or a few IP cameras and FTP images up to their data center for archiving. You view and access recorded data via a browser for a low monthly fee and all of your storage is off-site. Great for an individual, homeowner or small business w/one or two IP cameras. No software necessary - just a camera and router. You can even download the recorded data to a local PC via the internet.

 

Definitely less that a DVR. Just a low monthly fee.

 

DVRs are great in certain applications, but what if you want (or have the need) to pull together, in a multiview the front door of 9 franchise locatioins located across the United States. I don't know of a DVR that can accomplish this. D3Data can - in addition to being able to pull DVRs into the entire IP System as well. It just takes writing a new device driver.

 

Wave of the future - any system can be designed properly and architected appropriately to function as well - if not better - than most DVRs without eating up too much bandwidth.

[cctv_down_under 0]

Ip cameras are great and will indeed be the future, the Milestone software is the best i have seen for controlling an integration of all I.P. products, but there are several downfalls to I.P. cams.

 

1/ if your network goes down then...no recordings, hard wired pretty much guarantees you always have connectivity.

 

2/ If your cam does not compress then you take huge bandwidth and the advantage is supposed to be that you dont have to run new cables, but lets face it most networks already out there can not support uncompressed video from too many streams.

 

3/ Now before you say..."oh but they can compress it" the problem with that is that if you compress enough to transmit, then that is what you record at the other end, highly compressed video. On the other hand a DVR can choose the level of compression so you could record with little compression and transmit with heavy compression.

 

4/ Used to be able to say that I.P. cams were crappy as they are made by companies without the necessary manufactoring experience, however, these days it is the opposte, i have seen some fantastic I.P. cams and price has dropped considerably, it is actually cheaper to get a Sony I.P. PTZ cam than it is to get a Pelco PTZ analogue.

 

5/ Any analougue camera can be an I.P. camera, this is so simple, just add a web server, currently you can buy 4 ch webservers for $100 US, thats $20 per camera, this is something I.P. manufactorers should have taken note of.

 

6/ Have a geez at the price of Milestone once you get past a certain number of cameras..it is ridiculas to say the least, most DVR products these days allow for multiple connections and they dont charge so much for it. For example the milestone softwrae is expensive but control room from Geo is free???

 

In reality I.P. is seeing a big boom at the moment and it is all because of the hype, same as standalones did fairly recently due to hype of failing PC products, I am not saying it wont end up this way... however I cant see it happening for a few years yet, consider that not all countries have the bandwidth or technology available.

 

i think as profesionals we all realise it isnt far off and we have all had a look, but the pricing is too much for the advantage they offer, there are many jobs that should only be done on I.P. and there are many applications that are well suited to this technology, but I think it still has some way to travel.

[IPSecurityPro 0]

D3Data's NETVM is the best I have seen.

 

My details to your list of downfalls:

 

1.) Watchdogs can help "inform" you if/when this happens. Networks don't usually just go down though. If this system is designed professionally, then it will not just randomly go down. There are ways to design back-up contingency plans, as well.

 

2.) Most, if not almost all, Network/IP cameras compress - either MJPEG or MPEG-2/4, etc. The power is to "push" images upon motion (at the camera level" to limit your bandwidth useage. I agree with your bandwidth comment, but as codecs get better and cameras get smarter...this will onlyl get better.

 

3.) Very good point - so only keep the camera sending the high resolution images (like an IQEye, for example) only upon events (intelligent motion, hard-wired motion, door strikes, etc.). Or utilize a hybrid system of analog and digital to take advantage of each systems benefits and downfalls. Also - take into account - most "highly compressed video" is satisfactory for most applications.

 

4.) Great input/feedback and very true. Sony has impressive cameras and firmware keeps getting better and better.

 

5.) Yes - a video server is powerful and most IP camera manufacturers make video servers, as well. Sony does, Vivotek, Axis, etc.

 

6.) You get what you pay for is the old adage. Most professional DVR systems cost on a per channel basis - just like NVR software and high-end systems like NICE - can be upwards of $80,000.00 or more - easily for casino applications.

 

I disagree with the "hype comment" - I feel the hype is justified and the technology, innovation and intelligence will only get better. It is practical and it is now.

 

I agree - most jobs can not be done entirely IP - but some can and are appropriate for it. Great input - thanks!

[rory 0]

I havent found a client yet that is technical enough to use a NVR, at least not in this country, I mean they can barely use a computer, besides MSN and Yahoo! So that is why the simple DVRs (easiest to use) will always be the biggest sellers. Not to mention the price issue.

 

When I do find one, Ill let you know However I do see where it comes into video monitoring stations, but one thing it must also do, is be able to intergrate video servers for analog cameras for existing installs. By the way this is something the right person will be able to push and sell in this country, as that is open market right now ... so let me know, I work along with a large local Alarm Monitoring company, just dont have the $$ or knowledge in that area to get it going yet.

 

Rory

Edited December 17, 2004 by Guest

[rory 0]

DVRs are great in certain applications, but what if you want (or have the need) to pull together, in a multiview the front door of 9 franchise locatioins located across the United States. I don't know of a DVR that can accomplish this.

 

GE Kalatel Can do this, up to 16 DVR Remote Sites, and up to 64 cameras in one multi site camera view. Its free software with every Kalatel DVR.Im actually gettng ready to install several 4 channel StoreSafe DVRs for this application, as they have all existing analog cameras, adding a couple more ExtremeCCTV IR cameras, and want local recording, not over the network, it will be a local wireless network installed by someone else. They just want the security to be able to view the cameras, but they are not technical enought to get too involved in using the computer besides clicking on a camera and clicking back to multi screen, in other words, live view. Meanwhile the admin (Chief of Secu) or his technical employee, has total Remote Control of all of the DVRs for playback, DVR Menu Programming/Setup, burn to CD/DVD, Flash, etc.

 

Rory

[IPSecurityPro 0]

Rory - let me clarify further, I don't know of one DVR that can accomplish this utilizing many different Manufacturers products. Thank you for the information on the GE Kalatel. It just stinks that it is a proprietary solution though.

[rory 0]

Yep .. If you think thats bad, you need to check out Ademco (Honeywell).

 

Anyway, actually, with the custom developer control, (which I have), If I had some SDKs from other brands, I could write a multi site, Multi DVR remote network software, but I only have the GE one right now. I guess if GE were to do that, they would charge a fortune for it, dont see them doing that any time in the future though they do give you all the tools to do it yourself. I did hear though the grape vine that whey will be supporting IP cameras in the future.

 

Rory

[cctv_down_under 0]

1.) Watchdogs can help "inform" you if/when this happens. Networks don't usually just go down though. If this system is designed professionally, then it will not just randomly go down. There are ways to design back-up contingency plans, as well.

 

I will validate this answer, but it is a lot more complicated then a hard wired solution....I bet every person that has worked in an office has had their network go down at some point, this can be from absolutely anything, I would rather put my faith in a hard wired solution

 

3.) Very good point - so only keep the camera sending the high resolution images (like an IQEye, for example) only upon events (intelligent motion, hard-wired motion, door strikes, etc.). Or utilize a hybrid system of analog and digital to take advantage of each systems benefits and downfalls. Also - take into account - most "highly compressed video" is satisfactory for most applications.

 

I can agree with a lot of this, however surely you can see that your solution is more complicated than the way a DVR handles it and it is more expensive.

 

6.) You get what you pay for is the old adage. Most professional DVR systems cost on a per channel basis - just like NVR software and high-end systems like NICE - can be upwards of $80,000.00 or more - easily for casino applications.

 

In most instances i would agree with your comment, however an excellent Japanes Wide Dynamic camera at $300 US (if your buying in bulk like me) and a $40 webserver is a lot cheaper than most of the I.P. based products out there, so the old addage is not entirely correct, there is too much mark up in I.P. cams at this stage because the technolgy is still new.

 

The geovision DVR is very inexpensive and I am yet to see one thing that Network Video Software can do that it can not excepting the larger scale.

 

i think Hype si accurate, Ia m not saying it will not go this way, but the majority of hype in the industry is in this area and to justify the pricing that they put on the product there would have to be some level of hype, you tell em the difference between an I.P. camera and a Webserver and analogue camera, especially one with remote controls... there is not difference, after all an I.P. cam is just that an analogue camera with a webserver built in, only difference is that it is cheaper to buy them seperately than it is to buy them as one whole unit..now that has to be hype!

 

I think rory hit it on the head, as you can see

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by IPSecurityPro:

 

DVRs are great in certain applications, but what if you want (or have the need) to pull together, in a multiview the front door of 9 franchise locatioins located across the United States. I don't know of a DVR that can accomplish this.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is beleived only I.P. cams can do this and nothing could be further from the truth the Geo system can handle 800 remote video streams and when coupled with a despatch server can accommodate 400,000 channels.

 

Mind you no computer could handle that amount even with boocoo ram!!

[IPSecurityPro 0]

Software has come a long way and continues to improve daily. I have seen Wizards intuitive enough for novice users to interact with. Price is comparable to a DVR with more functionality and inherrent intelligence.

 

Remote Verification of alarm signals and video monitoring is the power also. Software can easily integrate video servers and every current ISV or ADP of the major players (like Axis, Sony, Panasonic, IPIX, IQinVision, Acti, Vivotek, Toshiba, etc.) supports all of their video server models, as well as IP cameras so that you can cross pollinate systems and installations with multiple Manufacturer's products. Video Monitoring can easily be pushed in any country - no Central Station is doing it properly, however, they are using proprietary equipment and it is ridiculous with some of the technologies out there. A mint is there to be made from just a recurring revenue standpoint - just like the mass marketing progrmas in the alarm industry that spurred-up in the late 80s early 90s - yet, with the power to reduce false alarms to almost nil.

[rory 0]

When you're ready Im serious too, its a market here that is open now, the remote monitoring anyway. One or 2 people are doing it, but not properly and definately not advertising it.

 

As for bandwidth, while you are online, we have DSL and Cable here. Average DSL is not ADSL, upload speeds are 128K, where Cable is 384K average upload., and download. These are the normal home and business account speeds. DSL is $490 a month for the first ADSL package and that claims only 384K upload.

 

So question, as it is recording remotely, can DSL still work with Ip at those speeds (128K upload), and the compression used? Also, with Cable's Network Traffic at busy times, will that still be okay when transmitting 100's of video feeds all at once, and recording?

 

Or, is it only sent a video feed when there is motion, or an alarm? And would it be a higher monthly charge using seperate servers and IPs to record remotely for certain clients? Just wondering how.if it would work here.

 

I know of at least several large businesses here that would take this service, in addition to their monthly alarm monitoring service; thats large businesses with 5-50 local and outisland stores, even though many of them already have local DVRs and cameras.

 

Thanks

 

Rory

[IPSecurityPro 0]

DVR_Expert_Australia -

 

Yes - if you saturate a network it can/will go down. It come down to the company designing the infrastructure - professional or fly by night? A Network Solution is hard-wired, as well and just as reliable. No - it is NOT the right solution in every applicaiton, but it does need to be considered and taken into account, as viable.

 

Yes - I do agree with the fact that software can be more difficult to configure and administrate then a closed-down proprietary DVR.

 

By webserver - I assume you are speaking of video servers and that we are on the same page. There IS too much mark-up in IP products, but that will drop and is dropping and will continue to fall.

 

One question - can you sit down at a PC (with no software installed) and pull up a camera or multiview or sequencer of a system (via username and password in Internet Explorer) in an https environment and view these cameras. Can you PTZ these same cameras in that https environment from 20 separate Manufacturers and model numbers. I would say the answer is no.

 

We disagree on points, yet agree on most other points.

 

Vendors aside, both systems have inherrent power.

[IPSecurityPro 0]

I have been working with a few high profile United States Central Stations to have certain Remote Verification products deployed for alarm verification and have yet to sign and agreement. Educating companies and individuals is the difficulty in this section of the industry.

 

DSL can work, but is obviously not ideal. Dependent upon what you are trying to accomplish. You may just want to install a single camera or two and FTP images to a service at a remote location or you could do software onsite. Ideally it would be configured to send imgages on some external event, such as motion, etc.

 

It would and could work and I could speak with you about all of the specifics and details.

[cctv_down_under 0]

more functionality and inherrent intelligence.

please explain how!

 

Remote Verification of alarm signals and video monitoring is the power also

 

DVR already does this and no licensing costs

 

Software can easily integrate video servers and every current ISV or ADP of the major players (like Axis, Sony, Panasonic, IPIX, IQinVision, Acti, Vivotek, Toshiba, etc.)

 

if you do hard wired, you dont need to integrate

 

Video Monitoring can easily be pushed in any country - no Central Station is doing it properly,

 

that is absolute crap... sorry but that is ill informed information and part of the Hype factor

 

A mint is there to be made from just a recurring revenue standpoint - just like the mass marketing progrmas in the alarm industry that spurred-up in the late 80s early 90s - yet, with the power to reduce false alarms to almost nil.

 

I agree 100%, however DSL and Broadband links are not as stable as teh old phone dialers so a long way to go , and what do you tell people that have a DVR, sorry but you need I.P. cams to be monitored.. there has been a big drop off in monitoring since people realised they could do it themselves... I must add though if I had a DVR and it was not as good as Geo I would consider adding web servers to every camera as well sot hat I could sign to a monitoring station, I think this is indeed the future!!

 

I think it is very important to note that some countries, like places that are not third world Austrlalia havea ratio of probably 1 in evry 10 internet connections being broadband and the rest PSTN, your not going to get the speed you need for the applications you want, like I said it aint far off but it aint here yet

 

Yes - if you saturate a network it can/will go down. It come down to the company designing the infrastructure - professional or fly by night?

 

Correct, but the catch cry for I.P. sellers, is "hay we dont even need to run any cables or change anything"..what they fail to say is.... most networks are already fully loaded and yes poorly designed, and unless you want to wait four hours to access your file server on the same network then your really going to have to put up with pretty ****ty transmitions.

 

You cant hold out your hand and say, its eadier and nothing needs to be done then say...ohhh well you should have had a bigger network bandwidth..the truth si that I.P. takes bandwidth and I would rather have the stabilty of hard wired and no interference with network, however as codecs develop and flash storage increases and bandwidth increases, it will all be I.P. if only they could find a cheap way to power them without wirs, then you could just move them about and an install would take little time.

A Network Solution is hard-wired, as well and just as reliable.

 

I dissagree with that comment, you can not say it is as reliable and you know it.. it is fairly reliable, but not as reliable!

 

 

One question - can you sit down at a PC (with no software installed) and pull up a camera or multiview or sequencer of a system (via username and password in Internet Explorer) in an https environment and view these cameras. Can you PTZ these same cameras in that https environment from 20 separate Manufacturers and model numbers. I would say the answer is no.

 

ACTUALLY THE ANSWER IS YES!!!

 

You can do a lot more than that, you can have two way audio, you can latch alarms at the viewing end, you can count objects from one location to another, you can have full remote control over the DVR, you can look at graphs of movement, you can view POS transactions, you can activate alarms, you can look at an electronic map, you can control many PTZ devices, hell if you wanted to you could paint a box over your safe and as soon as it is taken it will contact you and send the video and vica versa, hell the system can tell you if a sale went through that was over a certain amount...whats more if the network crashes..you still have the recordings...

 

Like I said it is a hype, but a worthy one and one we will be watching closely. you asked me questions now I will ask you.

 

1/ How long has your I.P. cam company been manufactoring cameras?

2/ What happens to the recordings if the network goes down.

3/ What is the difference between a video webserver and an analogue camera and an I.P. camera (other than flash storage).

4/ What happens to accessing files from the same network when it is flooded by video...hay analogue recorders still have some advantages over DVR and DVR still has major advantages over I.P. I have used,sold,played with both and both have their advantages.

[cctv_down_under 0]

sending on motion already exists.

[IPSecurityPro 0]

We communicate on two different pages and you misinterpret my responses and perspective. I am simply a proponent of the feature rich options such as Palm and Pocket PC viewing of live and recorded data - integration with building controls, HVAC, lighting, security systems and any other IP device or appliance - directional motion and object tracking - integration with biometric devices - object analysis (pre and post alarm) - etc., etc., etc. - all through one COMMON browser based interface. DVRs are the right fit for certain applications. IP/Network Cameras and video servers for others.

 

Like I said it is not hype, but is always improving and will continue to do so. It's good you are keeping a watchful eye.

 

Answers to your questions:

 

1.) I am not with an IP camera company. I work for a software company. We have relationships with IP camera Manufacturers and video server manufacturers and everyone in the IP/Network space, but are non-proprietary. Open source and environment is where it is at!

 

2.) Networks do not "just" go down - if this is a concern design and implement the system properly to have contingencies for this (parallel network, etc.).

 

3.) There is no differnce - I never said there was.

 

4.) Don't flood the network. You are posing question that are ludicrous. You don't just SLAM up a CCTV camera and SLAM in a DVR do you? You don't do this when designing and installing a IP-based system either.

 

Let's agree to disagree, as you are misunderstanding the vast majority of my points.

[cctv_down_under 0]

Palm and Pocket PC viewing of live and recorded data - integration with building controls, HVAC, lighting, security systems and any other IP device or appliance -

 

directional motion and object tracking

 

All available on DVR

 

i am not aruguing with you, just disagreeing with your points, no one has ever had a large network that has not crashed at some point and the fact does remain that if it does you have no way to gett he recordings, this is the advantage of hard wiring the system as it will not affect it, it alos means your bandwith is not being used until you want to watch and this makes network load much less, it doesnt matter how well your netowrk is set up if you do not have the bandwidth, this is still the downfall of I.P. solutions.

 

Look you are right, planning and forethought are the best way to plan any installation and you would be stupid to not allow the bandwith when setting up a network designed to do this... but I find far too many I.P. camera sellers simply saying..."oh yeh no worreis it will just plug into your netowrk, that's our advantage ...no need for any extra cabling", but often they do not mention how much bandwidth is required and the succeptabilty to network problems that may occur.

 

i would rather know my data is always safe from a network situation, sure I may not be able to watch it of the network goes down, but at least it will still record.

 

It is Hype and that is my opinion as you admitted that there is no difference between analogue and webserver so why pay so much.... ok I admit good software makes a difference, but nothing you have mentioned can not be done on my DVR.

[IPSecurityPro 0]

A DVR, by nature is a closed-down - proprietary system. An NVR - by nature gets past all of this.

 

You can not buy a Honeywell DVR and support an IQinVision Megapixel camera. This is simply ONE of my points. Yeah - you can support any CCTV Camera great...but, that is not the intent of my point.

 

If your network crashes the cameras have buffers and the software has multiple buffers, as well. You get pre-crashing events. If your DVR crashes the same thing happens. They are running an OS, as well and are computers that are prone to potential difficulties.

 

The IP Camera sellers you are speaking of are not fair to the end-user and this is a shame. Yes they do state the power of IP cameras, but need to speak directly of bandwidth. Coax is, by no means, perfect either - I know that you realize this.

 

I didn't say there was no difference between an analogue system and a web server - I was saying that if you take any CCTV camera and connect it to a video server that there is no difference between THAT and an IP/Network camera.

 

You take software and put it onto a computer and it IS A DVR. Software on a server, resident on the NETWORK IS A NVR. There are many powers, tools and abilities that a DVR can NOT accomplish - if it can - it is NOW AN NVR!

 

Thank you for the debate and feedback/input.

[Thomas 0]

Networks fail. Slammer proved that a network can be taken out with great ease.

 

I don't grasp what you mean by proprietary system. Are you implying that your software is less proprietary by intergreating with other companies software well? Are you implying that all IP cameras interface well?

[cctv_down_under 0]

If your network crashes the cameras have buffers and the software has multiple buffers, as well. You get pre-crashing events. If your DVR crashes the same thing happens. They are running an OS, as well and are computers that are prone to potential difficulties.

 

the buffers in I.P.cameras are not large, infact they can store very very short amounts of video files, sure they can store a few pictures but the DVR can do this already, the DVR WILL record if netwrok goes down, and DVR CAN buffer loads of storage... you are right about brands that can be supported by I.P.cams, but like you said once you plug a cam into the DVR it supports it anyway..so I fail to see the point unless there is really something special about that camera.

 

Other than resolution size there is very little advantage over analogue and web server combos and lets face it not all people can transmit tons of 3 megapixel video streams.

 

your point of the DVR possibly crashing is indeed valid, but there is no difference between your recieving station and my DVR so you too face that issue, the diffrence is mine has less chance to crash out because the cameras are hard wired.

 

There are many powers, tools and abilities that a DVR can NOT accomplish - if it can - it is NOW AN NVR!

you keep mentioning this fact but without substance, name one thing!! name a few.. hay I am not trying to shoot you down, if you can convince me then all and good, but I doubt it, I am betting my DVR has more features than your expensive NVR solution.

 

TOM, I have actually seen some of the head end softwrae he is talking about, they write software to interface the settings for I.P. cams into a unified software package, it is quite good in that way, but the cost is incredable and the feature set not as impressive as it will be in due course, I think their main point of sale should be this..

 

Int eh future if you have the bandwidth and have already installed I.P. cams, we will be able to add features to your system by having a solution that can do features remotely, this is a strong point, it means that although the cam might not do a function it can be added at the end of the stream, but then again that is like a DVR software upgrade.... once again.. it is the future but unless you can tell me why to not get the same result (barring high resolution) and the same remote features and more and have the more reliable option of direct wiring, I will not be changing to a much more expensive product.

 

I went to a seminar for the Milestone product and the silly sales guy was sprouting off about how DVR's are succeptable to virus etc and because teir stuff is I.P it doesnt matter, he failed to mention that any computer getting a virus on their network could easily crash the whole system, you can have the best firewalls in the world but if just one person on the network birngs ina virused disk from home and the nbetwork dies, then good bye security recrdings. to me that is not a secure network and although cables can be cut, its easier to see that happening than a system network failure and less likely to happen by accident.

[baywatch 1]

The main reason that most of the posts are about Geovision is because this is a system used every day by installers. We install between 150 & 200 systems a year & we need to give our customers reliability & ease of use.

Geovision is generally reliable & we can teach the staff of a small shop or office to use it quite easily, many of these people have never used a computer before.

I agree that Geovision is not perfect, we used to use Avermedia systems which we prefered & which gave a better image but they did not have all the features of Geo. Also they started to crash after about 3 or 4 months use (by then we had installed quite a few) & their tech support was useless. This put us in a difficult position & we replaced all the units with Geo models.

All our old Avermedia cards have since been back to Taiwan for alterations & new software & we have now started to test them again.

We have learned the lesson on only using tested equipment for customers & when you have 2 or 3 Geo systems in a chain of maybe 20 shops (we supply local Burgerking etc) then its much simpler for us & them to use the same.

[rory 0]

The main reason that most of the posts are about Geovision is because this is a system used every day by installers. We install between 150 & 200 systems a year & we need to give our customers reliability & ease of use.

 

must be an australian and british thing? Not in the USA and West Indies/Central America.