AVerMedia versus GeoVision

[DuncansOnline 0]

I have been searching with Google to find any discussions about the quality of video produced by AVerMedia cards when compared to GeoVision cards.

 

I have not found much to read.

 

I am particularly interested in head to head comparisons....such as the AVernv3000 directly compared to the GV-600 and of the AVernv5000 directly compared to the GV-800.

 

Any comments would be most welcome. Especially discussing color depth, crispness, rendering of detail and crispness.

[cctv_down_under 0]

from my experince geo is better

[CollinR 0]

From my experience Aver is better. lol

 

Okay I can shoot you some points on both sides!

 

Geovision Pros:

** Has active CCTVForum presence! < This is a biggie for me, they aren't shy or scared.

*Software Configurablity, its got tons of configuration options.

*Video quality, this is more related to configuration then anything else.

*Features, Geo has more features that in reality few actually use.

*Digital IO controls, Geo has more for less when it comes to digital IO.

**Dynamic load balancing on framerate.

**Multistreaming based on function in use.

*Looping output is an option and not too expensive either.

 

Avermedia Pros:

** Has mild CCTVForum presence, they are here.

*Hardware Configurability, most of the time you can upgrade without a total redo.

*Ease of use, I do not have to train my customers to use Aver.

*IP and Megapixel support, Aver has an open IP scheme.

*Integration, Geo preaches it Aver delivers it.

*Cost, Aver is usually cheaper, especially if you factor in #2.

*Ease of modification, Aver is easier to tweak much of it is flat file configuration.

*IP stream transcoding. (Dunno Geo may have this too, I'm not paying the license fee to find out.)

*All Aver cards have at least a mux TV output.

*More cameras per box if you desire, 32 compared to Geo 16.

*Quickly catching Geo on features.

*Quickly catching Geo on IO controls.

*OEM software available, SDK not readily available but moreso then Geo.

*Aver seems more hardware tolerant, dunno if this is factual though.

 

Geo Cons:

*No upgrade path.

*IP license cost is crazy!!!

*More Geo pirated on eBay, makes it tough for legit dealers to compete.

*No OEM software available, SDK difficult/impossible to aquire.

*No easy means of integrating with higher control systems.

*TV out means you spend a grand.

*Cost

 

Aver Cons:

*Little to no compression controls, pick your codec and a slider.

*Basically no streaming controls at all.

*No dynamic load balancing, set it and forget it framerate.

*Depending on hardware framerate can be reduced by ports not in use.

[DuncansOnline 0]

This is comparison written by CollinR is obviously written from experience and is very valuable.

 

My immediate interests in comparing has to do with the quality of video produced.

 

I am starting to put together a FAQ on video quality, and I have identified 10 points to explore and discuss......really having to do with things other than the card.

 

Right now I am trying to understand the difference between MPEG4 and H2.64. I am learning that H2.64 is a relatively new version of MPEG4 and is sometimes referred to as MPEG4-10

 

I have not discovered if AVerMedia and GeoVision are using different codecs, or what the differences would be between codecs or between the images produced by either card.

 

Any contributions to this discussion would be really helpful, very welcome and certainly invited.

 

1. The resolution that you have set the DVR software to run at.

 

Running at

CIF 352 X 240

CIF2 640 X 480

D1 720 X 480

 

 

The higher the resolution is set for, the greater details and image quality you will achieve. This setting however may effect performance, depending on the CPU speed, memory, and video card of the system in which you have the card installed..

 

 

2. Video card and amount of onboard memory (on the card)

especially as opposed to motherboard onboard memory.

 

 

An AGP Express card will render more effectively than an AGP card

An AGP card will render more effectively than a PCI card

An AGP card will give better rendering than onboard video

 

an higher end nVideo card or higher end ATI card will give better rendering than an Intel card.

The amount of memory on the video card is a factor

 

 

The driver...is it updated....native Windows driver or the chip sets manufacturer latest driver?

 

 

3. The amount of memory on the Motherboard is a factor not only in systems with onboard memory but also when there are AGP Express, AGP or PCI cards handling the video.

 

 

4. Camera resolution 380-420-480-530-550 TVLs as well as the refresh rate of the camera.

 

5. brightness, contrast, hue and saturation controls within the DVR program

 

6. resolution of the monitor 1024 X 768 or 1280 X 1024...The width of the monitor....19" monitors distort. The brightness, contrast, hue and saturation controls of the monitor

 

 

7. Type of light

 

indoor incandescent mostly blue spectrum

indoor fluorescent mostly red spectrum

outdoor daylight - full spectrum

 

 

8 Speed of moving subject - type of camera - refresh rate

 

 

9. Frames per second rate recording or viewing.

 

 

10. Compression

 

Indeo5

MPEG4

JPEG

[Thomas 0]

There is no AGP express standard. I think you're confusing it with PCI-E or PCI Express. PCI-E is a generic bus that is used for newer video cards.

[DuncansOnline 0]

Of course...you are right....sorry...will fix that......thanks.....

[CollinR 0]

I have not discovered if AVerMedia and GeoVision are using different codecs, or what the differences would be between codecs or between the images produced by either card.

 

Any contributions to this discussion would be really helpful, very welcome and certainly invited.

 

1. The resolution that you have set the DVR software to run at.

 

Running at

CIF 352 X 240

CIF2 640 X 480

D1 720 X 480

 

 

The higher the resolution is set for, the greater details and image quality you will achieve. This setting however may effect performance, depending on the CPU speed, memory, and video card of the system in which you have the card installed..

 

All are supported by both.

 

Both use custom codecs, this is as much for security and feature support as anything else.

 

2. Video card and amount of onboard memory (on the card)

especially as opposed to motherboard onboard memory.

 

 

An AGP Express card will render more effectively than an AGP card

An AGP card will render more effectively than a PCI card

An AGP card will give better rendering than onboard video

 

an higher end nVideo card or higher end ATI card will give better rendering than an Intel card.

The amount of memory on the video card is a factor

 

The driver...is it updated....native Windows driver or the chip sets manufacturer latest driver?

 

3. The amount of memory on the Motherboard is a factor not only in systems with onboard memory but also when there are AGP Express, AGP or PCI cards handling the video.

 

This is highly debatable, and from my home theater experience I can tell you the top end of Nvidia is made for gaming not video playback. Really it makes little difference though as all CCTV systems use codecs not directly supported by basically anyone. So no matter how much you spend you will most likely not see hardware support for decoding the video from these systems.

 

I have no problems with on board intel video from most modern systems.

 

All use their own drivers this is for copy protection of the software as much as anything else. Some cards also have generic Windows drivers but they will not function with the original software unless it's a pirated system.

 

4. Camera resolution 380-420-480-530-550 TVLs as well as the refresh rate of the camera.

 

Don't forget 480p and the various megapixel formats.

 

5. brightness, contrast, hue and saturation controls within the DVR program

 

Both are similar I can't say one stands above another.

 

6. resolution of the monitor 1024 X 768 or 1280 X 1024...The width of the monitor....19" monitors distort. The brightness, contrast, hue and saturation controls of the monitor.

 

This is very important with all systems but crucially important in analog cameras where 480i is the maximum capture. IMHO the bigger issue is aspect ratio, analog cameras are all 4:3 aspect ratio and those displays are getting harder and harder to come by. Both companies have created interfaces that support 16:9 aspect ratio displays however when you fullscreen you will surely notice the distortion. With Avermedia you have an uncompressed TV output that can be used with conventional TVs, this is the highest quality live veiwing available. With Geovison you have a loop output which can be combined with a mux for Aver like functionality or a quad processor. Again this will be uncompressed unadulterated video straight from the cam.

 

 

7. Type of light

 

indoor incandescent mostly blue spectrum

indoor fluorescent mostly red spectrum

outdoor daylight - full spectrum

 

Both deal with this similarly.

 

8 Speed of moving subject - type of camera - refresh rate

 

This is only an issue with IP cameras and cameras with adjustable shutter speeds. Be leary of the function called "DSS" or Digital Slow Shutter, it's supposed to help with night viewing but only works well for static scenes.

 

9. Frames per second rate recording or viewing.

 

This depends on the device chosen from the lineup, Geo has dynamic balancing and Aver does not.

 

10. Compression

 

Indeo5

MPEG4

JPEG

 

This is also not really comparable, got Dishnet HD at home? Guess what thats an MPEG4/H.264 stream. How is the quality there?

 

The problem is how do you like a 1TB HDD only holding a day or twos worth of video per cam?

[DuncansOnline 0]

There is a fair amount to absorb in your last post! Thanks.

 

One question......I know and understand that the live TV image is superior.

 

What happens when a recorded video is played back through the TV? Does it have the same quality as when it is viewed live?

 

Would a person be well advised to locate their DVR caputer close to a Wide Screen LCD or Plasma TV not only for viewing, but also for playback?

[Media 0]

I can't say about Geo but Avermedia some of complaints

 

1. The Remote software you can't add multi account

2. CMS alarm screen show up as primary instead of live or monitor screen

3. All Software are not integrated together for example you can't do remote setup with the remote software without having to install another program called remote setup which is a separate program from the remote software. Same goes for other programs like enhance etc...

 

 

It's like you have to install each program separately just to do one job.

 

4. The new remote version on live view doesn't have overlay time stamp on each camera (it does stamp when you export it to avi)

 

They should look at Nuvico software as a role model, there stuff is super easy to use and one install you are done.

 

Everything else about aver i like it.. the video quality is nice, support ip cams, free software, nice product lines and stable.

[raymond 0]

I think the aver gives better image quality than geo especially with the newer higher res cameras.

 

I agree with Collin R about aver upping their game. I like their open approach to ip cameras. I havent worked much with geo since last year.

 

Geo has better remote access - frame rate is better, quality is better. I cant get aver to display pos info remotely properly. This is my customers main gripe. I cant download and view satisfactorily at all.

 

Cllin, i was interested to read what you said about ports not being in use and frame rate. Can you elaborate?

[rory 0]

I cant stand the Avermedia Software.

With all the money they make one would think they could do ALOT better.

Its not like they dont have enough staff.

[CollinR 0]

Collin, i was interested to read what you said about ports not being in use and frame rate. Can you elaborate?

 

If you have an NV5000 and add a zone expander but only connect/enable 4 cameras your framerate is reduced like you had all 8 connected/enabled/monitored.

[GV.Jackie 0]

I just like to reply to the original post here.

 

Actually what you said are all improved in AVer's latest CM3000 7.3, you should try that version, you can do remote backup easily as the independent backup software and you can have live monitor video in 1st screen instead of alarm video.

 

Just try it, they are going ahead of GV more and more now.

[rory 0]

*OEM software available, SDK not readily available but moreso then Geo.

 

Actually Geo's is pretty easy to obtain. I give Avermedia props for responding to email though which geo has issues with, and even sending the SDK on request, which Geo does not. Now thats out of the way ..

 

Geo's is much better IMO, I found Avermedia's liked to 'crash' alot, and was very limited in comparison to Geo's features. In the end I found Avermedia's SDK basically unusable, this was just a few months ago. It disappointed me greatly, hopefully this will change in time as they get those bugs sorted out.

 

BTW it had many exact procedures of the Geo SDK, even named identical, but missing alot of the useful ones such as most events.