IP vs. Analog

[Soundy 1]

IP and NVR are far superior if you have the skill set and the imagination to deploy it.

 

Some really great points there in your post! I think the quote above encapsulates a big reason why a lot of old-school CCTV guys are so against IP (read: are afraid of it): because they simply don't understand it, and we tend to fear what we don't understand.

 

Just to explain a little more on this. With the advent of voice on IP I thought the skill set of the IT average person in larger organisations would expand into the Comms area. However IT in many large companies has gone backwards. While the knowledge of the architect has moved forward in his skill set, after commissioning the network support gets handed over to individuals who are blinded from why it works and the other devices it talks to. The architect moves on to the next job and the knowledge of how the system runs is lost. So when you say people in CCTV are "afraid of it" I don't blame them, good information about how to setup these network protocols not passed on though the larger companies and you just can't rely on your client's network engineers of smaller companies to know exactly the pitfalls of designing and running this stuff. My team doesn't fall under IT so we are not constrained to the IT kind of budget and outsourcing job division issues that normal IT departments are.

 

All too true. IP cam manufacturers have made things relatively simple for non-IT folks to be able to install and configure the cameras, but I imagine it's still pretty scary... imagine if you had to be a video engineer to use analog cameras.

 

I agree, it's nice to be in a situation where you can control the IT structure top-to-bottom, beginning-to-end. My previous IT job was like that - not that I was the one in control, but I was involved with all stages of putting it together. It's nice when you don't have to rely on guesswork at what your predecessor did.

[survtech 0]

IP cam manufacturers have made things relatively simple for non-IT folks to be able to install and configure the cameras, but I imagine it's still pretty scary... imagine if you had to be a video engineer to use analog cameras.

 

I agree, it's nice to be in a situation where you can control the IT structure top-to-bottom, beginning-to-end. My previous IT job was like that - not that I was the one in control, but I was involved with all stages of putting it together. It's nice when you don't have to rely on guesswork at what your predecessor did.

That's where I disagree. IP camera manufacturers may have made the cameras and the systems relatively simple to set up in your mind, but not in mine, or I think in many of ours.

 

First of all, IP cameras are not "plug and play". Their setup requires, at the very least, a laptop computer and a basic knowledge of network connections. This contrasts with the typical analog camera - maybe flip a switch or two and connect coax and power.

 

Second is the transport system itself. Network switches are notoriously difficult to set up, especially in larger systems where managed switches are the norm. Programming and managing the typical managed Cisco switch, for example, is anything but straight forward. Network equipment manufacturers have a long way to go to simplify their products and companies like Cisco don't seem to have any incentive to do so.

 

Network security is another factor. It's all fine and dandy when you have a qualified IT department involved but what if you don't? Our casino is a case in point. Although we do have a relatively highly skilled IT department, we can not utilize their skills to program and manage the Surveillance network because it is contrary to policy and regulations for them to see our cameras or control our system.

 

So what do we do? We could hire a Cisco-certified tech but the cost would be quite high. Our Surveillance techs make a decent wage but a CCNA or CCNP would probably make more than I do as manager.

[Soundy 1]

^That just proves the point: you don't understand the IT side of things, thus you fear it. If you needed to be an NTSC video engineer to use analog cameras, you'd fear them as well.

 

Instead of fearing what you don't know - LEARN IT! Learn to take advantage of the DIFFERENT benefits it can provide, such as those as woodyads outlined above.

 

One of our more recent large client acquisitions, we got because they wanted someone to put megapixel cameras in their new flagship store. Their current service provider at the time didn't deal with IP and didn't want to learn about it... so they lost that job, and eventually the whole account to us.

 

One day you'll run into that casino client who WANTS a hybrid analog/IP system, and won't be talked out of it by your FUD... and you'll lose them to someone who'll give them what they want. Wouldn't it be better to TEACH YOURSELF what you need to know, to provide other customers what they want?

[woodyads 0]

You both got it right, Soundy said that the cameras are easy to set up which is right, a HTML setup page is easier that dipswitches once you have found the camera. However as Survtech implies, managing switches is quite a difficult skill to acquire. The skill is not that difficult its just hard to get the skill. I currently have a couple of Cisco 2955 and 3000 industrial Ethernet switches I am bench testing for there behavioural anomalies in regards to VLAN, trunks and IGMP. You can't just read this stuff in a book or get certified. You must take the devices, set them up then break them to see what symptoms they will give you in the field when set-up wrong. I do a lot of reading and bench testing. My policy is just because it works doesn't mean you have it right.

 

Then back to Soundy, there is a lot of new business out there if you are willing to put the time in and learn IP and NVR. Our company has just released IT GLD (Group level document) that every site must comply by. While these documents don't mention anything about Video surveillance they do not approve putting hardware into computers. It would be very difficult to integrate a DVR system into the network. Where as NVR is no problem, I saw this coming four years ago and that's why I didn't look past NVR.

 

I guess a warning for those in integration land is the big accounts will go to IP/NVR in the future. It is easier for a IT team to learn how to set-up an IP camera than a CCTV integrator to learn IP, switching, SQL deployment, server and capacity management in an enterprise environment. The question is will the big global IT outsources like CSC and Unisys give the camera installation side to existing integrators or open up the market to non traditional CCTV competitors.

[ak357 0]

You both got it right, Soundy said that the cameras are easy to set up which is right, a HTML setup page is easier that dipswitches once you have found the camera. However as Survtech implies, managing switches is quite a difficult skill to acquire. The skill is not that difficult its just hard to get the skill. I currently have a couple of Cisco 2955 and 3000 industrial Ethernet switches I am bench testing for there behavioural anomalies in regards to VLAN, trunks and IGMP. You can't just read this stuff in a book or get certified. You must take the devices, set them up then break them to see what symptoms they will give you in the field when set-up wrong. I do a lot of reading and bench testing. My policy is just because it works doesn't mean you have it right.

 

Then back to Soundy, there is a lot of new business out there if you are willing to put the time in and learn IP and NVR. Our company has just released IT GLD (Group level document) that every site must comply by. While these documents don't mention anything about Video surveillance they do not approve putting hardware into computers. It would be very difficult to integrate a DVR system into the network. Where as NVR is no problem, I saw this coming four years ago and that's why I didn't look past NVR.

 

I guess a warning for those in integration land is the big accounts will go to IP/NVR in the future. It is easier for a IT team to learn how to set-up an IP camera than a CCTV integrator to learn IP, switching, SQL deployment, server and capacity management in an enterprise environment. The question is will the big global IT outsources like CSC and Unisys give the camera installation side to existing integrators or open up the market to non traditional CCTV competitors.

 

Thanks for info !

 

Can you tell us How Do You test Ethernet switches

For Throughput , Bandwidth, etc

Which tools do you use ?

Thanks

[woodyads 0]

[quote name="ak357

Thanks for info !

 

Can you tell us How Do You test Ethernet switches

For Throughput ' date=' Bandwidth, etc

Which tools do you use ?

Thanks[/quote]

 

Capacity planning for NVR / DVR is a mixed bag. Bandwidth from IP cameras is easy, it is throttled and can be controlled by and administrator. Computers are much harder because individuals with no capacity planning can demand a 20mb file from a file server or email. It is when you mix Video over a data network things become hazy. Capacity planning for switches is a bit more difficult. The backplane on a switch won't necessarily support the aggregate bandwidth of all the ports, particularly from cheap switches. DVR's are harder to capacity plan for than NVR's as NVR distributes the multicasting between the cameras instead of aggregating it at the server. The big questions is how to divide up the traffic among the switches and if your using trunks how to prioritize traffic. My major concern is safety systems and high cost heavy vehicle monitoring monitoring systems not the NVR. So my Vlans are based around calculable network traffic and random traffic that is client demand orientated is not allowed on those Vlans (which is protecting with wireless side capacity issues). The testing I am currently doing is based around spanning tree, failover, trunking and IGMP to see how the switches react when plugged into the wrong port or the effects of the multicasts and broadcasts between Vlans. I am not really testing for bandwidth issues as that is more a bottleneck at the wireless side.

 

For monitoring bandwidth you can use a SNMP system like Cacti. I don't let random data generating system on my critical Vlans so I don't really need live monitoring. My wireless system can aggregates around 240mb-s from moving vehicles so my switches have no issues keeping up.

[survtech 0]

^That just proves the point: you don't understand the IT side of things, thus you fear it.

Are you saying that I "fear" the IT side? Far from it. As a matter of fact, quite the reverse is true. As the Network Administrator of our system, I know much more IT than the average CCTV installer. Although I'm not formally trained on the stuff, I've been working with networks since Netware 2.0a. VLAN programming and certain aspects of Windows Server are my weak areas.

 

But that's not the point. Installing and managing large-scale IP systems requires a much higher skill set than analog systems. The average salary for a CCNP in SoCal approaches $100k. Compare that to the average CCTV tech's salary of $40-50k. And CCNP's don't like to get their hands dirty so we can't expect them to install cameras. How do we justify hiring one?

 

As I said, we can't take advantage of the casino's IT department due to regulations so we are on our own or have to hire outside integrators every time the system needs to be upgraded or expanded; an even more costly proposition.

 

Cisco is the penultimate case. They haven't simplified their programming at all. In fact, programming their switches reminds me of using DOS in some ways. Could that possibly be so that Cisco training remains expensive and justifies the huge salaries CCNP's make?

[rory 0]

It is easier for a IT team to learn how to set-up an IP camera than a CCTV integrator to learn IP

 

Just because they are able to set up an IP camera, doesnt mean the video surveillance application is being done right. As to learning "IP", a 5 year old can do that these days.

[Soundy 1]

^That just proves the point: you don't understand the IT side of things, thus you fear it.

Are you saying that I "fear" the IT side? Far from it. As a matter of fact, quite the reverse is true. As the Network Administrator of our system, I know much more IT than the average CCTV installer.

 

...

 

As I said, we can't take advantage of the casino's IT department due to regulations so we are on our own or have to hire outside integrators every time the system needs to be upgraded or expanded; an even more costly proposition.

 

Fair enough... perhaps a broader, more accurate description would be "fearing what you can't control".

[woodyads 0]

On the comment of fear and control.

 

In my experience dealing with the bureaucracy in large IT departments is much harder and takes more technical expertise than setting up the system yourself. Not having access to the interfaces and blindly trusting IT to get it right is not really affordable. You have to be capable of knowing what the underlying problem will be from the symptom with out the help of the access to the network interfaces. This presents a very high risk to any project you are likely to undertake.

 

So while you can overcome the fear of technology there is another level of competence you must conquer to deliver these projects. I don't blame anyone from shying away from these larger contracts.

 

Better clarify the larger contracts. Intergrating IP/NVR over the data network in an enterprise environment. As this is were there is a lot of scope for work if you have the skill and the imagination as discussed earlier. This is not suitable in casio's etc where separation or the data and video network are required.

[woodyads 0]

It is easier for a IT team to learn how to set-up an IP camera than a CCTV integrator to learn IP

 

Just because they are able to set up an IP camera, doesnt mean the video surveillance application is being done right. As to learning "IP", a 5 year old can do that these days.

 

So what I am trying to work out at the moment is can you setup two Vlans on one switch that are connected together without a router then use IGMP policies to filter out specific multicast groups. This is an option to the easier task of filtering ports via a firewall or bridge. While I can make this work is it in the design specs of IGMP V3 and VLAN 802.1p/q Or is there a chance that if I deploy this it will fail if we introduce new switches at some stage in the future. Also how difficult will this become to manage and will Dynamic vlan port allocation become an issue.

 

Has anyone got a list of switches that don't default to IGMP and treat multicasts as broadcasts by default?

 

Does anyone know the answer to these?

[Soundy 1]

It is easier for a IT team to learn how to set-up an IP camera than a CCTV integrator to learn IP

 

Just because they are able to set up an IP camera, doesnt mean the video surveillance application is being done right. As to learning "IP", a 5 year old can do that these days.

 

So what I am trying to work out at the moment is can you setup two Vlans on one switch that are connected together without a router then use IGMP policies to filter out specific multicast groups. This is an option to the easier task of filtering ports via a firewall or bridge. While I can make this work is it in the design specs of IGMP V3 and VLAN 802.1p/q Or is there a chance that if I deploy this it will fail if we introduce new switches at some stage in the future. Also how difficult will this become to manage and will Dynamic vlan port allocation become an issue.

 

Has anyone got a list of switches that don't default to IGMP and treat multicasts as broadcasts by default?

 

Does anyone know the answer to these?

 

Damn, boy! I understand what most of that stuff IS, but how it all works is still beyond my scope I'd love to learn all that stuff, but nothing we've done thus far is anywhere near that complex, so I don't think I could make a business case for the cost of training. As noted elsewhere, most of our larger IP or hybrid installs so far, we've just set up a dedicated LAN for the cameras, NVR and NAS.

 

The one exception was the latest job for a gas station, and in that case, their corporate IT guys allocated partitioned ports on their switch for us - they pre-configured the thing and sent it to their installer along with a list of which ports we were to use. Far as I can tell, our partition is completely isolated from their network - they didn't even give a range of IPs to use, just said to use whatever we normally use.

 

Actually, I don't mind that type of setup, either - as long as my wiring is good, my responsibility ends at the patchbay. If the switch isn't set up right, that's not my problem Worst case, I could just slap in a separate switch until they get it sorted out. The only downside is, they don't use PoE switches, so I still have to run power to the cameras. PITA!

[rory 0]

It is easier for a IT team to learn how to set-up an IP camera than a CCTV integrator to learn IP

 

Just because they are able to set up an IP camera, doesnt mean the video surveillance application is being done right. As to learning "IP", a 5 year old can do that these days.

 

So what I am trying to work out at the moment is can you setup two Vlans on one switch that are connected together without a router then use IGMP policies to filter out specific multicast groups. This is an option to the easier task of filtering ports via a firewall or bridge. While I can make this work is it in the design specs of IGMP V3 and VLAN 802.1p/q Or is there a chance that if I deploy this it will fail if we introduce new switches at some stage in the future. Also how difficult will this become to manage and will Dynamic vlan port allocation become an issue.

 

Has anyone got a list of switches that don't default to IGMP and treat multicasts as broadcasts by default?

 

Does anyone know the answer to these?

 

The more important question is, how much is the client willing to pay for this info? I dont work for free anymore.

[cctv_down_under 0]

Ok guys..... I only made it to page 7 ..seems we were repeating a lot. but there were a few things I did not agree with.

 

CCTV EXPERT

Last but not least there is a reason that no gaming commission in the united states allows IP camera for casinos. Why, because there is no fault tolerance, if you lose the network you are done. You can try to build clusters of network switches with all kinds of backups but there are issues and the costs go into the stratosphere.

 

I dont totally agree with this statement - for one...there are IP cameras that can do both analogue and IP, so that brings about a hard wired redundancy along with a IP performance - Secondly the MAIN and I am sure to mention quite a few reasons but the MAIN reason I am not all that fond of IP solutions is exactly as CCTV Expert mentioned......more points of weakness, more plugs, more switches, especially when on a large scale....the problem I always saw with IP was that if a DOS / VIRUS or a network issue occured, the recording stopped, this is the biggest risk by far...granted a DVR is also succeptable to virus, but network efficiency can be easily disabled, this is why a lot of manufactorers will shift to solid state storage in the camera...but further..... the systems I have used also re-replicate the data....IE as soon as the network goes down it records inside the camera or at a local network location - it then re replicates from where it last recorded when it comes back online......until this was available I hated IP.

 

 

SOUNDY

There's just no hope for some, analog or IP. The ones that are concerned more with cost will go with a $500 all-inclusive camera/DVR package from Costco, because they're more concerned with simply having cameras, than having usable video. There's no point trying to sell anything to them, be it IP, or simply high-quality analog.

 

That is such a ....well I am trying to find a nice way to say the word Immature.....statement and one most IP pro people use it simply is not worth arguing with ...

 

SURV TECH

The assumption that IP cameras can fill in for two or three analog cameras is quite a stretch. That is only in some specific cases and only when you are using megapixel cameras. 640x480 IP cameras have no better resolution than their analog equivalents and would require a 1:1 swap. Even with megapixel cameras, their supposed increased efficiency depends entirely on what they are watching. I can think of a number of applications where megapixel IP cameras would not give any better coverage than analog.

 

I totally agree with this statement, I hate that all too familiar statement saying that IP cameras can do twice the res so therefore if they are twice the res then they should equate to twice the cost..........try pulling that stunt with almost ANY design in the market, try telling a grocery store with multiple aisles that a single camera can do the job of two.....what rubbish, it can not see from one aisle into the other ...try to picture the scenario...if a camera is placed in an Aisle in the middle looking up it...it can not see the next aisle , but two cameras could...

 

If you had a camera on the inside of a doorway and the outside, the inside one cant see to the outside....so how does 1 camera benefit...now before you say "ok for that situation" I would argue that more than half of installs would not require a large open area...where MP cameras are an advantage....granted if you specialise in this area....then all well and great but as an average I would think that in most instances more cameras and more angles are better than one larger view.

 

I have been in the industry a long time and I have EXTENSIVELY tested both analogue and IP and I can tell you that these are the benefits and problems I have seen.

 

IP PRO

- Larger Resolution.- in even lighting and good lighting, nothing comes close to MP IP cameras, outstanding

- Relocation - once a DVR is hard wired it can not be moved as easily as an IP NVR one, it is simple to up the NVR to another location which makes it more suitable

- Camera configuration - although some analogue cams can allow remote configurtaion through a DVR, IP cameras can be connected to directly, so if a new window or a new doorway or if lighting changes then it is simple to adjust the camera settings remotely

- Existing Cabling - yes you can use existing ethernet, but what a lot of people forget is that it is not only down to the ethernet bandwidth, if you do not have the right NIC's installed then you will affect performance, when streaming large res video the NIC needs a buffer to process IP traffic it can increase perfomance greatly, most often you can get away with a few extra cameras but try flogging a cheap router all day long to max capacity and see how long it lasts.

- Firmware Upgrade to take advantage of new technology

 

IP CONS

- Mostly CMOS and very poor dynamic range......although the pics from soundy are clever....try looking from a warehouse out to the sunlight on the ground outside.....find a picture where bright takes up half as much as dark and then see the image result.....I have tested many IP cameras, the same test angles same lighting, with most IP cameras you can not even make out marking on the ground outside but with analogue...no problem.

- Succeptable to network failure

- More points of weakness

- Bandwidth Intensive

- No proper standard

- Upgrading a NVR may not be possible because of compatability needed for your old IP cameras.

 

 

There are many many points from both sides, but for me, I like IP when in perfect lighting and there is a nice network with spare bandwidth or a new IP network can be installed......but for reliability analogue is much better- I must admit I only use expensive analogue gear Bosch/Panasonic etc but still Analogue outperforms IP in almost every aspect other than resolution and although resolution is great it is not the only factor, what good is a really high res image of an intrudor that you can not see because the scene is too dark or becasue you do not have enough cameras installed in enough locations..

 

Ultimately security television's (cant call it CCTV) most important features should be.

 

Reliability - Analogue

Identification - Analogue/IP (dependant on light)

Coverage - Analogue (cheaper more cameras...more angles) IP bigger resolution larger area.

Design - Analogue (you can put analogue in more trying lighting environments and therefore it can be placed EXACTLY where you want it, you do not have to sacrifice location to accomodate poor performance.

 

What is the future- IP of course....is it here yet....I dont think so...growth of a technology does not stop just because of a recession.....I think a lot of people in the industry know that unless a standard is realized and worked to IP is not worth the extra dollars.

 

Put it this way, Id rather afford a rotweiler in my front yard and my back yard if I could.... than simply a bigger one in the front yard...deterrant can be a massive thing and having more coverage even if at less resolution is more important...that said when I tested low light...Analogue was much better, when I tested BLC or WDR Analogue was much better, but when I closed the roller doors, turned on the fluro's and compared the two.....WOW 3MP really makes a huge difference.....just my two cents.

[Soundy 1]

Ok guys..... I only made it to page 7 ..seems we were repeating a lot. but there were a few things I did not agree with.

 

The assumption that IP cameras can fill in for two or three analog cameras is quite a stretch. That is only in some specific cases and only when you are using megapixel cameras. 640x480 IP cameras have no better resolution than their analog equivalents and would require a 1:1 swap. Even with megapixel cameras, their supposed increased efficiency depends entirely on what they are watching. I can think of a number of applications where megapixel IP cameras would not give any better coverage than analog.

 

I totally agree with this statement, I hate that all too familiar statement saying that IP cameras can do twice the res so therefore if they are twice the res then they should equate to twice the cost..........try pulling that stunt with almost ANY design in the market, try telling a grocery store with multiple aisles that a single camera can do the job of two.....what rubbish, it can not see from one aisle into the other ...try to picture the scenario...if a camera is placed in an Aisle in the middle looking up it...it can not see the next aisle , but two cameras could...

 

If you had a camera on the inside of a doorway and the outside, the inside one cant see to the outside....so how does 1 camera benefit...now before you say "ok for that situation" I would argue that more than half of installs would not require a large open area...where MP cameras are an advantage....granted if you specialise in this area....then all well and great but as an average I would think that in most instances more cameras and more angles are better than one larger view.

 

Ah, but this is the thing: each has its own place, its own advantages and disadvantages. Nobody's saying IP is the be-all and end-all replacement for analog systems. The issue I have here is with those who seem intent on dismissing it *in general* because they see no advantages to it *for their purposes*. Constantly bringing up, for example, that "gaming commissions don't allow it casinos because of blah blah blah" as an argument against its use *for anything* is really very silly - one, because there are lots of other people and businesses besides casinos that use cameras, and two, because it's a ridiculous blanket statement that's not universally true: SOME gaming commissions may not allow it, but NOT ALL of them.

 

 

I have been in the industry a long time and I have EXTENSIVELY tested both analogue and IP and I can tell you that these are the benefits and problems I have seen.

 

IP PRO

- Larger Resolution.- in even lighting and good lighting, nothing comes close to MP IP cameras, outstanding

- Relocation - once a DVR is hard wired it can not be moved as easily as an IP NVR one, it is simple to up the NVR to another location which makes it more suitable

- Camera configuration - although some analogue cams can allow remote configurtaion through a DVR, IP cameras can be connected to directly, so if a new window or a new doorway or if lighting changes then it is simple to adjust the camera settings remotely

- Existing Cabling - yes you can use existing ethernet, but what a lot of people forget is that it is not only down to the ethernet bandwidth, if you do not have the right NIC's installed then you will affect performance, when streaming large res video the NIC needs a buffer to process IP traffic it can increase perfomance greatly, most often you can get away with a few extra cameras but try flogging a cheap router all day long to max capacity and see how long it lasts.

- Firmware Upgrade to take advantage of new technology

 

IP CONS

- Mostly CMOS and very poor dynamic range......although the pics from soundy are clever....try looking from a warehouse out to the sunlight on the ground outside.....find a picture where bright takes up half as much as dark and then see the image result.....I have tested many IP cameras, the same test angles same lighting, with most IP cameras you can not even make out marking on the ground outside but with analogue...no problem.

- Succeptable to network failure

- More points of weakness

- Bandwidth Intensive

- No proper standard

- Upgrading a NVR may not be possible because of compatability needed for your old IP cameras.

 

Okay, there's another issue here, for me: "IP" and "megapixel" are being used interchangeably, and they are NOT always the same thing. As others have noted, there are IP cameras that are 4CIF or lower resolution. As others like to keep pointing out, there are megapixel cameras (in development, at least) that don't use IP. And of course, you can plug an analog camera into a video-server box, thus effectively turning it into an IP camera, while still retaining your major pros of analog cameras (particularly the handling of tough lighting).

 

So when you're stacking your pros and cons, it's maybe a good idea to differentiate between "IP" and "megapixel"... many of megapixel's issues have nothing to do with IP technology, and none of IP's drawbacks have anything to do with the megapixel sensors.

 

It may be picking nits, but this blurring of the two really irks me... it's like saying a pickup truck is better than a Mack truck because the semi's diesel exhaust stinks... the comparison falls apart if you bring a diesel pickup into the mix...

 

Anyway, just to further muddy the waters, I had a couple other absurd thoughts on the issue... for example:

 

As far as points of failure, the major SINGLE point of failure for an IP camera network is the switch - a failure there takes out all the cameras; it's the one piece of hardware that they all connect into, that consolidates all their signals. Well... an analog DVR also has a single point of failure, a single piece of equipment that all the cameras connect to, that consolidates all their signals. And yes, I have had capture cards fail. It's rare, but it happens... same as with network switches.

 

And for that matter, if the "star" topology of an analog DVR setup, where every camera runs straight to the recorder and has its own input, is really that beneficial... well... your NVR can be done up the same way: separate NIC for every camera, one single cable run straight from each camera to its dedicated NIC. Same number of wires, same number of connectors. Yeah, it's a little extreme, but... well, it addresses another point.

 

Ultimately, with several dozen of systems in the field, a couple pure IP, several hybrid, most analog, I've had ONE failure of a switch, ONE failure of a capture card, the occasional failure of a camera or maybe an iris... and NUMEROUS cases of failing hard drives, fried power supplies, blown motherboard capacitors, and all manner of other instances of the DVR/NVR itself going down. Frankly, if a single point of failure is that great a concern, you're better to do away with the DVR/NVR altogether, because that is by far the weakest link in the system.

[Soundy 1]

There's just no hope for some, analog or IP. The ones that are concerned more with cost will go with a $500 all-inclusive camera/DVR package from Costco, because they're more concerned with simply having cameras, than having usable video. There's no point trying to sell anything to them, be it IP, or simply high-quality analog.

 

That is such a ....well I am trying to find a nice way to say the word Immature.....statement and one most IP pro people use it simply is not worth arguing with ...

 

And you obviously missed the part-snide/part-tongue-in-cheek point of that statement.

[cctv_down_under 0]

Okay, there's another issue here, for me: "IP" and "megapixel" are being used interchangeably,

 

Granted...and I stand corrected, it was not my intention to mislead however, it is just that to me ONE of the major advantages of the IP style of camera is that they can be MP, I agree that there is a mix between the two and that is certainly not the ONLY advantage, I think I made the mistake of not being clear on this because I would mainly only consider the advantage of resolution in swaying me to a IP MP camera...otherwise I would mostly use analogue.

 

The problem as you rightly stated is that both have advantage and disadvantage...and I am not taking sides becasue I have specialised with both....but the one thing I will say is that quite often you will find a person who has been in the industry for some time that will embrace the IP and MP technology, but it NEVER seems to be the other way around....that said...there are those of us that dont like to embrace that technology...hell I rememeber using a dual page quad + a single ch capture card and PC Anywhere on slow modems...but when digital came we embraced it...what really irks me is that anyone who has ONLY ever done IP cameras speaks to me and perhaps I am unlucky in whom I have dealt with ......but they ALWAYS are not willing to consider analogue....when it is obvious that like you said both have their place.

 

I think most people dislike the hype because it tends to be very inacurate at times and annoying to have to disprove.... I think things are a little more mature and rational in here than out in cold face.

 

Dont get me wrong, CCTV suppliers have been cheating the specs for ages.....counting fields as frames...using half full IRE to read ratings, measuring with F Stops that would cost you a mortgage to buy......lying about TV lines......but never has there been so much fake hype generated about CCTV before.

 

IP has its advantages....so does analogue its annoying when CCTV people will not accept that.

 

I just hate it when you hear all those same lines.....you know the whole "Oh but you save on cabling" or "But it takes the job of two cameras".

 

To be honest I am all for IP cameras.... to me it makes sense to go this route...but I just wish there was a little more profesionalism from the people pushing the product so hard.

 

I recently had to waste 2 days of my time taking shots at different times of the day at different lighting conditions becasue I had to convince our existing customer that we werent selling him old technology...wasted my time and I knew what the results would be..but because some smarmy sales guy who has no history in CCTV at all and no knowledge repeated verbatim the same old lines that you always hear.

 

I think the casing point is......do a google on IP vs Analogue and see how many PRO IP articles you find.....but we all agree there are advantages to both....so why are there not as many PRO Analogue articles.....the reason is simple IT companies and manufactorers behave differently to traditional CCTV ones (small manufactorers excepted) and they dont carry on like that.

 

So to be clear....I like both....JUST IP reps seem to be less accurate with the info...but thats just my experience.

 

My apologies for not being clear about IP/MP and also to the poor guy who copped my ridicule about the tongue and cheek comment.....it was simply a case of ....so sick of that incorrect statement.

 

And I feel terrible because he helped me with a support issue today as well.....oh well my bad.!!!!

[cctv_down_under 0]

My point by "more points of failure" is that on a large scale IP install there would be multiple switches and therefore more points of failure than running directly the dvr, therefore more equipment and more joins and patches ...therefore more points of failure......Distance is still and issue for IP.

 

I can use an XF camera from Bosch and run it using the inbuilt ability to run what i think is about 400 Meters (not sure but probably longer) on coax...to do that with standard Cat5 would require more points of weakness....yes i understand there is fibre and other mediums, but most common is cat5 and coax.

[Soundy 1]

I think most people dislike the hype because it tends to be very inacurate at times and annoying to have to disprove

 

I'm with ya there! The one that bugs me is the tendency to refer to megapixel cameras as "HDTV" - other than the fact that a few of them match HD spec resolutions (720 or 1080, either natively or via internal cropping), using what's essentially a hot marketing buzzword really does sell the technology and capabilities short.

 

.... I think things are a little more mature and rational in here than out in cold face.

 

I dunno, I've seen more... I'd almost call it paranoia, about IP/megapixel in here, than I ever have in "the real world". Anyone I've shown megapixel views to has been amazed at the picture. Nobody yet has balked at the IP technology itself. The costs may be out of the budget for many, but those are the same people you can't sell on a $3000 PTZ or a $600 SDIII. But again, those, as with megapixel and IP, are usually for more specialized purposes, and as such are more expensive. Nothing unusual about that.

 

IP has its advantages....so does analogue its annoying when CCTV people will not accept that.

 

Absolutely. But that street goes both ways as well. I'm a proponent of whatever will get the job done best... and at least for our clients, we find a LOT of instances where megapixel is a BIG improvement, as long as the budget allows.

 

I just hate it when you hear all those same lines.....you know the whole "Oh but you save on cabling" or "But it takes the job of two cameras".

 

Sure, it's a problem when they're overused... but it's very often true. In fuel services, for example, when they want to be able to read plates of cars at the pumps, a single 1.3MP camera very easily takes the place of two or even three analog cameras. There, you're saving not just the cost of the second camera, but of its housing, and yes, its cabling as well.

 

I recently had to waste 2 days of my time taking shots at different times of the day at different lighting conditions becasue I had to convince our existing customer that we werent selling him old technology...wasted my time and I knew what the results would be..but because some smarmy sales guy who has no history in CCTV at all and no knowledge repeated verbatim the same old lines that you always hear.

 

Hey, I've had to talk a customer out of using the wrong technology as well... I mentioned before a large client (an upscale restaurant chain) that we stole from a competitor who wouldn't (or couldn't) supply the megapixel cameras they wanted for their new flagship store. They wanted a MP cam for their front door ID shot. I pointed out the terrible backlighting that would exist there and that the MP cams wouldn't be able to handle it... so they went initially with the same WDR domes that were spec'd through the rest of store... found even those couldn't handle it, and we eventually put in the CP484 that should have been there in the first place (and even the SDIII has problems with the backlighting - it took me a good 45 minutes of noodling with the settings to get it really working well).

 

I think the casing point is......do a google on IP vs Analogue and see how many PRO IP articles you find.....but we all agree there are advantages to both....so why are there not as many PRO Analogue articles.....the reason is simple IT companies and manufactorers behave differently to traditional CCTV ones (small manufactorers excepted) and they dont carry on like that.

 

Well sure.... it's something NEW. Naturally the benefits have to be touted. You get the same arguments over, say, hybrid cars vs. standard driveline designs... or plasma/lcd vs. CRT TVs (CRT still *look* better, as far as I'm concerned - a 60" HDTV CRT would be ideal, I think, except for the dedicated nuclear plant it would take to power it).

 

And I feel terrible because he helped me with a support issue today as well.....oh well my bad.!!!!

 

That's alright, my bill is in the mail

[survtech 0]

The issue I have here is with those who seem intent on dismissing it *in general* because they see no advantages to it *for their purposes*. Constantly bringing up, for example, that "gaming commissions don't allow it casinos because of blah blah blah" as an argument against its use *for anything* is really very silly - one, because there are lots of other people and businesses besides casinos that use cameras, and two, because it's a ridiculous blanket statement that's not universally true: SOME gaming commissions may not allow it, but NOT ALL of them.

I never said that I dismiss IP cameras in general. I also never said that our Gaming Commission does not allow them. In fact, our Gaming Commission has no regulations for or against any specific camera type. They do, however, specify that all cameras be recorded at 30fps. That basically disallows most, if not all, megapixel cameras. Without megapixel's ability to see things analog can't, IP cameras offer no advantages and many disadvantages for our use.

 

I am, however, tired of the hype saying that IP is superior, no matter what the application. Axis, for one, is a big promoter of that viewpoint.

 

As far as casino gaming commissions and casino use of IP cameras: Hey, it's their funeral. I have yet to see a case study of a casino IP deployment that actually says how reliable the system is or lists any problems encountered. That data is usually swept under the carpet. So on that note, I would love to hear from other casinos' Surveillance Department with honest answers to my questions:

 

* Are your IP cameras 100% reliable? Your camera's IP network?

* If the IP network replaced an analog system, how do the continuing costs compare?

* Who manages your IP network and, if it is your casino's IT department, how has that worked out?

* Did you have to hire someone to configure and manage the system and what did that cost? If you have a Surveillance employee who manages and programs your system, how does that person's salary compare to your camera installers?

* What is your PTZ latency? Is it acceptable? Do you have trouble controlling them?

* What problems have you run into with lighting that you didn't have with analog cameras?

* Was/is your IP system worth the expense?

[benhutuk 0]

Recently Mike Newton, CEO of Dedicated Micros, wrote an article about how IP CCTV solutions were expensive and unreliable compared to analogue / hybrid solutions. Mark Harraway, Country Manager of Controlware UK, responds to Mike’s observations and provides an alternative cost breakdown for a 750 camera system using IP which is significantly more cost effective than the solution proposed by Mike Newton.

 

The two articles do a good job of outlining the benefits on each side of the IP, analog / hybrid debate.

 

If anyone is interested in reading the articles in full and the 750 camera cost breakdown mentioned above feel free to email me - bhutchins@cware.co.uk

[rory 0]

Recently Mike Newton, CEO of Dedicated Micros, wrote an article about how IP CCTV solutions were expensive and unreliable compared to analogue / hybrid solutions. Mark Harraway, Country Manager of Controlware UK, responds to Mike’s observations and provides an alternative cost breakdown for a 750 camera system using IP which is significantly more cost effective than the solution proposed by Mike Newton.

 

The two articles do a good job of outlining the benefits on each side of the IP, analog / hybrid debate.

 

If anyone is interested in reading the articles in full and the 750 camera cost breakdown mentioned above feel free to email me - bhutchins@cware.co.uk

 

Really though, 750 cameras? LOL.

 

Ok Ill bite ...

187 x 4 channel DVRs @ $50 each + 750 cameras @ $30 each. = $31,850. Cable same cost give or take a couple dollars ... power supplies ... small cost .. so what was the IP total cost? after all if someone here is doing 750 cameras they want to know the bottom line .. to take a year away from doing other work how much will they make?

Edited July 10, 2009 by Guest

[benhutuk 0]

In his initial article Mike Newton talked about a 750 camera system but didnt explain the cost breakdown that is why the pro IP article details a cost breakdown.

 

It in no way meant that 750 cameras is a maximum or limit in anyway just that the original article specified this.

 

In fact one of the costs mentioned in the original article was £1.8m for a 750 camera system so LOL all you want I did!

[rory 0]

yeah well DM is considered very over priced by most CCTV professionals. Same with Pano and a bunch more of the "big brand" players.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Guest

[benhutuk 0]

1.8m over priced? LOL

 

Try considerably over priced....

 

If you would like to read the artciles though drop me a line.