IP vs. Analog

[cctvexpert 0]

Most of the IP cameras do not have auto iris (not all but most)

 

Most of the IP cameras are incredibly poor in low light (check the lux) - again not all but most.

 

Also, many of the IP cameras are CCD chips not CMOS. So the only thing they are doing is encoding at the edge with lower powered processing compared to encoding at the DVR where you can use hardware encoding at the PC where you can eliminate many of the issues inherent in encoding at the edge.

 

There are also significant lighting issues, which wide dynamic range address a la Pixim.

 

If you want you can do what our organization has done and virtually taken cameras from a dozen manufacturers in both megapixel, CMOS, CCD, etc. and put them through the motions. It became apparent that its a matter of IP is not ready for prime time nor is megapixel.

 

I have not even addressed the ghosting or severe latency issues.

 

Try using some IP ptz and watch what happens when you try to swing the camera.

 

Take a megapixel camera and put it into a shaded area or where the angle of light is such that you get a partial sunny view.

 

The results speak for themself.

 

Also, take a megapixel camera and wave your hand up and down and record it and play it back and watch what happens.

[ak357 0]

Also, take a megapixel camera and wave your hand up and down and record it and play it back and watch what happens.

 

Take your best analog camera put persons about 30-40 feet away

from camera ask to to form line about 25 feet long and tell me what do you see

"lots of nothing"

p.s.

I would assume u do know how to pick right lenses

to properly cover line up

[cctvexpert 0]

Again, it depends what you are trying to accomplish. Which is why the question is do you have choke points if you are talking about identification. Ask yourself the same questions when there is challenging lighting and you can take the megapixel camera and toss it out the window.

 

Clearly, there are places where megapixel can be advantageous but it is not a panacea. It is the best there is for now and will get better with time. But don't fool yourself into thinking it will work in shadows or challenging light at distances.

 

IT HAS ITS PLACE

[cctvexpert 0]

Example:

 

I have put 5MP cameras at 40 feet and if you try to read license plates if there is more than a 15 degree angle between the camera and the plate you will be hard pressed to see anything but a blur. Then if you lower the camera you lose the perspective and it defeats the purpose. In the end I used 2 cameras that were a fraction the price and accomplished the same task, which is now being used by transportation departments.

 

We tried several different scenarios and it never worked.

 

Yet there are times you can use MP to cover larger areas such as in car lots to take the place of multiple cameras where it is more of a reactive type situation as opposed to proactive. In those cases it has some good applications, but then again if its an open area you will be hard pressed for subject identification - it will be better than any analog solution should there not be any choke points but not anywhere near perfect.

[ak357 0]

I am sure you are going to see HD analog cameras

 

What is HD analog camera ?

waiting for answer plz

[cctvexpert 0]

the industry is working on High Definition cameras that can transmit analog as opposed to digital. Again, if you understand the CPU, CCD and DSP you will understand that this is native and can easily be done.

[survtech 0]

the industry is working on High Definition cameras that can transmit analog as opposed to digital. Again, if you understand the CPU, CCD and DSP you will understand that this is native and can easily be done.

What good would they do when A-D encoders are not capable of greater than D1?

[cctvexpert 0]

There are new chips out there already. It is very confusing to most people since the CCD which is analog is a digital CCD - so it's an oxymoron.

 

And not sure whoever told you that there is nothing past D1 when in fact Texas Instruments and others already do that.

[ak357 0]

There are new chips out there already. It is very confusing to most people since the CCD which is analog is a digital CCD - so it's an oxymoron.

 

And not sure whoever told you that there is nothing past D1 when in fact Texas Instruments and others already do that.

 

 

As long as "cctvexpert" believe that reg NTSC signal could be Hi Def

We better stop now

remains me talk between me, few other and Rory about 6 month back

no win conversation

[cctvexpert 0]

Altera's Stratix II FPGA family with ATEME's H264 Compression

 

Aricient with Texas Instruments' OMAP3430

 

Broadcom BCM7043

 

TI Davinci

 

If you do your homework or understand the chip technology then you woulnd't make that statement.

[cctvexpert 0]

FYI, no one said a "regular" NTSC signal could be high definition. What was stated is that a High Definition signal can be transmitted not using an IP stream. This strictly addresses the problem of megapixel being a bandwidth hog and that to address this similar to running "standard" cameras across UTP using baluns and bypassing the network, you will be able to do the same thing with a signal that outputs 720/1080. Don't twist words!

[cctvexpert 0]

Stick to what you know best. This is why I don't even bother posting anymore. People here seem to know it all. The smartest people are the ones that know they don't know everything and listen.

 

Unless of course you in addition to your other skill sets are an engineer DSP and FPGA programmer with knowledge of encoding and transcoding.

 

Stick to installing dvr's and cameras

[robert 0]

cctvexpert,

 

You seem to know what you are talking about, thats good. But please dont take it as offensive conversation - its discussion forum where people discuss stuff, somebody knows more, somebody less. Its going to be OK Just proove it if you got something to say and others will just have to agree, if not - they will shut up

[survtech 0]

FYI, no one said a "regular" NTSC signal could be high definition. What was stated is that a High Definition signal can be transmitted not using an IP stream. This strictly addresses the problem of megapixel being a bandwidth hog and that to address this similar to running "standard" cameras across UTP using baluns and bypassing the network, you will be able to do the same thing with a signal that outputs 720/1080. Don't twist words!

I assume megapixel over analog would require the transmission system to pass higher frequencies. That is do-able with coax (but with reduced distance capabilities?) but I have not seen either active or passive CCTV utp converters that are capable of greater than, what, 5-6MHz?

 

Analog megapixel's bandwidth requirements would be just as restrictive as IP's in many respects. It sounds to me like a solution in search of a problem!

[ak357 0]

I assume megapixel over analog would require the transmission system to pass higher frequencies. That is do-able with coax (but with reduced distance capabilities?) but I have not seen either active or passive CCTV utp converters that are capable of greater than, what, 5-6MHz?

 

Analog megapixel's bandwidth requirements would be just as restrictive as IP's in many respects. It sounds to me like a solution in search of a problem!

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

I agree with your assumptions 100%

 

video mpeg2

1.25 Mbit/s – VCD quality

5 Mbit/s – DVD quality

15 Mbit/s – HDTV quality

36 Mbit/s – HD DVD quality

54 Mbit/s – Blu-ray Disc quality

 

high definition the bandwidth is 37 MHz (720p/1080i) or 74 MHz (1080p/60)

[cctvexpert 0]

The fact is right now when you pass video over UTP uncompressed it is not an issue when using video baluns - it is analog and does not have the latency issues inherent in network transmission. When the HD cameras are released you will be able to do the same thing. Like anything else a market for one product creates another. It is clear you can transmit HD over coax as they do now for broadcast. So obviously you can have a CCTV camera sending HD video signals over coax. The technology all exists it just have never been "packaged" for CCTV yet!

 

Once the product is released video baluns are sure to follow. There is no technical limitations on developing a balun to carry the signal. In fact, I am aware of a company that has already worked on it. Remember today that using RG59 or RG6 the distance you can run compared to video over cat5 or cat6 with baluns is substantially less. Forget even taking into account active baluns which extend the distance exponentially longer.

 

Further, the standard for HD today is H.264 not MPEG2. MPEG2 was the legacy system before the 264 standard came along in 2003. I am still amazed that people think 264 just came about in the past year when there are companies that have been in the market with it for 5 years already. In fact, for the SD market they are several iterations into 264 with the latest being the H.264SVC profile (scalable video coding)

 

Simply stated, we are going to shortly have analog HD cameras running over Category cabling and not have to worry about all the problems of megapixel IP cameras.

 

IP cameras still have the same problems which the manufacturers like to ignore especially when they have no answer - these problems are:

 

. poor low light performance

. rolling shutter

. poor dynamic range

. lower frame rates

. ghosting

. latency

. compatibility issues

. bandwidth concerns

 

Don't want to get into a whole discussion about IP cameras but despite all the hype in 2008 they were still less than 10% of the market and most "sensitive" locations will not use them because of the issue of fault tolerance problems.

[amirm 0]

The fact is right now when you pass video over UTP uncompressed it is not an issue when using video baluns - it is analog and does not have the latency issues inherent in network transmission. When the HD cameras are released you will be able to do the same thing.

Are you saying there is a new standard for analog transmission of HD signals for CCTV? If so, what is the format? I am not aware of single cable analog HD schemes. We have component video but that requires three coax cables and is essentially obsolete format. Current uncompressed broadcast standard is HD-SDI (i.e. digital, not analog).

 

It is clear you can transmit HD over coax as they do now for broadcast.

They do but per above, it is digital, not analog.

 

So obviously you can have a CCTV camera sending HD video signals over coax. The technology all exists it just have never been "packaged" for CCTV yet!

Axis has a new camera with HDMI output but that link cannot travel long distances (50 feet is probably the limit). Unless you can cite specifics, I don't see any reason why CCTV world would migrate toward analog HD or HD-SDI.

 

There is no technical limitations on developing a balun to carry the signal. In fact, I am aware of a company that has already worked on it.

But then what? What do you do with it after you watch it on a TV? How do you record it? Convert to digital? Well, do that first in the camera! I can't see having a nice HD signal and then sending it over long wires and causing it to degrade.

 

IP cameras still have the same problems which the manufacturers like to ignore especially when they have no answer - these problems are:

 

. poor low light performance

. poor dynamic range

Why would this improve if you send the signal over analog link rather than digital/compressed?

 

. lower frame rates

This is not a problem with "IP cameras" but rather, the limiation of the encoder used in them. A better encoder can give you any frame rate you want.

 

Besides, what will you do with your analog encoder? How do you get high frame rates with say, 8 to 32 cameras? Have that many full frame rate H.264 encoders? That gets expensive, no? And if you have that kind of budget, no doubt people can create cameras for you with full frame rate encoders.

. ghosting

You get that with either scenario.

. latency

Assuming there is a monitor which can show your hypothetical analog signal, then you have an advantage here. Encoders in the cameras need to look ahead a few frames in order to gain efficiency. So that much latency is introduced. M-JPEG and MXPEG don't have this limitation.

 

. compatibility issues

Well, you have the biggest compatibility with the propriatary analog signal for your camera .

 

. bandwidth concerns

How is that? Gigabit switches cost nothing these days. And 100 mbit/sec can give you superb video (Blu-ray disc video runs at 48 mbit/sec).

 

Don't want to get into a whole discussion about IP cameras but despite all the hype in 2008 they were still less than 10% of the market and most "sensitive" locations will not use them because of the issue of fault tolerance problems.

Their market share is no doubt due to high costs.

 

Agree that they are not perfect. But we are probably 18 to 24 months away from superb solutions on the encoding side. CMOS sensor in professional SLR cameras run at full frame rate and have very wide exposure lattitude. So I see no limitation to how far IP cameras can go. I simply do not see any reason to go to analog transmission over coax.

[Soundy 1]

. bandwidth concerns

How is that? Gigabit switches cost nothing these days. And 100 mbit/sec can give you superb video (Blu-ray disc video runs at 48 mbit/sec).

 

Add to that, running analog-HD-over-singe-wire, you're taking a step back

to needing an individual run from each camera back to the DVR. Using IP gives you the option (desirable or not) of using existing network infrastructure, especially between separated locations.

 

Example: I have to two buildings on opposite sides of a property (this is a real-world example, BTW). To use analog, I either have to have a separate DVR in each building, or I have to pull a wire for every camera in the remote building, over to the DVR location, and if I want PTZ, I have to run data lines as well. With IP, I can just pipe all the cameras in the remote location into a switch, and use a single run to get all that data back to the DVR/NVR.

 

If I want backup recording, I can also drop another NVR - or two or three - anywhere on my network (be it existing infrastructure, or a dedicated network); I don't need to split out or chain-through video signals or pull a second set of wire to another location.

 

Things like that make IP VERY attractive even without the HD resolution.

 

Don't want to get into a whole discussion about IP cameras but despite all the hype in 2008 they were still less than 10% of the market and most "sensitive" locations will not use them because of the issue of fault tolerance problems.

Their market share is no doubt due to high costs.

 

...and that's becoming less of a factor as well - a 1.3MP IQeye is barely twice the price of most decent 1/3" analog box cameras.

 

Agree that they are not perfect. But we are probably 18 to 24 months away from superb solutions on the encoding side. CMOS sensor in professional SLR cameras run at full frame rate and have very wide exposure lattitude. So I see no limitation to how far IP cameras can go. I simply do not see any reason to go to analog transmission over coax.

 

As far as quality, remember too that "HDTV" resolutions max out at 1080 vertical pixels. A measly 1.3MP IP camera is already near that at 1280x1024. Go to a 2MP camera and you're at 1600x1200 and already beyond HD spec... meanwhile 3 and 5MP camera are already common.

 

If this "new analog system" is going to even hope to match that, it will have to be working under a whole new range of video specifications, because existing HDTV doesn't measure up. That means all new capture hardware as well...

 

If the knock against MP IP cams is the cost, it's only because the technology is relatively new, and we've already seen prices drop by 1/2 to 2/3 in just a couple years. It wasn't that long ago that even 4CIF/D1 capture was costly and esoteric, and now you can almost get it at any corner store... and it had the benefit of 50 years of an established, common video spec.

 

And IS there an established, published video spec for this new system, that all the manufacturers will adhere to? Or will we end up with a spate of incompatible systems as different manufacturers decide to tweak things to their own benefit? HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray, anyone? Beta vs. VHS? Anyone remember AM-stereo... and the four or five different, incompatible formats?

 

In light of all that, I don't see a new spec, with all new hardware, remaining anything but costly and esoteric... by the time the technology even reaches market, megapixel IP cams will be only fractionally more expensive than NTSC/PAL, and as amirm suggests, you'll see some pretty substantial improvements in the issues listed above.

[cctvexpert 0]

ok guys here we go

 

All video starts out as analog because the light level hitting the image sensor (CCD or CMOS) is analog. So the initial sensing is performed in an analog electrical form which is then processed to either a discrete digital number for each pixel for each color and then processed digitally using math on the digital signal processor (DSP) or it passes through directly as pure analog.

 

This is where it is converted using an analog-to-digital converter. From the A/D converter it is either passed straight thru as a pure digital signal or converted back to analog with a digital to analog converter.

 

So now that we have established that the image sensor (CCD or CMOS) are analog - then the question is what follows.

 

The IP camera is confused in many ways because the only way it differs is in the transmission method as described above. With an IP camera you have latency in the camera and you can never view real time.

 

Sorry to jump around but whether it is HD or non-HD it follows the same basic principles. So all that megapixel is that it uses the image sensor then converts it to digital and then stays digital. If you convert it back to analog the way you do an analog camera it would work just the same. There are HD sensors being designed.

 

There are plenty of HD encoders in the broadcast world so it is logical that it is a matter of migrating the same technology to the CCTV world. In fact, HD encoders are comonplace in the IPTV world.

 

What you have to remember with an IP camera is that while it is technically a PC device it is limited in its processing power and you can obviously do alot more at the head end where you can have more resources in the form of an enterprise dvr.

 

Today there are DVR/NVR hybrids that can record H264 on up to 64 channels in real time and use combinations of hardware encoders and decoders in a single server chassis that makes alot of sense compared to trying to manage a network of an abundance of IP cameras.

 

IP cameras do not scale well despite what the peddlers of IP say. If you are going to scale a solution with 100s or 1000s of cameras you are then talking about layer 3 switches, significant network management, bottlenecking issues, packet management, and maintenance concerns.

 

Ghosting well you don't get ghosting on good quality dvrs in fact i have worked with some broadcast quality ones where you cannot tell the difference between the original and playback.

 

Also understand the nature of IP and you can never view a real time live image as you have built in latency at the head end since there is latency from the process of encoding to transmission to the monitor.

 

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.

 

Well one more thing, a network device can not only be hacked but pick up viruses. If someone hacks into the network and they take it down, then what. In the DVR methodology you are more secure.

 

While i am beating IP down a bit the fact is it does have a place but it is not a panacea. If you are in one physical building there is not a single reason for using IP cameras. It costs more and you get less.

 

The use of video over cat5 and fiber when it makes sense will always be a more stable, secure and reliable solution. If you have video on 2 sides of the street you can still run one cable in a number of methods. Try to control by the way a ptz across networks it gives latency a new meaning.

 

This can get into a looooooooooooooooong winded topic but i think the long and the short of it is as least from my perspective analog is not going away if you understand the technology and what can be accomplished. HD is an important step but is in its infancy and needs work. Customer expectations need to be managed. FYI, for 2008 the market for IP cameras was still less than 10% despite everyone professing its death. Look at the most recent Axis press release where they say the market is not what they anticipated and are cutting back. They blame it on the economy yet the market for analog cameras did not suffer and maintained a 90% share. The reason is talk to any enterprise installer and see how many successful installations they have completed in the 100s or 1000s of cameras on an IP platform.

[Soundy 1]

ok guys here we go

 

(yada yada yada theory theory theory)

 

That's all well and good, but none of it addresses the points I made above about the costs and issues of hi-def analog CCTV. You poo-poo IP for being more expensive than analog, but that only applies to standard existing NTSC/PAL analog.

 

If you are in one physical building there is not a single reason for using IP cameras. It costs more and you get less.

 

Sorry to say, but my experience completely disagrees with this. I can outfit a restaurant, liquor store, pub, convenience store or gas station with fewer than half the number of IP cameras and still get better coverage and clearer video than would be possible with analog, and since the IP cams are only about twice the price of the analog equivalents (of sufficient quality - I'm not talking about $50 offshore board cameras), I can do it for lower total cost (especially once you factor in cabling costs, since I'm now running less cable as well).

[amirm 0]

ok guys here we go.

I am not seeing anything in your post backing the claim that analog HD transmission to a DVR is the way to go. This is what we were responding to.

 

You say that there are PCs with hardware H.264 encoders but don't say why the same cannot be in the camera.

 

Net, net, for anything greater than NTSC/PAL resolution, the world is going to be IP with encoding in camera. I am not seeing any logic or economics driving people to send gigabits/sec signals from camera to the source when megabits/sec would do. This doesn't make IP cameras perfect. But does indicate the way the industry has to go, as opposed to analog HD which was stated.

[cctvexpert 0]

I guess you didnt read. Not sure why you think you can use a fraction of the cameras unless they are megapixel and if you have a bar and its dark should be real interesting how you are going to address low light issues. IP is only a transmission method. Good Luck!

[cctvexpert 0]

IP is a transmission method, be clear about that. This is first and foremost. Once you decide on an IP camera you are now locked into a proprietary platform. Want to add another camera you first have to make sure the NVR supports it. Next issue add a megapixel camera how are you going to decode it for viewing since they use up 100% of the CPU you throw at it. See how long a server lasts running at 100%. Encoding at the head end makes sense using non-proprietary cameras make sense because you bypass the network and if you have 100 cameras that are all analog you dont have to worry about changing things out. You can argue till the cows come home but the problem with a proprietary camera is clear. Also processing in the camera is "limited" - look at an axis or any other h264 camera and try to run it at 30fps high bit rate. Guess what happens it drops frame and has issues. You can run an analog camera using 264 in a dvr at high bit rates, high resolution full frame rate. So again you are paying more and getting less.

 

We can have this discussion in 6 months when analog HD cameras hit the market and oh by the way remember that the market for HD cameras is 1% - so we come back to 99% of the world still wants a basic non proprietary camera and if you think that is IP when there is a legacy world out there I have nothing more to say on the subject.

 

You lose your network or get it hacked and you are SOL and is the reason government and gaming do not allow IP cameras.

[Soundy 1]

That's so silly, because all your arguments against IP can be made just as readily against your analog HD. Low-light problems aren't caused by the IP transmission medium; cheap NTSC/PAL cameras have low-light issues as well, and your HD cameras could just as easily.

 

The platform itself isn't proprietary - IP protocol is a well-established standard, as is ethernet. While a number of different video encoding methods are used, all (or most) are standard as well - H.264, MJPEG, etc. The streams and control protocols may be manufacturer-specific, but those can easily BE standardized if the manufacturers agree - the issue there doesn't lie with the design.

 

And if you want to remain non-proprietary, you still run into the same problem you have with NTSC/PAL, and that's limited resolution within the standards. Once you hit 1080p, then what? Your existing specs hit the ceiling again, and do so far short of what IP can provide, which is the main reason for going to IP in the first place. You have to go proprietary again, or define a whole new set of standards (add several years for them to be ratified) and hope that everyone sticks to them.

[survtech 0]

OK, I'm hooked.

 

The concept is intriguing and I would be very interested to see the product(s) when they come out. If they can do what you say, they would solve some problems at our casino - the lack of an IP infrastructure and the lack of space to incorporate one. IDF closet space is severely lacking and trying to obtain any would be problematic, at best. Keep me posted.