IP vs. Analog

[survtech 0]

OK, but I have yet to hear glowing tales of successful IP, especially megapixel, camera deployments at any casino. Yes, there are some casinos who have deployed IP cameras and it is a fact that most casino surveillance departments are reluctant to air their dirty laundry. Still, most of us are resisting the change due to the facts I have stated and many others. This is especially true of properties with substantial investment in analog so the first properties to use IP will likely be new builds, something you won't see much of in the current economic climate.

 

We were the first casino in the U.S. to record 100% of our cameras digitally. The lessons we learned during the painful two-year teething process make us reluctant to deploy IP cameras until the reliability of the total system has been proven. I think most casinos feel the same way.

[cctvexpert 0]

1. Call up the Nevada Gaming Control Board or any other gaming commission for that matter and ask for a set of their regulations. Network cameras CANNOT be used for gaming operations. They can be used in some cases as NON gaming cameras. The reason is lack of reliability.

 

2. You can start to build fault tolerance into a network with self healing networks and layer 3 switches and all the bells and whistles - so i am not sure who is going to spend $1 million on a solution that can be solved with proven technology in the form of analog or hybrid for a fraction of the price. All you accomplished is providing job security for some IT manager.

 

3. IP is merely a transmission method. Both analog and IP can transmit video across a Cat5 cable. The only difference is where the video is compressed. One does it out at the edge and the other does it at the head end. For the privilege of doing that you at least double the cost and reduce reliability by a factor of xxx

 

4. IP has a place with high megapixel subject to low light and fast motion problems or in wireless - period. That is where they make sense. High megapixel has little value in a "closed" space with fixed ingress and egress points. In a casino they have a tight shot at each door entrance so they have your face as they would in any other building. No need for a megapixel burning it up at 10GB per hour. As far as identifying the card or the suit if you have a decent wide dynamic camera with a good quality low f-stop lens you won't have a problem. You can even see the numbers on a dice.

 

5. analog Video over UTP using baluns has been around for almost 2 decades now - there is no black magic.

 

6. The CCTV world still has not learned to play nice and other than one particular manufacturer that I know of even though there are video compression standards set by ITU and MPEG - the video manufacturers choose to slightly modify the native codec to make it proprietary. The problem is also older codecs cannot handle compression on live video very well and only a few companies that have been encoding and decoding H.264 for several years now do it properly.

 

7. MJPEG is from the stone age. So when we talk IP using MJPEG is like saying I have a state of the art futuristic car with parts from the 1960s. Like I said IP not ready for prime time and all it is - is a transmission method as all keep forgetting.

 

8. As stated all IP cameras start out with an analog sensor then get converted to Digital to perform its magic then get converted back to analog if being transmitted analog or it can remain digital if transmitting IP. Many, many, many of the IP cameras go analog sensor to analog to digital converter, then to digital to analog conversion back to analog to digital. So if you think they are ready for prime time good luck.

 

. Both IP and analog are just methods of transmission.

. Both can be transmitted across a UTP cable.

. Both can follow 568B guidelines

. One goes to a network switch and the other to a balun hub. (difference - IP uses bandwidth - analog doesn't

. Analog is live video capable back to the DVR with pure image - IP is a latent image already compressed

. With respect to PoE you still have the 90 meter rule and still cannot power IR and PTZ since they can use in excess of 70Watts and PoE is less than 13 and the new PoE+ is only 25 - 35 max.

 

Last but not least the reason they have so many problems with the Megapixel cameras is the CMOS chips they use are a toy. Do your homework and you will find that the CMOS chips in the IP cameras are the same ones they use in your cell phone camera. The reason is there are NO CMOS sensors designed for the CCTV industry. What everyone has to remember is CCTV only gets its technology from what the consumer market eventually passes down. That is why in CCTV cameras we use 1/3 CCD and not 1/2 CCD which would be better because that is what the consumer market dictates. The only reason higher compression technologies such as H.264 came around was because of trying to get HD and other video to fit on a DVD.

 

For your own testing take any IP megapixel camera and lower the lights and record fast moving objects - you tell me what happens.

[normicgander 0]

I could be wrong, but IP is not the best method to transport video, especially for high-datarate HD CCTV cameras. Some parts of the LAN/WAN you may not even have any control over.

 

Our industry took the IP bait hook, line and sinker. EEs didn't get the entire briefing on field applications.

 

Why not use a standard such as SMPTE 424M which supports up to 3Gb/s over coaxial cable between the camera and recorder? There could even be a new IEEE or SMPTE standard, if needed, for HD CCTV.

 

Then the recorder hub will provide an adjustable, compressed IP network output for the important requirement of remote PC monitoring and administration.

 

I not saying IP cameras don't have a role BTW. For many applications they're perfect.

[Soundy 1]

I could be wrong, but IP is not the best method to transport video, especially for high-datarate HD CCTV cameras.

 

It's not a problem with IP specifically, but with 10/100 ethernet. Go to gigabit and it's not a problem anymore - heck, most basic cameras will work fine over 10Mbps, it's only with multiple ones that you start to have issues at 10/100. I have a site with 13 IP cameras, all feeding a gigabit switch, and an DVR with a gigabit interface, and no problems at all.

 

When I was working in IT, I was on a site where the entire Head Office building used token-ring... most 16Mbit, but even at 4Mbit, users had no problem running MS Office directly from server shares.... using Netbios-over-TCP/IP. IP will work over pretty much every type of transport - ethernet is common and cheap, but it's by no means the BEST transport method.

 

Some parts of the LAN/WAN you may not even have any control over.

 

The aforementioned 13-IP-cam site, we put in a dedicated network for the CCTV system. In fact, all but one site I've rigged with IP cameras have used a dedicated networkin the last, the site's corporate people determined that the cameras would share a dedicated partition on their network switch). Lack of netowrk control is a cost/design decision, and hardly an argument against the viability of IP cameras.

 

Our industry took the IP bait hook, line and sinker.

 

IP video itself has definite benefits for some applications, but the real benefit to CCTV is the ability to transmit higher-resolution video than analog, at relatively low cost with easily-available existing technology. Sure there are other methods available, but they're either non-standard or highly proprietary or still have limitations, and are far more costly to implement.

 

For example, HDTV spec improves on analog, but requires either an expensive digital transmission method (HDMI, DVI, both of which are distance-limited and require thick, expensive cables), or a more complex, pricier analog method (component video), and still maxes out at effectively 2MP.

 

Why not use a standard such as SMPTE 424M which supports up to 3Gb/s over coaxial cable between the camera and recorder? There could even be a new IEEE or SMPTE standard, if needed, for HD CCTV.

 

Why? Main reason is cost, I would guess... additional hardware required for the capture system, which would be expensive for some time until the economy of scale can kick in. Other than that, it would be a nice solution if it could use existing coax put in place for CCTV.

 

I not saying IP cameras don't have a role BTW. For many applications they're perfect.

 

This is exactly the point, and is why arguments like cctvexpert's really grate me - it doesn't work well for one particular instance, ergo it must be useless for everything.

 

Another thing is that "megapixel" and "IP" are used interchangeably, and they are NOT the same thing.

[ak357 0]

 

Why not use a standard such as SMPTE 424M which supports up to 3Gb/s over coaxial cable between the camera and recorder? There could even be a new IEEE or SMPTE standard, if needed, for HD CCTV.

 

Then the recorder hub will provide an adjustable, compressed IP network output for the important requirement of remote PC monitoring and administration.

quote]

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

 

I like your thinking

At ISC Las Vegas few company did show IP Cams

with HDMI and SDI output (1.3 MP CCD)

even IP Server avail with those inputs

Now we talking

 

I was so much impessed that I bought 3 samples

coming to me in few weeks

if u want to see Video sample sent me PM

I have 720P file at 30 frames

very nice

[cctvexpert 0]

You missed the point. IP is merely a transmission method. The question is if you have to run a separate network anyway, then why would you spend the increased cost for IP cameras when you can run analogue cameras with the same basic components and have no network issue and save money. And yes, the connections are passive not active and do not require user intervention.

[Soundy 1]

The question is if you have to run a separate network anyway, then why would you spend the increased cost for IP cameras when you can run analogue cameras with the same basic components and have no network issue and save money.

 

MACE analog dome camera, 1/4" sensor, 3.6mm lens, recorded at 1CIF:

 

 

 

 

Same position, IQEye 511, 1/2" 1.3MP sensor, 2.8mm lens (note dome camera at bottom of frame):

 

 

 

 

 

/thread

[survtech 0]

Other than that, it would be a nice solution if it could use existing coax put in place for CCTV.

 

 

Veracity HIGHWIRE IP Over Coax

[ak357 0]

You missed the point. IP is merely a transmission method. The question is if you have to run a separate network anyway, then why would you spend the increased cost for IP cameras when you can run analogue cameras with the same basic components and have no network issue and save money. And yes, the connections are passive not active and do not require user intervention.

 

[Soundy 1]

Other than that, it would be a nice solution if it could use existing coax put in place for CCTV.

 

 

Veracity HIGHWIRE IP Over Coax

 

I've used those - very handy! Little spendy for most cases, although there are instances where it's well worth the cost (like adding IP cameras to gas-pump canopies, where all the conduit is sealed before the station goes online). Nice that they run on both 12VDC and 24VAC, too, so they powered off almost any existing analog camera's feed.

 

That aside, my comment you quoted was referring specifically to normicgander's note on 424M, and other analog-HD transmission methods.

[Soundy 1]

The question is if you have to run a separate network anyway, then why would you spend the increased cost for IP cameras when you can run analogue cameras with the same basic components and have no network issue and save money.

 

Another example... same establishment, one a MACE dome, the other an IQ511 mounted right beside it. The dome runs through a TVS text inserter (see upper-left) and was left in place specifically for that function, as that's one thing that's not yet easily duplicated with an IP camera.

 

Both snaps taken at the same instant.

 

MACE dome, 1/4" sensor, 3.6mm lens, recording at D1:

 

 

 

 

IQ511, 1.3MP 1/2" sensor, 4-12mm varifocal lens adjusted to give approx. the same FOV as the dome, mounted to the dome's immediate right:

 

 

In the video, you can clearly see exactly what the servers are entering into the terminal screens.

 

BTW, this site was another one of those instances where all I needed to do was show the owner a couple shots from an IQ installation on another site, and his immediate response was, "I want that." Sold him three cams for this store, and one for another he owns.

[Sawbones 0]

 

Uhhh... yeah, Soundy. I can see how you so masterfully sold the owner on that particular camera view.

 

[Soundy 1]

Heheheh, but that's the beauty of it, these things sell themselves!

[leonligang 0]

Anolog or IP? Nearly everybody in this industry is talking about it.

 

Which is better? I think it is not just a question of product, but solution.

Our customers have different conditions, so they need different kinds of products to make a surveillance system for themselves.

 

When we involved in Safety of Suzhou Project(Suzhou is one of the biggest cities of China), the city government need a super platform to control hundreds of thousand surveilance sites, and they need dome+dvs in the street, megapixel IPC in the district between urban and countryside, DVR in bank, government office, residental areas...........

 

So we provide platform,camera,DVS,DVR,IPC to our customer, anolog, IP, or hybrid. we provide them solutions not just products.

[Soundy 1]

Good answer Little nebulous - you must be a marketing guy

 

One thing that people keep getting confused, too: analog vs. IP is not the same question as standard vs. megapixel. Standard-res cameras also come in IP variations, and as has been discussed, megapixel/high-def cameras are also in development that don't use IP.

 

The two just get used interchangeably because IP is the only really viable transmission method for megapixel video currently on the market.

[normicgander 0]

You missed the point. IP is merely a transmission method. The question is if you have to run a separate network anyway, then why would you spend the increased cost for IP cameras when you can run analogue cameras with the same basic components and have no network issue and save money. And yes, the connections are passive not active and do not require user intervention.

 

I think the bottom line is interlaced analog video and DVRs that over compress the video often do not produce forensic quality video. It's time to move on IMO. I do realize it's cost-effective and it's fine for some applications. My point is that I can install the cable between the camera and the recording device (nvr/dvr hub unit or whatever you wish to call it) and it doesnt have to be TCP/IP. Let me record/view high-res HD at the local hub recorder and let me remote view over TCP/IP at 1Mb/s or any decimated rate if that's what I require.

 

BTW- as a stop-gap, I've had better results using progressive scan analog cameras combined with recording at 720x480 in the highest quality mode setting. Better snaps in dynamic, moving scenes. Dallmeier DF3000A(-DN).

[cctvexpert 0]

It all comes back to a few simple statements but the people who are hell bent on IP will never remove their hands from their eyes or ears.

 

FACTS:

 

1. IP is merely a transmission method.

 

2. No one is going to run video on a data network 99.999% of the time it is run on a separate network.

 

3. Whether it is IP or analog both can be run via UTP.

 

4. IP vs. Analog is just a matter of am I doing the compression at the edge or further back in the architecture (more importanly - why are you doing that)

 

5. IP and megapixel are not synonymous. There are traditional IP cameras that are non megapixel and in fact are analog cameras with encoders built -in ostensibly which is what an IP camera is.

 

6. IP is clearly good for large wireless applications due to channel limitations on analog wireless - and until something better comes along it works well for High Definition imaging (but it has its flaws - low light problems, high storage requirements, high bandwidth requirements, rolling shutter problems, motion artifacts

 

7. and last but not least and here is where the arguments start - analog is cheaper and easier to maintain. But an IT manager loves the job security that comes along with managing an IT network.

[Soundy 1]

I don't think anyone has disputed any of those statements. Yes, analog is cheaper and easier to maintain. All your "facts" are correct.

 

The whole point of IP is, current analog CCTV technology has a limitation on resolution, period. The only widely-available option to go beyond that currently is IP-attached megapixel cameras.

 

You keep crowing about the cost difference and how it's "not worth it", but that's really up to the specific needs of a specific job, isn't it? You go on about higher storage costs, limited framerates, relative low-light performance... well, not everyone has the same low-light requirements, not everyone has the same framerate requirements, and not everyone is so concerned about storage, espeically with today's cheap drives.

 

The fact is, YOU'RE the one who refuses to remove his hands from his eyes and ears, continually trying to convince us all that megapixel and IP are bunk and are no good for anyone's purposes, with no regard for individual client needs.

 

Well, you enjoy wallowing in the 1990s, singing "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" while the rest of the industry leaves you behind.

[streethacker 0]

Im deff not a expert and im relatively new to CCTV but For the price of a 4 Cam Ip Mega pixel system, a computer that can handle it, A POE switch, software, the know how to set up a network and static IPs, the know how to setup QOS if your router supports it so it wont affect your VOIP Phones which most people are using now adays, you are spending over $6000 and having allot of headaches..

 

I asked myself is it worth it especialy with networks going down IPs changing if you dont know how to set them to static plus then if you sell them how much more tech support you will have to offer the end user, etc.

 

I just did a 8 Channel DVR system doing D1 resolution @ 30 FPS recording on all channels with h.264 Compression, 4 580TVL Cams with In fared auto focusfor about $1700.. not bad when I could only buy 1 IP 5 Mega pixel Camera, a computer, and the software to record for that much.

 

Now I may be talking out of my @ss but I think analog should be able to High Definition. My cable co was able to do it using the same coax wire that ive been using for 20 years in my house just with a upgraded cable box (DVR) to decode the High Deff signal and a upgraded camera on there end that did the recording..Isent the same concept? ..I hope a couple of more months from now we hopefully will see some better analog cameras and better DVRS capable of recording Higher resolution then D1 at a fraction of the cost of IP cameras..

 

But like i said I may be talking out of my @ss.. by the way thank you CCTVEXPERT you have talked me out of spending almost $1k on one 5MP Camera.. Ive seen the cameras and they produce very nice images in daylight but are lacking on night not to mention features.. Please correct me if im wrong I still consider myself a complete n00bie at this stuff so be gentle!

[Soundy 1]

Im deff not a expert and im relatively new to CCTV but For the price of a 4 Cam Ip Mega pixel system, a computer that can handle it, A POE switch, software, the know how to set up a network and static IPs, the know how to setup QOS if your router supports it so it wont affect your VOIP Phones which most people are using now adays, you are spending over $6000 and having allot of headaches..

 

That's a pretty extreme example.

 

A *single* 4MP camera requires very little computing power (by today's standards) to handle recording it. PoE is used only as a conveniences; it's not a necessity. Setting up a complete network and static IPs is not a necessity, especially for a single camera; neither is QoS.

 

A single IP camera can be very happily added to anyone's home network, plugged straight into any off-the-shelf home-grade broadband router without messing up Internet surfing or VoIP phones, and can be recorded with free or very inexpensive NVR software installed on any existing PC in the house... or all of them, for that matter. Most cameras will pull an IP from the router's DHCP server, so little or no configuration is needed. The only added expense *required* is the camera itself.

 

I asked myself is it worth it especialy with networks going down IPs changing if you dont know how to set them to static plus then if you sell them how much more tech support you will have to offer the end user, etc.

 

Well, you could ask yourself the same question about your car, and decide to just walk everywhere you go. I mean, they run out of gas, you have to know how to fill up every few hundred miles, you have to get the oil changed and stuff fixed now and then (mechanic = "tech support")... such a horrible hassle and expense!

 

Now I may be talking out of my @ss but I think analog should be able to High Definition. My cable co was able to do it using the same coax wire that ive been using for 20 years in my house just with a upgraded cable box (DVR) to decode the High Deff signal and a upgraded camera on there end that did the recording..Isent the same concept? ..I hope a couple of more months from now we hopefully will see some better analog cameras and better DVRS capable of recording Higher resolution then D1 at a fraction of the cost of IP cameras..

 

The problem - as has been covered here many times - is the video standards and encoding used. To do it over your cable, you required new hardware (high-def tuner box, generally)... to do something similar with CCTV would also require new hardware. How much did your HD cable box cost? Around here, the basic ones start at $400. Now multiply that by the number of channels you want to record...

 

Of course, that then requires the camera manufacturers to get onboard with a new standard... and the analog/digital converter manufacturers (ie. the people who make the capture cards).

 

And then you have to get everyone to actually agree to and settle on a new high-definition analog-video standard that they're going to use for both cameras and capture devices, or you end up with a lot of proprietary gear that only works with stuff from the same manufacturer.

 

So let's say, to keep it simple and stick with established standards, you actually decide to use HDTV spec - 1080p at best. That gives you a resolution of 1920x1080, or about 2MP. *At most.* That will also require either a component-video feed - ie. THREE coax cables - or a very expensive HDMI cable that's limited to about 25-30' in length.

 

Or you do it like the cable company, digitize the signal, then modulate it for transmission over RF, only to demodulate it on the other end, extract the digital programming, and then spit out analog video from that... seems kind of extraneous when you can simply send the digital signal directly over IP.

 

But like i said I may be talking out of my @ss.. by the way thank you CCTVEXPERT you have talked me out of spending almost $1k on one 5MP Camera.. Ive seen the cameras and they produce very nice images in daylight but are lacking on night not to mention features.. Please correct me if im wrong I still consider myself a complete n00bie at this stuff so be gentle!

 

Well the difference is, megapixel wasn't right FOR YOUR SITUATION. The way cctv(non)expert goes on about it, you'd think they were never right for anyone, for any purpose, at any time. Would one be right for you if you had a large, brightly-lit area that you needed a lot of detail on? Well, as your criteria change, so do your solutions. $1k+ for 5MP may be overkill for that; $300-$400 for 1.0-1.3MP may suffice.

 

By the same token, a really bad high-contrast backlighting situation may call for a $600 Super-Dynamic III or similar type analog camera, because of its special capabilities (as it did in a situation I just addressed a couple days ago, in fact). We even recently talked a client out of using an IP camera for just such an installation and going with a CP484 SDIII analog camera, because we knew the IP options wouldn't handle the severe backlighting this camera would be faced with.

 

Simply dismissing an entire branch of technology because it doesn't suit *one specific* purpose is, frankly, ridiculous.

[rory 0]

hey guys .. waz up .. any True Day/Night IR IP Megapixel cameras right now for under $1000 or under $2000? Color only or BW only camera is useless to me right now. Did any companies come up with a camera like this yet, does not require an additional housing and lens, and that wont break the bank? Thanks ...

[ak357 0]

hey guys .. waz up .. any True Day/Night IR IP Megapixel cameras right now for under $1000 or under $2000? Color only or BW only camera is useless to me right now. Did any companies come up with a camera like this yet, does not require an additional housing and lens, and that wont break the bank? Thanks ...

 

Yes, Rory they are available

but the ? you have to ask this days which Hybrid DVR

or NVR will support it

too many suppliers, too many standards

[woodyads 0]

Four years ago I installed (replaced) my first CCTV system. We were running an analogue system over wireless links in an open pit mine. Having a strong background in IT I didn't look past NVR and still wouldn't. I expected it to overthrow the market but I was wrong and I can't see it taking over any time soon. The reason is my IT department still haven't got their head around it and would really struggle to do it properly. Yes we have people that could do it but keeping them is a real problem. So for simplicity I can see most people sticking with DVR and Analogue systems.

 

I see a few people saying IP is just a transmission method, may I correct this. It is also a routing method and a security method. It can also be measured for billing purposes and can be dismantled and reconstructed out of order. It can be unicast, broadcast, multicast, encapsulated, secured, encrypted, trunked, meshed, filtered, grouped and the list goes on. Most importantly it was designed to be war proof. This was done by making the IP protocol and system self routing and not reliant on single core infrastructure.

 

What does all this mean for CCTV. For a start IP is not CC. Closed circuit means your addressing and security is done by Layer 1 of the ISO model, the physical layer. If you want to secure or route analogue you do it with the use of cables, splitters, manual switches multiplexors and de-multiplexors. In IP routing is done at layer 3, the IP address in the packet. And security can be done at several different layers from Layer 3 and upwards, for instance the application layer. So if its not CC what is it? I would describe it as Packet Routed. The big advantage with this is you don't need to change physical infrastructure to control it, everything can be done remotely, over the same interface that the video data travels. The next debate is the NVR vs. DVR. The advantage with NVR is your IP conversion is done at the edge not at a computer, eliminating any special hardware in the computers. This way your servers are standard builds. So what does this mean in real life to the CCTV industry, not much. 100% IP on NVR is costly, hard to understand and setup, requires substantially more knowledge than analogue or DVR.

 

What does this mean to me. Everything! Why?

1: My network was paid for by 2 other systems. Modular, an IP based heavy vehicle fleet management system, and Slope Radars, a Pit wall monitoring system. So I have a sophisticated network system already in place.

 

2: My back office currently split between site and Perth some 1100km away and about to be moved again to Dallas on the other side of the world. So my servers don't even need to be on site, I don't support them and I don't want to support them. Not possible with DVR only NVR. Not to mention 100% of my cameras are sitting on wireless infrastructure and mobile.

 

3: My clients (viewers not customers) are in two control rooms 1km apart viewing cameras another 2km away. More clients are spread over several different offices over a 3km radius as well as having access from Perth 1100km away and one internal consultant working in Singapore. I can give access to anyone in the company network anywhere in the world. Once the data leave the pit it is on the company network. So there is no infrastructure installed by me.

 

The synergies I can create by using NVR and IP far outweigh the cost. And I can keep a very small focused team to deploy and maintain it. What I can achieve with NVR and IP is far superior to DVR or straight analogue. Quite simply there are not enough RF channels available to bring back the bandwidth I require from all my systems. If is wasn't on IP, then video would be off the agenda completely.

 

IP and NVR are far superior if you have the skill set and the imagination to deploy it. However the planning and foresight that needs to go into the network tends to be out of the reach IT's imagination and the people needed to invest in the infrastructure in the first place. These installation are probably only reasonable where you have extensive IP infrastructure already in place. These places include mines, heavy industry, manufacturing, airports and banks where IP is used extensively for control and monitoring system.

[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 touch on a couple points...

 

I'm a big fan of IP CCTV (yes, I understand the point that it's not technically "closed circuit" - I come from an IT background myself - but we'll stick with the conventional acronym for simplicity's sake), but I would argue that it's only "superior" in some circumstances. Analog still has its benefits in a lot of situations as well.

 

Also, international access like you've got isn't limited to all-IP systems - a good hybrid DVR will give you the same sort of access to your analog AND IP cameras from anywhere in the world. We have one client who owns three pubs with liquor stores; we have a mix of existing and new analog cameras on all three sites, and added megapixel IP cameras on two of them. All are using analog/IP hybrid Vigil DVRs; he logs in using the Vigil Client on his laptop from all over the world to check on his properties (in fact, I had to chastise him once when he was doing it from Hawaii - "Dude, turn the laptop off and go out on the beach!")

 

I suppose technically this is all thanks to IP technology, even with only analog cameras on-site, but the point is, analog CCTV itself is far from obsolete.

 

Having a strong background in IT I didn't look past NVR and still wouldn't. I expected it to overthrow the market but I was wrong and I can't see it taking over any time soon.

 

I have to agree there. Fact is, for a very large percentage of our (the surveillance industry in general) customer base, cost is still a major factor, and a big part of reducing cost of maintaining existing systems.

 

Case in point: we service one of Canada's largest oil companies, and we actually still have a few gas stations that are running on multiplexors and time-lapse VHS VCRs. As muxes and VCRs died, they'd spec replacement units rather than upgrade to DVRs... because even at $600+ for a new time-lapse VCR (plus the cost of replacing 31 tapes during annual maintenance), it was still cheaper than the $5000 or so for their corporate-spec DVRs (also Vigils).

 

It's only the year or so that we've been literally forced to upgrade them (or rather, they've been forced to let us upgrade them)... because nobody's making time-lapse VCRs anymore. In fact, nobody has for a couple of years - the only thing that kept us going with those was the stock left in the supply channel... but now that's dried up, customers with failing VCRs have no choice but to replace them with DVRs (the things just aren't worth repairing, even if you CAN find parts).

 

So no, you won't see analog CCTV or DVRs go away for a long, long time... as long as it's still cost-effective to produce, sell, and maintain, people will keep using it, and there will still be a market for it.

[woodyads 0]

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.