IP PTZ Cameras

[Termite007 0]

Can IP PTZ cameras be controlled over the internet from a remote location?

[thewireguys 3]

yes

[crirvine 0]

Yes I am running 5 PTZ on a IP system with 43 fixed IP cameras I can control them from Home Office or On Site.

[Termite007 0]

Yes I am running 5 PTZ on a IP system with 43 fixed IP cameras I can control them from Home Office or On Site.

 

Thanks for the reply. I'm a newbie with a few questions. I was trying to ease into this so mythinking was to buy two IP cameras (thinking about panasonic WV-NW484S) and install them first and add the PTZ later. I've been playing around with some used analog cameras that I've accessed through remote desktop connection over the internet and am not satisfied.

 

My wish list:

1. at least two cameras that I can access from a PC with a touchscreen monitor located convenient that I can touch and see at any time

2. need to have access over the web

3. would like PTZ but can add at a later date

4. need good cameras where I can identify what's being recorded

5. I'm half sure I don't want a DVR

6. would like good software

7. would like to stay in the $2000-$3000 range

8. already have a PC with Core 2 Duo

 

A few questions:

1. should I have a dedicated in-house PC (with camera software) that I access from the web or is the camera software loaded on the PC I carry with me?

2. will there be problems later adding the PTZ and will I need separate software for the PTZ; different from the camera software?

3. I have an off-sight NAS to store to.

4. willing to listen to any solutions even if thery are contrary to above

 

Any help will certainly be appreciated.

[Twilo123 0]

that's kind of generalized and you will probably run the gambit in replies.

most ip cameras have a webserver built in these days to access them remotely. if you get analog cameras at some point the stream needs to be connverted/encoded to digital in order to get it onto the 'web'.

 

ptz is ptz. either the camera supports it or you will have to get a housing/external unit to handle the function for at least PT.

 

nvr also run the gambit depending on budget/requirements.

 

storage can be different depending on which cameras you get. some cams are just video streams which you have to capture via other hardware/software (dvr/nvr) and some have local storage options (which you can still capture streams but have other options also now).

[CCTVguru1 0]

Can IP PTZ cameras be controlled over the internet from a remote location?

 

Obviously the lower the bandwidth the better.

 

I can control some IndigoVision ones in US from Australia with 256Kbps @12ips 2CIF, while recording locally at 4CIF

 

check out the IV 9000 PTZ at http://nortronics.com.au/IVActiveX/index.html Needs IE to work

 

It has no control but shows the refresh rate.

Download Control Center to get control as well

[metafizx 0]

Thanks for the reply. I'm a newbie with a few questions. I was trying to ease into this so mythinking was to buy two IP cameras (thinking about panasonic WV-NW484S) and install them first and add the PTZ later. I've been playing around with some used analog cameras that I've accessed through remote desktop connection over the internet and am not satisfied.

 

My wish list:

1. at least two cameras that I can access from a PC with a touchscreen monitor located convenient that I can touch and see at any time

2. need to have access over the web

3. would like PTZ but can add at a later date

4. need good cameras where I can identify what's being recorded

5. I'm half sure I don't want a DVR

6. would like good software

7. would like to stay in the $2000-$3000 range

8. already have a PC with Core 2 Duo

 

A few questions:

1. should I have a dedicated in-house PC (with camera software) that I access from the web or is the camera software loaded on the PC I carry with me?

2. will there be problems later adding the PTZ and will I need separate software for the PTZ; different from the camera software?

3. I have an off-sight NAS to store to.

4. willing to listen to any solutions even if thery are contrary to above

 

Any help will certainly be appreciated.

 

if this is for business, and the result is supposed to meet specific criteria, I would recommend getting a pro to help out, atleast with consulting. some of your questions are difficult to answer because there are design parameters involved. it really depends on how important the system performance is to you.

 

from a simple viewpoint, it seems you can toss together a high end PC, s/w, cameras, and put it on the internet and turn on the switch and you will have a "camera system", but how it will perform is another thing.

 

while you can throw a system together, there will always be problems and limitations that you will have to live with, or possibly have to redo the entire system to get it "right". It's better to know upfront what those potential pitfalls and limitations might be, since redoing the system is costly.

 

as to your questions, generally the solution would be an IP system (most likely not CCTV), but you have bandwidth considerations over the LAN and WAN. Off site NAS recording is good in concept but has limitations due to available bandwidth.

 

Since you wanted to "identify what's being recorded", this will require either narrow FOV or a good megapixel camera & lens. Note that with a narrow FOV you can do this with good quality CCTV & DVR system as well.

 

Probably you would have local dedicated recording s/w on the PC, maybe even a dedicated LAN.

 

PTZ is a whole different ballgame when you plan on recording it. Also depending on what quality you want, these are big bucks for good ones.

for remote monitoring, they're great, but if usually unattended, I'd suggest a megapixel camera instead.

 

there's lots to think about in these systems...especially when you put a budget on it.

[CCTVguru1 0]

 

if this is for business, and the result is supposed to meet specific criteria, I would recommend getting a pro to help out, atleast with consulting. some of your questions are difficult to answer because there are design parameters involved. it really depends on how important the system performance is to you.

 

from a simple viewpoint, it seems you can toss together a high end PC, s/w, cameras, and put it on the internet and turn on the switch and you will have a "camera system", but how it will perform is another thing.

 

while you can throw a system together, there will always be problems and limitations that you will have to live with, or possibly have to redo the entire system to get it "right". It's better to know upfront what those potential pitfalls and limitations might be, since redoing the system is costly.

 

as to your questions, generally the solution would be an IP system (most likely not CCTV), but you have bandwidth considerations over the LAN and WAN. Off site NAS recording is good in concept but has limitations due to available bandwidth.

 

Since you wanted to "identify what's being recorded", this will require either narrow FOV or a good megapixel camera & lens. Note that with a narrow FOV you can do this with good quality CCTV & DVR system as well.

 

Probably you would have local dedicated recording s/w on the PC, maybe even a dedicated LAN.

 

PTZ is a whole different ballgame when you plan on recording it. Also depending on what quality you want, these are big bucks for good ones.

for remote monitoring, they're great, but if usually unattended, I'd suggest a megapixel camera instead.

 

there's lots to think about in these systems...especially when you put a budget on it.

 

 

Well Said

[suky 0]

A few questions:

1. should I have a dedicated in-house PC (with camera software) that I access from the web or is the camera software loaded on the PC I carry with me? The latter may bring you more convenience;

 

2. will there be problems later adding the PTZ and will I need separate software for the PTZ; different from the camera software?

If you have a DVR, it can support PTZ as well as IP camera;

 

3. A standalone DVR system is more stable than pc based system, personally speaking.

 

Hope it helps!

[Sec 0]

The easiest way for your case IMHO is to use IP camera with PTZ like AXIS 214

[CCTVguru1 0]

The easiest way for your case IMHO is to use IP camera with PTZ like AXIS 214

 

Except that Axis is bandwidth hungry and does not support a remote stream at CIF with a lower frame rate and 4CIF 25ips for on site recording at the same time.

 

Check out the IndigoVision 9000 PTZ, which can do this.

[Twilo123 0]

i'm sure axis would beg to differ with that statement.

you can use their tool here to get some ideas on bandwidth required

 

http://www.axis.com/products/video/design_tool/calculator.htm

[thewireguys 3]

The easiest way for your case IMHO is to use IP camera with PTZ like AXIS 214

 

Except that Axis is bandwidth hungry and does not support a remote stream at CIF with a lower frame rate and 4CIF 25ips for on site recording at the same time.

 

Check out the IndigoVision 9000 PTZ, which can do this.

 

I guess you haven't seen the AXIS Q6032-E

[CCTVguru1 0]

I guess you haven't seen the AXIS Q6032-E

 

No I havent but Im guessing its their H.264 version.

I would be interested in an image comparison at the same bandwidth.

Refer this link for an explanation of why I say this.

http://forum.nortronics.com.au/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33

[thewireguys 3]

I guess you haven't seen the AXIS Q6032-E

 

No I havent but Im guessing its their H.264 version.

I would be interested in an image comparison at the same bandwidth.

Refer this link for an explanation of why I say this.

http://forum.nortronics.com.au/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33

 

So IndigoVision developed there own version of the h.264 like Arecont did?

[CCTVguru1 0]

So IndigoVision developed there own version of the h.264 like Arecont did?

 

It's more about the implementation.

there are many tools to use in the H.264 tool set. You don't need to use them all and can choose which ones you do or don't implement.

 

As H.264 requires a lot of processing power, many vendors are only implementing the basics.

This can mean different things occur. An H.264 can be transmitted as I-frames only, making it no better than M-JPEG. Great image though. It cn also be I and P-frames but if the ability to detect motion is not good, a blocky image occurs.

 

There is unfortunately not a easy way of specifying compression that can be compared between brands.

[IRCCTV 0]

Yes of course you can control a PTZ camera over the internet with both analog with a DVR or an IP camera.

 

Why do you want to use IP since you need PTZ control ?

 

Many people have a misconception that IP has Superior scalability then Analog but with the advancements of DVR's this simply isn't true, with our X3 DVR you can monitor up to 16,000 cameras using our Central management Suite each camera could even be from a different DVR and a different site.

 

 

ANALOG camera are just as expandable as IP (add endlessly in modules of 4, 16,32 up to 64,) As for implementation im afraid analog is still quicker plug and play as opposed to networks unless you happen to have a fiber optic backbone.

 

 

And when you are using the internet to connect multiple sites together analog transmits over the internet faster with less latency using less bandwidth allowing you not only to view and monitor a situation real time but also effectively control PTZ cameras, which can be be done with IP but due to its amount of lag and latency on a LAN let alone a WAN connection IP is often not used with PTZ cameras.

 

IP is also far more difficult (and expensive) to maintain then analog camera because IP uses at network then cabling that is just plug and play. no to mention when a problem happens on a network it is very hard to isolate the problem as one hub can take out 50 cameras where with analog all failures are isolated to that specific camera (unless its the DVR which have lower failure rate then NVR's). Since the advent of Baluns you can now send video and data up to a mile over a standard cat 5 cable where the standard POE is about 330 feet.

 

Many of the so called advantages of IP simply don't hold water in the real world, IP is mainly Hype and marketing and outside of a few niche applications such as 1 or 2 camera installs, where MP cameras are needed or large scale wireless projects which represent about 2% of the total CCTV market, IP has very few advantages compared to analog based on performance, cost and reliability.

 

Note: if you are not using a good DVR then IP cameras will offer better performance by above writeup is based on using a good DVR.

 

I am curious as to why people think that IP has so many advantages over analog, it seems when comparing analog and IP people take IP from 2010 and compare it to Analog technology in 2005.

 

 

Here is a link to an analog DVR with a PTZ camera

 

Camera 1 is a PTZ camera and you can take control the PTZ, this DVR is located in a remote rural city the internet is brought in by microwave and is slower then most 3G in cities, yet it will offer superior control land transmitter then any IP camera on a T3 connection.

 

Ascendent has a live demo of a PTZ camera

Open IE not Firefox (unless you run IE from Firefox)

 

1) http://24.66.0.207/ (in address bar)

2) download active X controls

3) Hit connect (right hand corner)

4) DVR type (PC DVR)

5) Site-100

6) Username: Demo (case sensitive)

7) Password demo (lower case)

Hit extend config

9) Site-IP 24.66.0.207

10) Data port 7000

11) Stream Port: 8000

 

You will not find any IP camera that will allow you to stream images and control a PTZ camera as well as this "outdated" analog DVR and camera.

 

http://www.ascendentgroup.com/

[thewireguys 3]

Yes of course you can control a PTZ camera over the internet with both analog with a DVR or an IP camera.

 

Why do you want to use IP since you need PTZ control ?

 

Many people have a misconception that IP has Superior scalability then Analog but with the advancements of DVR's this simply isn't true, with our X3 DVR you can monitor up to 16,000 cameras using our Central management Suite each camera could even be from a different DVR and a different site.

 

 

ANALOG camera are just as expandable as IP (add endlessly in modules of 4, 16,32 up to 64,) As for implementation im afraid analog is still quicker plug and play as opposed to networks unless you happen to have a fiber optic backbone.

 

 

And when you are using the internet to connect multiple sites together analog transmits over the internet faster with less latency using less bandwidth allowing you not only to view and monitor a situation real time but also effectively control PTZ cameras, which can be be done with IP but due to its amount of lag and latency on a LAN let alone a WAN connection IP is often not used with PTZ cameras.

 

IP is also far more difficult (and expensive) to maintain then analog camera because IP uses at network then cabling that is just plug and play. no to mention when a problem happens on a network it is very hard to isolate the problem as one hub can take out 50 cameras where with analog all failures are isolated to that specific camera (unless its the DVR which have lower failure rate then NVR's). Since the advent of Baluns you can now send video and data up to a mile over a standard cat 5 cable where the standard POE is about 330 feet.

 

Many of the so called advantages of IP simply don't hold water in the real world, IP is mainly Hype and marketing and outside of a few niche applications such as 1 or 2 camera installs, where MP cameras are needed or large scale wireless projects which represent about 2% of the total CCTV market, IP has very few advantages compared to analog based on performance, cost and reliability.

 

Note: if you are not using a good DVR then IP cameras will offer better performance by above writeup is based on using a good DVR.

 

I am curious as to why people think that IP has so many advantages over analog, it seems when comparing analog and IP people take IP from 2010 and compare it to Analog technology in 2005.

 

 

Here is a link to an analog DVR with a PTZ camera

 

Camera 1 is a PTZ camera and you can take control the PTZ, this DVR is located in a remote rural city the internet is brought in by microwave and is slower then most 3G in cities, yet it will offer superior control land transmitter then any IP camera on a T3 connection.

 

Ascendent has a live demo of a PTZ camera

Open IE not Firefox (unless you run IE from Firefox)

 

1) http://24.66.0.207/ (in address bar)

2) download active X controls

3) Hit connect (right hand corner)

4) DVR type (PC DVR)

5) Site-100

6) Username: Demo (case sensitive)

7) Password demo (lower case)

Hit extend config

9) Site-IP 24.66.0.207

10) Data port 7000

11) Stream Port: 8000

 

You will not find any IP camera that will allow you to stream images and control a PTZ camera as well as this "outdated" analog DVR and camera.

 

http://www.ascendentgroup.com/

 

I must disagree megapixel is where everything is going. I show my customers your analog images and my megapixel images and I have yet to have customer say I want the lower resolution image

 

Our systems are scalable from 1 camera to thousands of cameras at thousands of locations at 1 camera increments not 4,16,32 or 64. And we don't have to use Active X or EI to view them.

 

You have 2 options when it comes to CCTV system. You can get a very good time stamp of the situation or you can get facial or LP which you can use in a court of law.

 

Analog still has its place in CCTV (low light and covert) but Megapixel and HD is where it's going.

[IRCCTV 0]

Thats becasue you don't use a good analog DVR.

 

Show them a 600TVL camera with D1 image compression (they will not be so quick to change)

As I have done this at trade shows with seasoned professionals not end users and they will 85% of the time opt for analog over IP MP.

 

Again show them a 600TVL camera at d resolution recorded on a hardware compressed DVR and you will notice very little difference between that and a 2MP camera.

 

But like most people who tout IP im sure you are comparing 2005 analog to 2010 IP technology.

 

 

If you have an entrance with perfect lighting and a dedicated network then MP is a great solution.

 

MP cameras are based on CMOS rather then CCD which have a number of disadvantages compared to CCD, such as low light, noise and have poorer color reduction (though they are smaller and cheaper making them most widely used)

 

CMOS is used in cellphones

CCD is used by NASA and high end medical applications as the amount of noise produced by CMOS.

 

Yes MP is the future but it an immature technology that is not fully developed and should be used in specific applications not main stream, give it 4 years and will be good.

 

Im not arguing its not the future im saying its not the present.

 

Just so you know MP cameras represent less then 2% of the total market due to price to performance.

so to make the case IP has advantages over analog camera based on MP cameras is ridiculous.

 

MP cameras also offer very poor remote connection and are very expensive when it comes to storage and most applications I sell to want at least 3 months of storage not to mention networks need to be upgraded pr replaced to accommodate multiple MP cameras.

 

IP has a larger file size and lower image quality when recorded at the same resolution not to mention the lag and latency.

 

Since this topic is about remote connectivity and PTZ control it does not make sense to do IP as it will cost more and give lower performance due to the lag and latency that is inherit on IP based systems.

 

An im not even mentioning the reliability and cost factor.

[thewireguys 3]

Thats becasue you don't use a good analog DVR.

 

Please post some images from a "good analog DVR" and lets compare

 

Show them a 600TVL camera with D1 image compression (they will not be so quick to change)

As I have done this at trade shows with seasoned professionals not end users and they will 85% of the time opt for analog over IP MP.

 

The same trade shows that I attend and everyone is checking out MP cameras.

 

Again show them a 600TVL camera at d resolution recorded on a hardware compressed DVR and you will notice very little difference between that and a 2MP camera.

 

D1(720x480)< 2MP(1600x1200) besides more then twice the resolution.

 

But like most people who tout IP im sure you are comparing 2005 analog to 2010 IP technology.

 

So a new SCC-B5369 with a Axis encoder compared to a new Mobotix, Sanyo, Arecont, Axis, Avigilon.

 

If you have an entrance with perfect lighting and a dedicated network then MP is a great solution.

 

Not true

 

MP cameras are based on CMOS rather then CCD which have a number of disadvantages compared to CCD, such as low light, noise and have poorer color reduction (though they are smaller and cheaper making them most widely used)

 

CMOS is used in cellphones

CCD is used by NASA and high end medical applications as the amount of noise produced by CMOS.

 

 

Yes MP is the future but it an immature technology that is not fully developed and should be used in specific applications not main stream, give it 4 years and will be good.

 

Im not arguing its not the future im saying its not the present.

 

Just so you know MP cameras represent less then 2% of the total market due to price to performance.

so to make the case IP has advantages over analog camera based on MP cameras is ridiculous.

 

Every install we do is megapixel where it is need needed

 

MP cameras also offer very poor remote connection and are very expensive when it comes to storage and most applications I sell to want at least 3 months of storage not to mention networks need to be upgraded pr replaced to accommodate multiple MP cameras.

 

Storage is cheap my friend

 

IP has a larger file size and lower image quality when recorded at the same resolution not to mention the lag and latency.

 

 

 

Since this topic is about remote connectivity and PTZ control it does not make sense to do IP as it will cost more and give lower performance due to the lag and latency that is inherit on IP based systems.

 

An im not even mentioning the reliability and cost factor.

 

We do 4 camera megapixel system installs for about the same price your selling your " good 2010 analog systems" and if you know what your doing reliability is not a issue.

 

Show me a 2010 600TVL analog image that looks as good as this and I will eat my words.

 

Edited May 18, 2010 by Guest

[rory 0]

[

Analog still has its place in CCTV (low light and covert) but Megapixel and HD is where it's going.

Err. .. unless all your clients are rich with amazing bandwidth and have a ton of light .. i disagree

[rory 0]

So a new SCC-B5369 with a Axis encoder compared to a new Mobotix, Sanyo, Arecont, Axis, Avigilon.

 

encoders kill the quality, only comparison should be a composite signal .. not an encoded and then decoded axis one .. which would explain the terrible images ive been seeing here comparing regular CCTV cameras to Megapixel ones. That or they dont realize they have to focus the cameras

[thewireguys 3]

[

Analog still has its place in CCTV (low light and covert) but Megapixel and HD is where it's going.

Err. .. unless all your clients are rich with amazing bandwidth and have a ton of light .. i disagree

 

Rory you scare me

[thewireguys 3]

So a new SCC-B5369 with a Axis encoder compared to a new Mobotix, Sanyo, Arecont, Axis, Avigilon.

 

encoders kill the quality, only comparison should be a composite signal .. not an encoded and then decoded axis one .. which would explain the terrible images ive been seeing here comparing regular CCTV cameras to Megapixel ones. That or they dont realize they have to focus the cameras

 

So how do you record your analog cameras without encoding them? And by the Axis encoders have very good quality better then any DVR I have seen . Now would be a good time to post your amazing jeep image

[rory 0]

 

Rory you scare me

i dont mean to, please find me that $100 MP bullet (or even sub $500) that sees in 0.01 lux .. pretty please!