HDCCTV is the new standard

[HDguy 0]

HDCCTV cameras based on HD-SDI are coming out NOW. In Septemeber there will be several major players with a full line of products. Currently SG Digital seems to have the most success stories. This technology is all good. Cable required is RG6, currently about half the price of RG/59. There is no change in the installation as compared to analog.

[survtech 0]

HDCCTV cameras based on HD-SDI are coming out NOW.

In very limited production with very limited makes and models, no standalone DVRs (PC capture cards only), 720p only, expensive broadcast SDi switches; with limited range on coax (100m on RG59), etc.

 

In Septemeber there will be several major players with a full line of products.

Define "major". Most companies involved in equipment production are minor players in the field.

 

Currently SG Digital seems to have the most success stories. This technology is all good. Cable required is RG6, currently about half the price of RG/59. There is no change in the installation as compared to analog.

More mis-statements and half truths. Where do I start?:

* RG6 is more expensive than RG59. Although HDcctv can use RG59 and RG6 antenna cable, which is cheaper than the copper/copper used for analog, it can't use twisted-pair and the "inexpensive" RG6 cannot be interchanged between HDcctv and analog cameras. According to the HDcctv spec, it is supposed to be able to use RG59 for up to 100 meters but that apparently is not an option with existing equipment. So much for a "standard"!

* Distances between camera and recorder/monitor are limited compared to analog video.

* There are no monitors apart from $2000+ studio monitors capable of viewing SDi signals directly.

* Matrix switches are very expensive and of limited usability, since they are designed for broadcast.

[Soundy 1]

Todd, is that you???

[HDguy 0]

Todd, is that you???

 

no

[HDguy 0]

So I see a long list of reasons why NOT to use this technology. So does that mean that we are all happy with the status quo? No reason to push for advances?

 

So if you want better than analog or IP, what is the next logical path?

 

How about looking at the Broadcast guys,,,, you know, they have been sending broadcast quality video down a coax cable for years. It is a solid existing technology that has already shown major price drops and new product developement for the CCTV side.

 

UTP video transmission was a "work around" technology. Don't understand why anyone would wire up a new installation with it..(except $). Us old school guys use coax for video unless it's just not possible. If you insist on using UTP for video, this technology is not what your looking for for quite a while.

 

We surveyed over 500 installation companies and found that less than 10% had techs who could do an IP system on thier own. Less than 50% had techs that could install an RJ45 plug. That's the reality of this industry.

 

So if you could upgrade to 1080P video without much re-education, why wouldn't you?

 

On the same survey, the majority of camera replacements and new installs today are with cable less than 400ft. (banks, retail, qsr's, pharmacys, etc) The new products are reaching 450ft on standard 95% copper RG59. But can go further on higher frequency cable.

[thewireguys 3]

So I see a long list of reasons why NOT to use this technology. So does that mean that we are all happy with the status quo? No reason to push for advances?

 

So if you want better than analog or IP, what is the next logical path?

 

How about looking at the Broadcast guys,,,, you know, they have been sending broadcast quality video down a coax cable for years. It is a solid existing technology that has already shown major price drops and new product developement for the CCTV side.

 

UTP video transmission was a "work around" technology. Don't understand why anyone would wire up a new installation with it..(except $). Us old school guys use coax for video unless it's just not possible. If you insist on using UTP for video, this technology is not what your looking for for quite a while.

 

We surveyed over 500 installation companies and found that less than 10% had techs who could do an IP system on thier own. Less than 50% had techs that could install an RJ45 plug. That's the reality of this industry.

 

So if you could upgrade to 1080P video without much re-education, why wouldn't you?

 

On the same survey, the majority of camera replacements and new installs today are with cable less than 400ft. (banks, retail, qsr's, pharmacys, etc) The new products are reaching 450ft on standard 95% copper RG59. But can go further on higher frequency cable.

 

 

I think HDcctv will be good for the guys afraid of IP but for how long can you ignore IP before you are left if the dust. So what happens when you need more then 1080P? Also I thought one of the major selling points of HDcctv was that you didn't need to re-cable, but I keep reading and talking to people that they are having problems with rg-59.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Guest

[rory 0]

We surveyed over 500 installation companies and found that less than 10% had techs who could do an IP system on thier own. Less than 50% had techs that could install an RJ45 plug. That's the reality of this industry.

Is that a DVR with IP, or you mean an IP camera/server setup?

I realize many cant still do much PC or network stuff, but they are the same ones having issues just setting up a DVR for remote access .. in many cases they just outsource for that part.

 

I dont think there is ANY new standard, the standard still seems to be the cheapest cameras one can get their hands on ... been that way for a few years now. Although if there IS a new standard one could argue that for some reason everyone wants one of the turret IR domes, even though they tend to end up with the crappiest one they can get their hands on, they seem to fall for all the sales pitches for using IR and vandal type domes.

[survtech 0]

So I see a long list of reasons why NOT to use this technology. So does that mean that we are all happy with the status quo? No reason to push for advances?

 

So if you want better than analog or IP, what is the next logical path?

That assumes HDcctv is better than IP. At this point, that really remains to be seen.

 

How about looking at the Broadcast guys,,,, you know, they have been sending broadcast quality video down a coax cable for years. It is a solid existing technology that has already shown major price drops and new product developement for the CCTV side.

Broadcast video hardly has the same needs as CCTV. Otherwise, we all would be using 3-chip cameras, $2,000 monitors and who knows how expensive recorders.

 

UTP video transmission was a "work around" technology. Don't understand why anyone would wire up a new installation with it..(except $). Us old school guys use coax for video unless it's just not possible. If you insist on using UTP for video, this technology is not what your looking for for quite a while.

Hardly! 25-pair CAT5 takes up far less space in cable trays and conduits than 25 RG59s. That is a very prime reason for twisted-pair analog.

 

And you are correct about us and HDcctv technology!

[tweak'e 0]

good to see it getting out there. about time too.

i wouldn't call it THE new standard, just A new standard. it won't be better than IP but rather provides an upgrade path from analogue to digital.

i would expect it to bridge the gap between analogue and digital. it should be good for small installs without having the hassles of IP.

i never did see the point of having a digital camera, convert it to analogue (which is subject to cable quality etc) then convert it back to digital at the DVR.

[survtech 0]

Also I thought one of the major selling points of HDcctv was to didn't need to re-cable but I keep reading and talking to people that they are having problems with 59.

That is one of the major points I have brought up to Todd Rockoff and he says that "version 2 of the HDcctv spec will allow up to 300 meters on RG59". On the discrepancy between the spec and the actual need to use RG6, dead silence!

 

Version 1 of the HDcctv spec calls for up to 100 meters on RG59. I wonder what other aspects of the spec are not being met?

[HDguy 0]

There are many ways to look at this. We don't see HDCCTV as a "replacement" for IP. If you have an application where IP makes sense, then you need an IP camera.

 

This is a third transport now available to the CCTV industry.

 

As time goes on, it will more likely replace higher end analog systems as well as some IP. The target for HDcctv is to cost about 30% more than analog. That means those who are now paying $200 for an NTSC "600TVL" dome camera should be able to pickup an HDcctv 1280 x 720 version for $260.

 

Then as competition and the pricing from our friends across the ocean.....watch.

[Birdman Adam 0]

What's the point of this HD stuff when there are IP cameras that can take HUGE pictures?

[Soundy 1]

UTP video transmission was a "work around" technology. Don't understand why anyone would wire up a new installation with it..(except $). Us old school guys use coax for video unless it's just not possible. If you insist on using UTP for video, this technology is not what your looking for for quite a while.

Hardly! 25-pair CAT5 takes up far less space in cable trays and conduits than 25 RG59s. That is a very prime reason for twisted-pair analog.!

 

$$$ is a big reason for MOST decisions, for starters.

 

Using UTP for your video - whether analog or IP - makes lots of sense in a new installation: UTP can be used for networks (IP and otherwise), phone, alarm, analog CCTV, analog HDTV (RGB/component)... it can be used with KVM extenders, VGA extenders, HDMI extenders (not cheap in themselves, but that's beside the point). In short: UTP (Cat5e/Cat6) is just far more versatile - a single four-pair UTP run can, in a pinch, carry 10/100 ethernet, a channel of analog video, and a phone line... or any other number of combinations of signals. A coax run can carry... well... one video feed. Or one network feed (with appropriate adapters).

 

If you're doing a new install, particularly a large-scale install, it just makes more sense to spec a wad of UTP, rather than mixing-and-matching different types of cables. It's easier to do a multiple pull of the same type of cable, rather than mixing-and-matching. It's more cost-effective to use only one type of cable rather than mixing-and-matching, especially if you're getting bulk pricing.

 

HDcctv may be a viable upgrade path for existing coax, but I certainly wouldn't want to spec it for a new high-level job - putting in new coax is just too... retro. Too short-sighted.

[Soundy 1]

Also I thought one of the major selling points of HDcctv was to didn't need to re-cable but I keep reading and talking to people that they are having problems with 59.

That is one of the major points I have brought up to Todd Rockoff and he says that "version 2 of the HDcctv spec will allow up to 300 meters on RG59". On the discrepancy between the spec and the actual need to use RG6, dead silence!

 

Version 1 of the HDcctv spec calls for up to 100 meters on RG59. I wonder what other aspects of the spec are not being met?

That's why all this HDcctv blather grates on me: it reminds me so much of Microsoft in the Windows 95 days.

 

Hey, check out this great new thing, it will do everything!

 

Okay, it's not actually available yet, but it's coming REAL SOON NOW!

 

Okay, it's here now... it doesn't QUITE do it all... but the NEXT version will! REAL SOON NOW!

 

Blah blah blah.

[rory 0]

That's why all this HDcctv blather grates on me: it reminds me so much of Microsoft in the Windows 95 days.

Flight Simulator was awesome back then!!

[thewireguys 3]

HDcctv reminds me of HDMI. Great idea but still a pain in the ass.

[SEANHAWG 1]

So are these basically just advanced analog cameras?

[Soundy 1]

HDcctv reminds me of HDMI. Great idea but still a pain in the ass.

Difference is, you can actually walk into a store and buy stuff that uses HDMI.

[Soundy 1]

So are these basically just advanced analog cameras?

No. They are (according to the marketing hype at least) high-definition digital cameras (hence the "HD" - they use HDTV protocols and specs) that send uncompressed HD video over a single coax line by using SDI (Serial Digital Interface), a standard that's been used for years in the broadcast industry for digital data. When I worked at a tech school a decade or so ago, one of the old U-Matic tape machines had an SDI interface for the audio output. IIRC one of the newer Betacam SP decks had SDI in *and* out for audio as well.

 

Their main claims of "superiority" are for the live video (realtime, since there's no compression/conversion happening in-camera, thus no lag time; plus being uncompressed, it's higher quality), and the ability to simply plug them into existing coax (which as you see here, some have had varying success with).

 

So far, aside from this thread, I've seen NO claims of the ACTUAL cost of the new cameras (I have asked directly)... only that it "will be cheaper" than IP. Some of the things they gloss over or simply dismiss when asked about it, are the facts that in addition to new cameras, you need new capture/interface hardware (you can't just plug them into a standard existing capture card)... and that to get any sort of realistic retention time, your PC has to do all the compression, since it's now not being done on the camera and uncompressed 720P video will eat terabyte drives for breakfast. I've seen no claims on the cost of the interface hardware either, or whether it will do its own hardware compression, or require the PC to do all the work (expect cost savings on the cameras to be offset by the need for more powerful PCs).

 

At this point, there's not really anything on the market (that I've seen, anyway), just promises and glossy ads and lots of marketing hype. I see tests published by the manufacturers who've signed on, but have yet to see any third-party, REAL-WORLD tests, comparisons or samples.

[HDguy 0]

HDCCTV cabling.

 

Hopefully I can clear up the cabling issue here.

 

Just like VHS - Beta and many other technologies there have been two different core groups with different concepts. The first version, "C" I will call it is based on a modified SMPTE259. It was completely proprietary and has some limitations. It can send 720P30 video around 100 ft on existing RG59. However, by changing to ANY lower noise cable (and we tested a lot) the distance can go up to 800 ft. 800 ft was achieved using very inexpensive RG6 ($80 per 1K).

 

Now the official version that is currently being released is based on a Gennum 7600 HDSDI chip, which we have currently been using on standard CCTV RG59 at 450 ft. This is the HDcctv first version. This is what will be flooding the market by year end.

 

So now they are working on the next generation of HDSDI encoder's that will reach the 300m figures.

 

There is also some missunderstanding about the RG6 requirement. The recommended spec for the version C HDSDI is: Less than 6db loss at 1Ghz per 100ft. Most RG59 is towards 18 to 20db, but we have found many other sizes of cable readily available which have acceptable specs.

 

Gennum had a demo at ISC Vegas of thier new encoder sending 1000ft over "standard" RG59.

 

This is why I keep saying that if you understand the application, there really isn't much of a cabling issue at all. How many real installs out there fall under 450 ft? Clearly there are still issues with larger buildings, but this covers most retail already.

[HDguy 0]

So are these basically just advanced analog cameras?

No. They are (according to the marketing hype at least) high-definition digital cameras (hence the "HD" - they use HDTV protocols and specs) that send uncompressed HD video over a single coax line by using SDI (Serial Digital Interface), a standard that's been used for years in the broadcast industry for digital data. When I worked at a tech school a decade or so ago, one of the old U-Matic tape machines had an SDI interface for the audio output. IIRC one of the newer Betacam SP decks had SDI in *and* out for audio as well.

 

Their main claims of "superiority" are for the live video (realtime, since there's no compression/conversion happening in-camera, thus no lag time; plus being uncompressed, it's higher quality), and the ability to simply plug them into existing coax (which as you see here, some have had varying success with).

 

So far, aside from this thread, I've seen NO claims of the ACTUAL cost of the new cameras (I have asked directly)... only that it "will be cheaper" than IP. Some of the things they gloss over or simply dismiss when asked about it, are the facts that in addition to new cameras, you need new capture/interface hardware (you can't just plug them into a standard existing capture card)... and that to get any sort of realistic retention time, your PC has to do all the compression, since it's now not being done on the camera and uncompressed 720P video will eat terabyte drives for breakfast. I've seen no claims on the cost of the interface hardware either, or whether it will do its own hardware compression, or require the PC to do all the work (expect cost savings on the cameras to be offset by the need for more powerful PCs).

 

At this point, there's not really anything on the market (that I've seen, anyway), just promises and glossy ads and lots of marketing hype. I see tests published by the manufacturers who've signed on, but have yet to see any third-party, REAL-WORLD tests, comparisons or samples.

 

 

The uncompressed part is between the camera and the DVR. Once the video is captured at the DVR is works just like any DVR today, applying the compression codec at the DVR. We are able to achieve better compression than I have seen with similar IP NVR solutions. For example, a DVR with 4 720P30 cameras (120fps total) on the gaming tables stores 10 days on 2 terabytes FULL TIME RECORD. That's an average file size of just over 20K. Remember DM DVR's s the the jpeg recording they sold for years has a file size larger than that for a CIF recording.

[Soundy 1]

The uncompressed part is between the camera and the DVR. Once the video is captured at the DVR is works just like any DVR today, applying the compression codec at the DVR. We are able to achieve better compression than I have seen with similar IP NVR solutions.

I notice you conveniently sidestep the cost/hardware/power requirement questions. I've found this to be typical of the Alliance shills. Just show the pretty pictures and avoid the real-world implications.

[Soundy 1]

This is the HDcctv first version. This is what will be flooding the market by year end.

Seems to me that's what we heard last year.

 

I take it back, this can't be Todd... not articulate enough. Sounds more like Scott.

[HDguy 0]

This is the HDcctv first version. This is what will be flooding the market by year end.

Seems to me that's what we heard last year.

 

I take it back, this can't be Todd... not articulate enough. Sounds more like Scott.

 

 

That's great, good stuff. If you want to talk, send me a PM. Don't really need to be rude, I don't think.

[survtech 0]

Perhaps the HDcctv Alliance could straighten out the mess they've created out, then. Cable requirements being among the prime misstatements.

 

Here are direct quotes from their website:

 

http://www.highdefcctv.org/

 

About HDcctv Technology

High-Definition Closed Circuit Television, or HDcctv, is built on technology pioneered for broadcast television. Video is transmitted uncompressed and without being encapsulated in TCP/IP. The result of this is a system in which a camera can be plugged into a receiving device and video can be displayed without latency and with zero configuration. HDcctv hopes to bring all of the benefits claimed by megapixel IP cameras to the CCTV market with the ease of use of conventional analog CCTV equipment.

 

HDcctv is a point-to-point system and does not require any additional infrastructure to deploy. New and existing installations can use CCTV industry standard coaxial cable (RG/59, RG/6 and RG/11). HDcctv is designed to be a drop-in replacement for existing analog CCTV, requiring only a change of camera and receiver. HDcctv is designed to be forward- and backward- compatible, meaning early adopters will be able to continue to use HDcctv equipment as more features are added to the specification.

HDcctv operating at 720P provides almost three times the video resolution of analog CCTV, and 1080P provides six times the resolution. In addition, all HDcctv systems are progressive, eliminating the flicker and blurring associated with conventional analog CCTV systems.

 

What is the cable length restriction?

Maximum signaling distance depends on the cable quality.

 

Current solutions work over RG59 up to at least 100m.

 

It is anticipated that future solutions will operate at 300m before requiring repeaters.

No mention of RG6 there!

 

Is it difficult to install an HDcctv system?

The upgrade to HDcctv can be as easy as swapping the DVR as well as a camera or two.

 

That’s why HDcctv is Plug-and-Play."

Not counting having to rewire the site with RG6

 

For large-scale installations including more than just coax, does HDcctv require a "fork-lift upgrade" just like IP cameras?

No.

 

An IP camera installation tends to require a wholesale equipment change.

This is sometimes called the "fork-lift upgrade".

 

HDcctv preserves the existing investment in SD and IP cameras, while providing a plug-and-play for all cameras having a < 100m run on coax back to the DVR.

For the other SD and IP inputs, the customer gets a hybrid DVR with a great display.

 

Therefore HDcctv presents unique advantages to large-scale applications such as casinos or airports, delivering immediate benefits in a non-disruptive manner.

 

An open question is whether new coax is less expensive than a network to install and maintain. If pulling coax is acceptable, then HDcctv presents a compelling upgrade path for complex applications.

 

Todd Rockoff, Chairman and Executive Director of the HDcctv Alliance and Craig Scott, CEO at OVii and a highly vocal supporter of HDcctv have posted numerous and often unwelcome statements just about everywhere touting the supposed benefits of HDcctv while conveniently ignoring pointed questions and criticisms of the technology. The Alliance's marketing blitz has continued unabated in many security publications, forums and other venues for at least a year without any product available to sell.

 

Even as they post so-called "success stories" about a handfull of HDcctv installations, it appears that the equipment used in most, if not all, of these doesn't even meet the HDcctv Alliance's v1.0 specification. Then they ignore legitimate questions about the equipment used or some of the outrageous claims being made.

 

In an article published in Security Director News

Casino 'all over' HDCCTV installation

Approval of technology means casinos 'know nothing will get by them' By L. Samuel Pfeifle - 07.13.2010), the integrator claims "Now, four cameras with 1280 x 720 resolution, and one 2-terabyte DVR can cover an entire gaming pit, he said, which used to require as many as 24 analog cameras". The claim is obviously exaggerated, since one 720p camera couldn't possibly have sufficient pixels to replace six analog cameras; especially in a gaming environment. One for two? Maybe.

 

One should be highly wary of any new, so-called "disruptive" technology (their description) that starts off by plastering marketing hype all over the place, including in discussions that have nothing to do with their technology, and whose biggest promoters refuse to answer questions whose answers might reveal that the Emperor Has No Clothes.