HDCCTV is the new standard

[thewireguys 3]

Expand a little .......

 

 

If you are intent on establishing a sequence of events but the frame rate of a recording has lost too many frames to provide a conclusive sequence, hence rendering the use of the recording useless,

 

How does that differ from

 

I suspect this guy is drawing a weapon but by the time the PTZ responds to my signal, he's already pushing "end call on his cell phone" by the time the PTZ responds.

 

In both cases the application of VSS was useless!

 

Totally different.

 

How would you "lost too many frames"? If you design the system properly and use quality equipment this is never an issue.

 

You drop frames from bandwidth or HD issues nothing to do with latency.

[streethacker 0]

How about this someone please build me a ip system that is able to do 30fps at full resolution 2mp...include all the switches and cableing needed...remember 30fps at full 2mp resolution...100ft run..4 cameras on a 8 channel capable NVR that is able to add 4 more cameras later on that can doa full 30fps at 2 megapixels...

 

Storage is not a factor.

[thewireguys 3]

How about this someone please build me a ip system that is able to do 30fps at full resolution 2mp...include all the switches and cableing needed...remember 30fps at full 2mp resolution...100ft run..4 cameras on a 8 channel capable NVR that is able to add 4 more cameras later on that can doa full 30fps at 2 megapixels...

 

Storage is not a factor.

 

OK I do that every day. Not a problem at all.

[streethacker 0]

Well sum it up on here let's see what it cost...now remember I agree with the priceing point but I wana see what your price comes out to and see just how much more NEW technology costs..which we all know it will be more but let's see..

[thewireguys 3]

Sorry I am not posting pricing or giving out free system design.

 

Also why 4 to 8? Why not 5 and 9?

[Soundy 1]

LOL --- obviously they not used to no latency!

How would they know? WHY would they know?

 

There are two ways you'd even NOTICE latency: one, controlling a PTZ and having the movements lag behind your actions; two, sitting and watching the same scene you have on camera and seeing a visible delay.

 

The former is (outside of a few specialized areas, like casinos) generally considered to not be a serious issue below a couple hundred milliseconds, and little more than an annoyance up to one second... the latter is just silly.

 

In active surveillance, "latency" in the actual response time of the observer (ie. the time it takes for the guard to realize there's something going on, get off his ass, pick up his radio, and call in a response) is going to be probably dozens of times that of the delivery system, making even a second or two delay in the video itself irrelevant.

 

In passive surveillance, probably 90% of the time, you're playing back recorded video, equating to a "latency" of minutes to months... again, even a second or two delay in the video transmission becomes wholly irrelevant.

[rory 0]

Sorry I am not posting pricing or giving out free system design.

You're on a forum whose sole purpose is to give out free tech support and system design !!

[ak357 0]

How about this someone please build me a ip system that is able to do 30fps at full resolution 2mp...include all the switches and cableing needed...remember 30fps at full 2mp resolution...100ft run..4 cameras on a 8 channel capable NVR that is able to add 4 more cameras later on that can doa full 30fps at 2 megapixels...

 

Storage is not a factor.

 

Basically you are looking for "shopping list"

done by somebody else

No wonder North America has trouble

[Soundy 1]

How about this someone please build me a ip system that is able to do 30fps at full resolution 2mp...include all the switches and cableing needed...remember 30fps at full 2mp resolution...100ft run..4 cameras on a 8 channel capable NVR that is able to add 4 more cameras later on that can doa full 30fps at 2 megapixels...

 

Storage is not a factor.

 

Basically you are looking for "shopping list"

done by somebody else

No wonder North America has trouble

I think he was being rhetorical... or sarcastic... or some combination thereof.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

LOL --- obviously they not used to no latency!

How would they know? WHY would they know?

 

There are two ways you'd even NOTICE latency: one, controlling a PTZ and having the movements lag behind your actions; two, sitting and watching the same scene you have on camera and seeing a visible delay.

 

The former is (outside of a few specialized areas, like casinos) generally considered to not be a serious issue below a couple hundred milliseconds, and little more than an annoyance up to one second... the latter is just silly.

 

In active surveillance, "latency" in the actual response time of the observer (ie. the time it takes for the guard to realize there's something going on, get off his ass, pick up his radio, and call in a response) is going to be probably dozens of times that of the delivery system, making even a second or two delay in the video itself irrelevant.

 

In passive surveillance, probably 90% of the time, you're playing back recorded video, equating to a "latency" of minutes to months... again, even a second or two delay in the video transmission becomes wholly irrelevant.

 

Hi, your input appreciated. Thus far it would seem, based on the responses, that latency is a pretty important issue to some. So having the opposite views arise is also important.

 

I think when one discusses latency on it's own, it is less effective - in the context of this discussion. The discussion seems to lend itself to the value differentiation between Latency within an HDip system compared to Latency within an HDcctv system.

 

I didn't quite get your last statement though. People usually make a conscious decision to deploy "Active" or "Passive".

 

When Passive surveillance is "chosen" it should be from the understanding that the specific target or issue of concern does not demand an immediate response, or intervention. Passive surveillance under these conditions is still considered an effective management solution - exactly because the issues and concerns can be viewed at a later opportunity.

 

When Active surveillance is "chosen" it usually costs 10x more than Passive - why? Because the issue of concern is deemed to be more significant, or critical. The very decision to deploy active surveillance implies an intent for immediate, live intervention. An unmanned Active PTZ camera is imo far less effective than a passive camera at detecting a specific event - so I am figuring an Active solution where a motion detection or other form of alert from beams, analytics, pir's requires immediate intervention by the control room operator.

 

The scenario with the guard that you mentioned, would seem to me to describe either a poorly defined Active install, or a passive install where an immediate intervention was required.

 

I am not saying that the delay is significant ---- I am asking for input, and opinions as to what the perceived value gap between a HDip and HDcctv system is - based upon the latency issue?

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

The system that ak requested got me thinking about frame rates.

 

Is 30fps ALWAYS a requirement. Is 15fps ALWAYS ineffective?

 

Of course those issues are very relevant when those specs are called for - but what percentage of installs, truly demand 30fps, and then what percentage of cameras within any install should be 30fps?

 

If the design objective called for monitoring, without recognition, identification, forensics, etc --- is HD or 30fps a real requirement?

 

What percentage of cameras in the average install are designated Forensic/Identification/Evidential Recording as opposed to Monitor, detect, or recognition for instance?

[rory 0]

Basically you are looking for "shopping list"

done by somebody else

And why exactly would that be a problem?

Please notice the title of this sub forum.

[Malloot 0]

HDcctv is the new standard for installers lacking IP knowlegde. It's is work around solutions for installers who didn't grow in to this century where IP is the standard for bigger resolution solutions.

 

HDcctv is too expensive and doesn't have any advantages to me opposed to a megapixel IP solution.

 

An HDcctv camera costs equal to a MP IP camera, but the IP camera does have generally a better sensitivity.

 

An 8 channel HD cctv DVR cost around 4 times more then a equal specified NVR.

 

So no HDcctv for me. Also I don't like the general way of communication of the HDcctv complience. Just answer the questions instead of talking around it. No your limitations, etc, etc.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

Are there still installers using standalone DVR's -- completely detached from IP and not offering remote access? Are they a significant group - if any still exist??

 

Could you expand a little on sensitivity? Do you mean light sensitivity? Are you using similar sized sensors in both, similar type sensors? This is something I haven't come across before - HDcctv cameras are less sensitive that HDip cameras, and would really like a little more information about that?

[Malloot 0]

Are there still installers using standalone DVR's -- completely detached from IP and not offering remote access? Are they a significant group - if any still exist??

 

Could you expand a little on sensitivity? Do you mean light sensitivity? Are you using similar sized sensors in both, similar type sensors? This is something I haven't come across before - HDcctv cameras are less sensitive that HDip cameras, and would really like a little more information about that?

 

In the Netherlands 90% of the DVR's are connected to LAN/WAN.

 

I mean light sensitivty.

The HDcctv camera's does have bigger chips and therefore should be more sensitive for light the the smaller MP IP camera's. Unfortunatly the HDcctv aren't more sensitive. Also the comparison I made showed a more grainy image for the HDcctv camera's then the MP IP camera's.

[rory 0]

Are there still installers using standalone DVR's -- completely detached from IP and not offering remote access? Are they a significant group - if any still exist??

Lots of clients here dont connect their DVRs to the internet, normally due to them not having access or not wanting to. 10 years ago I was watching DVRs remotely, but I recall before DVRs came with LAN and broadband was still new or not as common, I used a device from Kalatel for the phone line (SVME8), that was "interesting"!

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

Are there still installers using standalone DVR's -- completely detached from IP and not offering remote access? Are they a significant group - if any still exist??

 

Could you expand a little on sensitivity? Do you mean light sensitivity? Are you using similar sized sensors in both, similar type sensors? This is something I haven't come across before - HDcctv cameras are less sensitive that HDip cameras, and would really like a little more information about that?

 

In the Netherlands 90% of the DVR's are connected to LAN/WAN.

 

I mean light sensitivty.

The HDcctv camera's does have bigger chips and therefore should be more sensitive for light the the smaller MP IP camera's. Unfortunatly the HDcctv aren't more sensitive. Also the comparison I made showed a more grainy image for the HDcctv camera's then the MP IP camera's.

 

So you mean HDcctv is the new standard for those 10% of DVR's that won't be connected to the network?

 

Isn't that a little broad - I mean I have seen HDcctv cameras with 1/2" and 1/3" sensors some with CMOS and Some with CCD, and I have seen HDip With the same.

 

For instance ---- I am battling to understand how a HDcctv camera with a 1/3" Pixim CMOS sensor ends up with less light sensitivity than an Hdip camera with a 1/3" Pixim Cmos sensor -- i can't make the link between why that should be so.....are you saying it is so? That's interesting!

[thewireguys 3]

Here you go check the specs on this camera...

 

Min. Illumination.....6 Lux(F1.8/ 50IRE/ TV=1/30sec.1920x1080 movie)

 

http://www.sgdigital.com/sgd-22sd1.htm

[Soundy 1]

Hi, your input appreciated. Thus far it would seem, based on the responses, that latency is a pretty important issue to some.

Yes, but the question is, is it a *realistic* requirement, or just something they *think* they need? In the overall scheme of the entire chain of events, from a event happening to a response being launched, will an extra few hundred milliseconds actually make a difference? Or is it just something that some engineer somewhere decided needed to be thrown in for no particular reason?

 

When Active surveillance is "chosen" it usually costs 10x more than Passive - why? Because the issue of concern is deemed to be more significant, or critical. The very decision to deploy active surveillance implies an intent for immediate, live intervention. An unmanned Active PTZ camera is imo far less effective than a passive camera at detecting a specific event - so I am figuring an Active solution where a motion detection or other form of alert from beams, analytics, pir's requires immediate intervention by the control room operator.

 

The scenario with the guard that you mentioned, would seem to me to describe either a poorly defined Active install, or a passive install where an immediate intervention was required.

The point is, when you introduce the human element to the chain of events, you introduce substantial extra latency right there. It could be 5ms between something happening, and the time it shows up on the screen... it still takes the person watching time to realize what he's seeing, make the decision to act, make the decision HOW to act, and then actually perform those actions... all of which will probably take 5-15s before a response is even initiated.

 

I am not saying that the delay is significant ---- I am asking for input, and opinions as to what the perceived value gap between a HDip and HDcctv system is - based upon the latency issue?

I'm just saying, a lot of times "perception" is skewed, and the importance of some factors are over-emphasized, often because people don't take into account just how much (or how little) those factors actually contribute.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

The difference in latency is just one aspect of the HDip vs HDcctv comparison.

 

Are you saying that latency then is a contrived and irrelevant term? That a ping of 400ms vs 1000ms for instance is insignificant and has no impact on performance when it comes to video transmission? Is latency only of significance to the IT guys when they transmit data? Is latency unimportant when synchronizing video and audio, or synchronizing other aspects of video security?

 

I can't really provide a definitive answer around the latency issue --- so it does reduce the variables a little if someone comes along and says - "nah latency is insignificant in the broader scheme of things"

 

Should we just then remove latency as a comparative factor and focus on the rest of the issues?

 

I have had situations where controlling a PTZ camera has been extremely frustrating over a network, on which the numbers where not even 100 or so ms perhaps that has shaped my perception. Perhaps that kind of lag is just part of the process , but doesn't really cause any harm other than annoyance?

[Campbell 0]

The difference in latency is just one aspect of the HDip vs HDcctv comparison.

 

Are you saying that latency then is a contrived and irrelevant term? That a ping of 400ms vs 1000ms for instance is insignificant and has no impact on performance when it comes to video transmission? Is latency only of significance to the IT guys when they transmit data? Is latency unimportant when synchronizing video and audio, or synchronizing other aspects of video security?

 

I can't really provide a definitive answer around the latency issue --- so it does reduce the variables a little if someone comes along and says - "nah latency is insignificant in the broader scheme of things"

 

Should we just then remove latency as a comparative factor and focus on the rest of the issues?

 

I have had situations where controlling a PTZ camera has been extremely frustrating over a network, on which the numbers where not even 100 or so ms perhaps that has shaped my perception. Perhaps that kind of lag is just part of the process , but doesn't really cause any harm other than annoyance?

 

I don't think he ever said it was an irrelevant term, but in the whole scheme of things, this is CCTV we're talking about, not pro gaming. Whether the response time of a camera is 250ms or 1000ms, once a human factor is involved, then it becomes an insignificant amount as a human response time is likely to be depending on event anything from 5000+ms.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

The difference in latency is just one aspect of the HDip vs HDcctv comparison.

 

Are you saying that latency then is a contrived and irrelevant term? That a ping of 400ms vs 1000ms for instance is insignificant and has no impact on performance when it comes to video transmission? Is latency only of significance to the IT guys when they transmit data? Is latency unimportant when synchronizing video and audio, or synchronizing other aspects of video security?

 

I can't really provide a definitive answer around the latency issue --- so it does reduce the variables a little if someone comes along and says - "nah latency is insignificant in the broader scheme of things"

 

Should we just then remove latency as a comparative factor and focus on the rest of the issues?

 

I have had situations where controlling a PTZ camera has been extremely frustrating over a network, on which the numbers where not even 100 or so ms perhaps that has shaped my perception. Perhaps that kind of lag is just part of the process , but doesn't really cause any harm other than annoyance?

 

I don't think he ever said it was an irrelevant term, but in the whole scheme of things, this is CCTV we're talking about, not pro gaming. Whether the response time of a camera is 250ms or 1000ms, once a human factor is involved, then it becomes an insignificant amount as a human response time is likely to be depending on event anything from 5000+ms.

 

I guess I am not getting it ---- human response aside!

 

We are talking about the apparent fact that there is higher latency on an IP system than an HDcctv system.

 

Are you saying that because we are talking about VSS that latency is not significant? Generally the human factor could be counted equal on an Ip system or HDcctv system, so let's discard the human response factor and make an apples versus apples comparison.

 

I gather that what you guys are saying is "Yes there is a difference but it is insignificant?" is that what you are saying?

 

I would be surprised if that's what you are saying .....because The Issue of latency is regarded as significant enough by numerous standards generating bodies and network engineers , in fact so significant that numerous techniques have been developed to try and manage it.

 

I think it is a generally accepted fact that carrying video over ip presents a lot more challenges than most other non-time-critical IP traffic.

 

Network engineers have deemed it necessary- in most professional systems, to deploy some kind of "forward error correction" to ensure that the encoded video stream can be reconstructed even with low probability packet loss and bit error amplification. A video system is not very tolerant of lost packets.

 

Such systems demand high speed networks and data shaping for video, data prioritization and other traffic engineering approaches as well as systems to ensure that the network does not get too close to maximum capacity.

 

Even then there still remains delay, and buffering is often employed but to the detriment of the video system.

 

Once you start to exceed 250ms delays (and believe me that's a minute number) operation of PTZ controls become difficult.

 

Latency variation has a significant impact on synchronization issues, gen locking techniques have to be employed to manage this.

 

Even with all these engineering techniques, the network must have sufficient capacity to carry the entire content with a reasonable expectation of packet loss. Video over IP will not work if the network is congested , as is possible on multi-purpose corporate lans.

 

So we have techniques such as quantity of service, dynamic frame rate or resolution reduction, network admission control, bandwidth reservation, traffic shaping, and traffic prioritizing.

 

Are all these complex network engineering systems and techniques deployed for something which is insignificant?

 

When we use the fact that we are only talking microseconds to imply that such small windows are not very significant, we overlook the fact that even 250ms is actually a very short period of time ----- but significant enough to degrade the operational efficiency of a PTZ operator.

[thewireguys 3]

I think what everyone is saying if you need zero latency HDcctv is the best choice otherwise IP is a better option. IP has better system scalability, design flexibly, and system options which I think is more important to almost all customers over latency.

[streethacker 0]

I'm not argueing that right now hdcctv is more expensive then IP..all I'm saying is when china gets there hands on it which they are and it starts getting massed produce you will see the prices get lower..also ofcourse the technology will get better if the hdcctv alliance is the standard...I also want to point out a very respectfull poster that has been on here forever said that there is no way high def video will go over coax that if u wanted high deff u needed ip cameras....hmm he was wrong...it is the start of a great new technology and personly I think all you IP lovers are scared of it because if IP did take over allot of your compatition would go away..=) ...o yah by the way I'm net + cert..IP cameras don't scare me they are very nice but I see it as more manufactures get into it the price will lower and the camera sales will go up because there are way more cctv installers afraid of IP cameras and how easy is it to just plug in cameras vs IP...

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

I think what everyone is saying if you need zero latency HDcctv is the best choice otherwise IP is a better option. IP has better system scalability, design flexibly, and system options which I think is more important to almost all customers over latency.

 

Now we are getting somewhere. How often is zero latency required? - BUT , please remember it is not zero latency we pursue, it is nothing more than 250ms.

 

Can you expand on how IP has better system scalability than HDcctv? is that assuming that a LAN already exists? is that assuming that the existing lan has sufficient capacity?

 

Likewise --- with design flexibility?

 

And can we expand on the better system options HDip offers over HDcctv?

 

Zero Latency aside ---- it takes a lot of expertise to ensure effective video over ip, a lot of variables that are just not required in a Hdcctv system - unless we interface it with a LAN.

 

I suspect that most IP installs haven't even begun to address those issues, and are just connected and operated on a prayer~

Edited June 5, 2011 by Guest