HDCCTV is the new standard

[streethacker 0]

[thewireguys 3]

 

HAHAHAHA

 

That video is the biggest joke I have ever seen. I still can't believe the president of the HDcctv alliance (Todd) thinks anyone would take him seriously with that.

[dustmop 0]

I've been following the development of this...technology...for a while. All I have to say, is that when actual techs from a few of the largest manufacturers of recording systems used in casinos can't keep a straight face when answering you, that's a sign...

[NotoriousBRK 0]

What is more valubale to the end user. RG-59 (which costs more) that you can ONLY use for cctv or Cat5/6 which you can use with anything with a network port?

RG9, the whole system is cheaper in the long run and its stronger cable.

 

Stronger cable? What exactly are you doing with your security camera cabling down in the Bahamas?

[NotoriousBRK 0]

Like i said on this part of the subject I may not know what Im talking about..Yet u do not explain to me why a cellphones 2MP camera wont do for CCTV? Anyways what about the other subjects I pointed on? did we just skip down to the part where i admitted I didnt know what i was talking about...=)

 

No one the pro-hdcctv points you made were accurate or logical. I didn't want to spend a lot of time disputing them, especially when others have already done so.

 

Your perspective seemed to be that of the "afraid of IP" perspective... Worrying about theoretical failed switches and network outages and stuff like that.

[rory 0]

Your perspective seemed to be that of the "afraid of IP" perspective... Worrying about theoretical failed switches and network outages and stuff like that.

 

He had a valid point, although its nothing to do with being afraid of IP as many that use DVRs use the Internet Protocol every second of the day. while the IP video guys are streaming 2 or 3 IP cameras someone may be streaming 128 non IP cameras from various DVRs, however it is being realistic, the network is another fail point in addition to everything else.

[rory 0]

What is more valubale to the end user. RG-59 (which costs more) that you can ONLY use for cctv or Cat5/6 which you can use with anything with a network port?

RG9, the whole system is cheaper in the long run and its stronger cable.

 

Stronger cable? What exactly are you doing with your security camera cabling down in the Bahamas?

I use it to swing from tree to tree, Im the Caribbean tarzan.

[SEANHAWG 1]

Flat out, there is no way that HDCCTV will ever succeed until it gets cheaper than comparable IP cameras. It just comes down to marketing.

 

I did see a very basic 4 channel DVR that costs around $950 which was the cheapest I have seen but its still gotta get cheaper than that.

 

Its just comes down to basic marketing, if anyone has the money to buy a 2mp camera, they are going to buy an IP camera because its cheaper to setup and you get the same performance with the option to get an even higher resolution camera. And the customers who are afraid to move to IP arent going to buy it because its ridiculous expensive, they will just buy the highest TVL camera they can find to add to their current system. This is just how customers think and until HDCCTV suppliers understand this, its never going to catch on. I personally think its a great idea and hope all the components to make a system gets to be as cheap or maybe a little more expensive than a regular analong system, but if it doesnt, it's gonna be like the segway scooter, a great idea that never caught on. If anyone from the alliance is listening, lower the prices of those DVR's for gosh sakes. If you want cheap, have some chinese manufacturers build some.

[thewireguys 3]

I think HDcctv only real advantage is live uncompressed video otherwise IP is a better option.

[ak357 0]

Flat out, there is no way that HDCCTV will ever succeed until it gets cheaper than comparable IP cameras. It just comes down to marketing.

 

I did see a very basic 4 channel DVR that costs around $950 which was the cheapest I have seen but its still gotta get cheaper than that.

 

Its just comes down to basic marketing, if anyone has the money to buy a 2mp camera, they are going to buy an IP camera because its cheaper to setup and you get the same performance with the option to get an even higher resolution camera. And the customers who are afraid to move to IP arent going to buy it because its ridiculous expensive, they will just buy the highest TVL camera they can find to add to their current system. This is just how customers think and until HDCCTV suppliers understand this, its never going to catch on.

 

Here is HDCCTV killer in my opinion coming very soon

Sony SLOC camera (secure link over coax)

real time analog and megapix IP over coax

we will get best of both worlds

up to 500 meters if I remember correct

real time to view and megapix to record

so far I love idea

Sony 2011 camera line up going to have this

[Soundy 1]

So let me get this straight...

 

HDCCTV requires no compression at the camera making it less expensive to produce the camera.

Not true, actually. In one LinkedIn thread, an HDcctv manufacturer has chimed in recently with a lot of REAL facts, and one of them he makes a strong point of, is the fact that the cameras are NOT any cheaper to produce. They don't do the compression in-camera, but they do require other processing that evens out the price.

 

Keep in mind that you DO still have to compress the video before recording it, so if you're not doing it in the camera, you have to do it in the DVR.

 

HDCCTV uses traditional Cabling (good quality cable) that is. Easy for a customer to upgrade there old analog system to HD

That's the promise. The reality is, according to people who are starting to implement it, as well as some manufacturers, this promise is a ways off. Seems it will work effectively with most existing coax, FOR VERY SHORT RUNS. For even mid-length runs, high-quality (and thus expensive) coax is needed, which in many cases will mean running new wire.

 

HDCCTV does not need POE switches or High Powered NVRs

Neither do IP cameras. PoE is more convenient, as you don't need to run separate power to the camera, but it's not REQUIRED. Most NVR designs do not require a lot of power, either, as they're simply receiving the compressed stream and writing it to disk.

 

only needs HD DVR which yes are somewhat expensive at the moment but seriously how many people are making HDDVR? Thats why they are expensive they are trying to make as much money as possible off it. If more players where adapting this technology the prices would come down.

The aforementioned manufacturer is saying that they have NO sales of their HDcctv DVRs. Forget "making as much money as possible", I think at this point they'd be happy to break even on their development costs.

 

Now I may not know what im talking about but...

Well, you got that part right, anyway.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

Interesting debate - but don't we just tire of "this technology is better than that?"

 

I am interested in sincere appraisals of the value proposition for the few claimed advantages of HDcctv over HDip.

 

(1) SMPTE Standards --- Of what value are the more than 400 standards of SMPTE, which particularly is claimed to translate to standards regulating picture fidelity and frame rates. What is the value differentiation between picture fidelity on standard HDip systems as opposed to an SMPTE compliant image from an HDcctv system?

 

(2) Latency - It seems realistic to accept, that up the wire control to items such as PTZ controls, experience lower latency issues on an HDcctv system as opposed to an HDip system. Again what is the value proposition of the lower lag - is it significant to any degree?

 

(3) Pathway to LAN. Is there any significant difference between a network interfaced DVR and an NVR if we wish to interface the cctv system with a LAN? Currently it is apparent that there is a huge price differential between an HDcctv DVR and NVR's, SDDVR. Do considerations vary in the presence of an existing LAN, and where no such LAN is pre-existing? What are the implications of a purely IP based system where - the VSS is overlayed onto an existing corporate LAN, or where an entirely new/parrallel LAN is established?

 

(4) Lan Failure - LAN failure in a system subject to low or poor redundancy design, is claimed as a vulnerability against Hdip. Is the LAN not merely a medium of transmission between camera and recorder? Is there any substantiation for HDcctv being less vulnerable to a recording interrupt, when the media connected between a camera and recorder fails? How many LAN's are designed without any consideration given to redundancy?

 

(5) Commissioned cost per video camera. When.......new install, Analog Upgrade? pre-existing LAN with sufficient capacity, Pre-existing lan with insufficient additional capacity? No pre-existing LAN ? Establishing a parrallel LAN? Is this a little bit broad?

 

(6) Transmission Distance: Can you really only transmit a video signal 90m over LAN?

 

(7) Local Live view immune to LAN Failure. Is it a correct assumption that total LAN failure is common, can redundant and self healing topologies address this in any way? If there is a LAN failure - does this extend to failure to view the camera live at the site.

 

( Comprehensive Global Interface Standard. We have been calling for this for ages, interface standards between IP products. What is the value proposition currently for a standard interface standard, when it appears that very few HDcctv products are currently being manufactured and deployed? Is the value proposition such that it overcomes the huge price differential between HDcctv recorders and SDDVR and NVR? Will ONVIF evolve at a slower rate than HDcctv products will enter the market?

 

(9) Guaranteed 100% Plug and Play: What do we actually mean by plug an play? Are analog systems currently defined as plug and play? are IP systems incapable of evolving or being defined as Plug and Play using a similar definition?

 

(10) High QoS costs for IP compared to HDcctv: Is it plausible that the cost of ensuring QoS on a LAN as opposed to HDcctv is higher? Is there a current deployment for a non network connected HDcctv system? If the HDcctv system has to be connected to LAN at some point --- don't we still need to address the QoS over LAN - at least for that period of time that HDcctv interfaces with LAN - wouldn't that mean adding extra costs to ensure both QoS for a HDcctv system while it's offline, and when it's online?

 

(11) Transmission system immune to virus: Is it true that security and virus protection will cost more and is more complex when video is transmitted by devices connected to LAN's. The HDcctv in all probability must be connected to LAN at some point - so the assumption is that HDip hardware is more susceptible to a virus - is this substantive?

 

(12) 100% Digital: Is HDcctv totally uncompressed? Is it feasible for the foreseeable future that expanded HDcctv technology, if it was to become the defacto VSS standard could it continue to be deployed without any compression?

 

Thats about all i could think of now --- but would be interested in your responses.

[SEANHAWG 1]

Here is HDCCTV killer in my opinion coming very soon

Sony SLOC camera (secure link over coax)

real time analog and megapix IP over coax

we will get best of both worlds

up to 500 meters if I remember correct

real time to view and megapix to record

so far I love idea

Sony 2011 camera line up going to have this

 

Sounds very cool. I'll have to research it more. Do you still have to do all of the IP configurations or does it just plug into a DVR and work?

[ak357 0]

Sounds very cool. I'll have to research it more. Do you still have to do all of the IP configurations or does it just plug into a DVR and work?

 

The SLOC technology was developed by the Intersil Techwell team, and is incorporated in Intersil’s TW3801 and TW3811. This unique technology allows simultaneous transmission of analogue CVBS video and digital IP video over a single coaxial cable, enabling mega-pixel IP security cameras to operate on existing CCTV coaxial infrastructure at distances of up to 500 metres. This highly effective hybrid surveillance system supports latency-free analogu CCTV as well as networked IP surveillance functionalities. The SLOC device will be incorporated directly into Sony’s security cameras in 2011, providing customers with a flexible solution that allows latency-free live viewing and traditional real-time PTZ control.

 

Google it

[rory 0]

Yey coax .. my fav

 

 

The Intersil Techwell SLOCâ„¢ (Security Link over Coax) solution is designed to simultaneously transmit analog CVBS video and digital IP video over a single coaxial cable. Surveillance system manufacturers can now architect an effective hybrid surveillance system that supports latency-free analog CCTV functions as well as networked IP surveillance functions.

 

-Enable digital IP camera functionality on existing coaxial wiring infrastructure with

no disruption of existing CCTV services

-Embedded analog CVBS video enables latency-free live viewing and controlling

of digital IP cameras

-No need for new wiring or cable modifications providing significant cost and

resource savings

 

http://www.intersil.com/video/sloc.asp

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

One thing I am seeing - giving the solutions being touted here, the latency issue is of huge significance!

[thewireguys 3]

One thing I am seeing - giving the solutions being touted here, the latency issue is of huge significance!

 

HDcctv definitely has an advantage with latency but how many customers need this besides casinos?

[rory 0]

HDcctv definitely has an advantage with latency but how many customers need this be sides casinos?

Anyone thats used to no Latency for the past decade or so?

[thewireguys 3]

HDcctv definitely has an advantage with latency but how many customers need this be sides casinos?

Anyone thats used to no Latency for the past decade or so?

 

I have had zero complaints from any customers.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

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

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

Sorry -- lets get a little more focussed.

 

PTZ --- now thats known as active surveillance , as opposed to Passive surveillance.

 

We all know that active surveillance is useless compared to passive surveillance - unless you have a live

operator viewing and responding to inputs.

 

In mission critical applications the difference between 15fps and 25fps could be significant - now you see him now you dont -----

 

That gets me wondering ------ how significant is the latency in an active system ? does it compare in any way to say the difference between a 7fps and a 30fps system.

 

Since PTZ should only be deployed in situations where active surveillance is critical ---- what is the implication of latency??? Does a few fractions of a second matter when it seems that somebody may be drawing a weapon or reaching for a cell phone?

[thewireguys 3]

Sorry -- lets get a little more focussed.

 

PTZ --- now thats known as active surveillance , as opposed to Passive surveillance.

 

We all know that active surveillance is useless compared to passive surveillance - unless you have a live

operator viewing and responding to inputs.

 

In mission critical applications the difference between 15fps and 25fps could be significant - now you see him now you dont -----

 

That gets me wondering ------ how significant is the latency in an active system ? does it compare in any way to say the difference between a 7fps and a 30fps system.

 

Since PTZ should only be deployed in situations where active surveillance is critical ---- what is the implication of latency??? Does a few fractions of a second matter when it seems that somebody may be drawing a weapon or reaching for a cell phone?

 

Latency has nothing to do with FPS. Latency is a measure of time delay experienced in a system. Example... You press move PTZ right how long does it take till you see the camera movement in the video.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

hehe --- I didn't say it did --- i was merely questioning whether the significance therof was similar!

 

Let see......A low FPS image captures a thug about to enter a store and then capture him again leaving the store, nothing of any use there.

 

Now lets say an emergency situation is developing , the operator is inputting commands to the PTZ control, but the camera is only responding fractions of a second later.

 

Indeed latency and FPS may have different technical definitions, but the implications of both can be lossely related.

[thewireguys 3]

Indeed latency and FPS may have different technical definitions, but the implications of both can be lossely related.

 

Sorry I disagree

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

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!