Popular selling point for IP solutions

[lely09 0]

What are some of you IP selling points over a cheap analog system? When a customer can get away with a really nice analog system with clear picture quality day and night for under a $1000 why spend the extra $$$'s on IP...?

 

I always suggest it based on the area we are trying to cover ( if its a very large area then ip cameras are a great choice when you can capture with 2mp or 3mp camera)

[Soundy 1]

So... ten pages of thread that was instantly derailed from this original post, has now been split out on its own. Hopefully some of the more thoughtful posters can come back here and give poor lely09 some useful responses (you'll note the OP has not made a single reply in this thread; it was completely usurped by someone else, who shall remain unnamed).

 

So, to the original question:

 

What are some of you IP selling points over a cheap analog system? When a customer can get away with a really nice analog system with clear picture quality day and night for under a $1000 why spend the extra $$$'s on IP...?

 

First, let's differentiate between "IP" and "megapixel". You seem to be mainly referring to megapixel, which by definition is anything of 1,024,000 pixels or higher (side note: 720p video *is not* megapixel, by definition):

 

I always suggest it based on the area we are trying to cover ( if its a very large area then ip cameras are a great choice when you can capture with 2mp or 3mp camera)

 

As has been noted elsewhere, this may be a good recommendation when you need to capture more detail in a given area, or cover a larger area with a similar level of detail.

 

I like to use a couple of different shots as an example: in both cases, there was an existing analog camera, and a 1.3MP camera was later added in about the same position to improve the view.

 

Case one: existing analog camera at D1:

 

 

And the 1.3MP cam that was added to provide more detail over the same area (note: click the image to load a full-size version):

 

 

Case two: existing analog camera at CIF:

 

 

And 1.3MP camera mounted a few inches above it (analog cam is visible in the bottom-left of the frame) that gives similar *or better* detail, over a MUCH wider angle of view (again, click the image to load a full-size version):

 

 

In this instance, BTW, the MP cameras pretty much sold themselves - I was talking to the site owner and just showed him some stills from the cameras we were installing at another site... he took one look and said, "I WANT THAT!" Easiest sale I ever had, and I wasn't even trying to sell him anything

 

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

 

IP itself, however, can also include lower-resolution cameras (VGA - 640x480 - is more common than 4CIF or D1). If MP is not required, there are still circumstances where IP may be a selling point. To use the example I posted previously:

 

Networked cameras give you a big advantage in *flexibility of design* over point-to-point layouts. This may or may not be a usable benefit in all situations, but sometimes it's nice to HAVE that flexibility.

 

Case in point was a recent upgrade install of ours - new cameras upstairs in a restaurant/lounge, existing recorder downstairs... no easy way to run new cable between floors (it would have needed a bunch of conduit snaking down stairwells and hallways). Solution: PoE switch upstairs, new IP cameras plugged into that, and the whole thing fed downstairs over an existing, barely-used network run (all it was doing previously was feeding the internet-music system).

 

For the *six* 3MP cameras this setup carried, I would have had to use at least 1" conduit and *six* separate RG6 runs to implement HDcctv (if it had been available at the time), adding probably a full day and the cost of a few hundred feet of RG6 to the job (and given the current state of HDcctv, it would have been the EXPENSIVE RG6).

 

Now the analog corollary to this would be that using analog, I could get away with 3/4" or even 1/2" conduit and a couple of Cat5e runs with baluns, but you still have to add the cost of the conduit, the additional cable, the baluns, and of course, the labor (two guys at $85/hr adds up fast). Assuming, again, that the price point between analog and IP cameras are similar, this method would save the customer substantial money.

 

Of course, I could also have used an IP video server or two, and then run the analog cameras down the network... but once again, there's a benefit to using IP, that has nothing to do with resolution. As I stated in another thread, a primary advantage to networking cameras is that it gives you flexibility of design that's just not possible with point-to-point systems, which can sometimes give you the ability to overcome some serious (and expensive) obstacles.

 

And just to reiterate (because some people appear to suffer from a selective reading disorder): NO I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THIS MEANS IP IS PREFERABLE TO ANALOG IN ALL CASES.

 

The selling point, IN THIS INSTANCE, *could* be that I would be able to bring the total job in at a lower cost by using IP rather than analog... actually, in this case, the customer wanted the megapixel cameras anyway, so there wasn't really any other option, but you (hopefully) get the point.

 

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

 

All posts that are a response to the OP's question will be welcomed here... those that are not will be sent to the ether without warning or comment.

[Campbell 0]

That post made me chuckle.

 

It really falls on a case by case basis as to what the best solution for you is. But if you compare the images that Matt has posted, you'll notice the higher level of detail in the megapixel images over the analogs. Your predominant options for these cameras lie in the IP sector.

 

In saying this, because of the greater FOV offered by the megapixel option (in Matt's 2nd example) you've pretty much got the entire shop covered in great detail with just 1 camera. To do the same with an analog would probably require at least 2, if not more. And whilst the shopkeeper might not have been considering coverage of his entire shop and just wanted to cover 1 display. It's unlikely that he would say no if you can offer him an increased area of coverage for a small price increase.

[rory 0]

In saying this, because of the greater FOV offered by the megapixel option (in Matt's 2nd example) you've pretty much got the entire shop covered in great detail with just 1 camera. To do the same with an analog would probably require at least 2, if not more. And whilst the shopkeeper might not have been considering coverage of his entire shop and just wanted to cover 1 display. It's unlikely that he would say no if you can offer him an increased area of coverage for a small price increase.

 

Problem is there are alot of areas that arent covered as its only from one viewpoint.

[Soundy 1]

In saying this, because of the greater FOV offered by the megapixel option (in Matt's 2nd example) you've pretty much got the entire shop covered in great detail with just 1 camera. To do the same with an analog would probably require at least 2, if not more. And whilst the shopkeeper might not have been considering coverage of his entire shop and just wanted to cover 1 display. It's unlikely that he would say no if you can offer him an increased area of coverage for a small price increase.

 

Problem is there are alot of areas that arent covered as its only from one viewpoint.

 

True, but that's a whole different issue (and yes, there are several other analog cams at various points around the store, giving pretty near 100% coverage of all aisles). Campbell's point is that you'd need AT LEAST two analog cameras to get this *same view* with the same level of detail.

[rory 0]

True, but that's a whole different issue (and yes, there are several other analog cams at various points around the store, giving pretty near 100% coverage of all aisles). Campbell's point is that you'd need AT LEAST two analog cameras to get this *same view* with the same level of detail.

I would agree, though looks like the image has been over compressed so really an analog camera's quality wouldnt be far off (lots of blurry edges and artifacts), but then I realize its just a sample for the web. Thing is though in a store that size $100 cameras would work great, and save the client a ton of money.

[Soundy 1]

It's also using a non-megapixel 2.8mm lens (since that's all I had available at the time).

[lely09 0]

Thanks for the replies and thank you for the distinguishing ip cameras from mp cameras.

 

As a side note: If you can do the same thing "in theory" with more analog cameras for less money then why opt for the more expensive mp options.

[tomcctv 190]

Thanks for the replies and thank you for the distinguishing ip cameras from mp cameras.

 

As a side note: If you can do the same thing "in theory" with more analog cameras for less money then why opt for the more expensive mp options.

 

 

 

 

hi. if you look at 1.3mp then they are not that much more in cost. axis have done a big price drop. you have the likes of dahua who have just releast 6 ip range. there 1.3mp is $80.

[rory 0]

hi. if you look at 1.3mp then they are not that much more in cost. axis have done a big price drop. you have the likes of dahua who have just releast 6 ip range. there 1.3mp is $80.

Yeah but is that the cost in China or the US/UK?

 

ps. I gotta check that out LOL.

[edselrt 0]

 

 

 

 

hi. if you look at 1.3mp then they are not that much more in cost. axis have done a big price drop. you have the likes of dahua who have just releast 6 ip range. there 1.3mp is $80.

At this price Your selling point is very clear: more detailed images at same or lower price than analog

[Soundy 1]

Thanks for the replies and thank you for the distinguishing ip cameras from mp cameras.

 

As a side note: If you can do the same thing "in theory" with more analog cameras for less money then why opt for the more expensive mp options.

Well for starters, MP is not necessarily more expensive once you factor everything in.

 

Let's do some quick math: a 1.3MP camera is typically 1280x1024 resolution. At 4CIF or D1 resolution, you're looking at about 704x480. Four of these bunched together, aimed at the corners of the same area, with no overlap, would yield about 1408x960. So a 1.3MP *in theory* could replace *up to* four analog cameras with an equal level of detail (cue arguments on different views, cameras not being able to see through objects., etc., none of which are relevant to the point of just doing the calculations for the sake of answering this question).

 

So, for these four analog cameras, you'd need four sets of wiring, four channels of power supply, and four channels of recording. RG-59 and Cat5e both retail for about 40c/ft. around here (cheaper if you buy in bulk, but let's assume we're not)... so if you have a 100' run, that would be $40 for signal cabling for the single MP cam... $160 for the four analog cams. That's not including power cable, BTW.

 

You'd also need the labor, not only to install and wire four cameras vs. one, but to aim and adjust all four as well. And four cameras bunched together would be a bit of an eyesore, I would think.

 

The point is, as with anything else, you have to look at the TOTAL cost of your different options, not just the cost of one piece of equipment.

 

One thing the naysayers seem to gloss over, too, is the wide variation in quality of analog cameras. You can't compare a $600 MP camera to $20 analog cameras ("look, I can get *30* of these cameras to the price of one of yours!"), for example - I could show you analog cameras that run $600 and up too.

 

Either way, no, it's not something that will be fitted to every circumstance... but there are times when it can be a benefit.

 

And don't forget, there are the installation/infrastructure benefits I outlined above, that MAY play into determining whether it truly is a more expensive option overall.

[rory 0]

Let's do some quick math: a 1.3MP camera is typically 1280x1024 resolution. At 4CIF or D1 resolution, you're looking at about 704x480. Four of these bunched together, aimed at the corners of the same area, with no overlap, would yield about 1408x960. So a 1.3MP *in theory* could replace *up to* four analog cameras with an equal level of detail (cue arguments on different views, cameras not being able to see through objects., etc., none of which are relevant to the point of just doing the calculations for the sake of answering this question).

By this same argument, buying a Hummer is cheaper than buying a Jeep Liberty.

 

BTW: Example Residential/Retail

 

1x MP Camera $600, 1xPC for NVR $500, 1x100' Cat5 Cable $50, 1xGB POE Switch $200 = $1250

+Labour for networking and setup of IP camera and Switch+Training (if client even computer literate)

 

4x Color IR Cameras $200, 1xDVR $250, 4x100' RG59 Siamese $140, 1x12VC 1.5a Power Supply $15, 8x BNC @ $1 ea $8 = $613

+Basic setup (DVR setup in less than 3 minutes, plug, play and record)

 

Labour for both will vary, but with cheap Color IR anyone can basically screw them up on the wall and they have no real adjustments besides twist and turn ... its so easy a caveman can do it

 

Now, with the 4 cameras you have 4 areas covered instead of just one with the MP camera, although lower resolution so you cant see the mole on the perps face. But most people buy based on how much something costs, not what they want or need (or lets face it everyone would have the best vehicles and largest beach front homes), and if positioned properly in many cases the lower res cameras do provide good enough evidence to capture the perp, even if some digital enhancements are required.

 

Even if all of us Professionals were to move to IP cameras today and never touch another analog camera, the analog camera will still have the market as people are essentially cheap, as long as the cheaper product is out there, they will buy it even if it means installing it themselves.

 

So IMO the selling points for IP cameras should never be about cost .. it should however be about better quality video, more cross OS and cross browser support, expandability, system integration, upgrades, and management.

[tomcctv 190]

Let's do some quick math: a 1.3MP camera is typically 1280x1024 resolution. At 4CIF or D1 resolution, you're looking at about 704x480. Four of these bunched together, aimed at the corners of the same area, with no overlap, would yield about 1408x960. So a 1.3MP *in theory* could replace *up to* four analog cameras with an equal level of detail (cue arguments on different views, cameras not being able to see through objects., etc., none of which are relevant to the point of just doing the calculations for the sake of answering this question).

By this same argument, buying a Hummer is cheaper than buying a Jeep Liberty.

 

BTW: Example Residential/Retail

 

1x MP Camera $600, 1xPC for NVR $500, 1x100' Cat5 Cable $50, 1xGB POE Switch $200 = $1250

+Labour for networking and setup of IP camera and Switch+Training (if client even computer literate)

 

4x Color IR Cameras $200, 1xDVR $250, 4x100' RG59 Siamese $140, 1x12VC 1.5a Power Supply $15, 8x BNC @ $1 ea $8 = $613

+Basic setup (DVR setup in less than 3 minutes, plug, play and record)

 

Labour for both will vary, but with cheap Color IR anyone can basically screw them up on the wall and they have no real adjustments besides twist and turn ... its so easy a caveman can do it

 

Now, with the 4 cameras you have 4 areas covered instead of just one with the MP camera, although lower resolution so you cant see the mole on the perps face. But most people buy based on how much something costs, not what they want or need (or lets face it everyone would have the best vehicles and largest beach front homes), and if positioned properly in many cases the lower res cameras do provide good enough evidence to capture the perp, even if some digital enhancements are required.

 

Even if all of us Professionals were to move to IP cameras today and never touch another analog camera, the analog camera will still have the market as people are essentially cheap, as long as the cheaper product is out there, they will buy it even if it means installing it themselves.

 

 

 

i think its a cost issue that people get mixed up with. $600 for mp is not the case if you just go 1.3mp and use a hybrid $280

[rory 0]

i think its a cost issue that people get mixed up with. $600 for mp is not the case if you just go 1.3mp and use a hybrid $280

Which 1.3mp Color IR camera do you recommend for $280 in the US?