sexydadee 0 Posted October 3, 2011 Why would I want to use a Video Matrix Switcher instead of an IP Switch to do the matrix switching? Clearly you can save alot of money by using an IP switch. Can somebody please tell me of any advantage of using a Video Matrix Switcher that can justify its price. Thank you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fa chris 0 Posted October 3, 2011 If you're replacing a head end and using existing analog cameras, or for some reason are stuck with analog cameras, then you might need a video matrix switcher. Otherwise, IP all the way is a much better option. ~5 years ago IP cameras and encoders were still prohibitively expensive and the quality wasn't anything near what it is today. As of now, video matrix switchers are legacy and will someday be completely replaced by IP systems. Instead of looping matrix's, video switches, and proprietary dvrs running video walls with expensive video processors, we can now do it with any IP switch, any server from any manufacturer we want for the NVR, and any workstation we want controlling any amount of monitors it's capable of. With IP we eliminate a ton of cost on transmission media (cat5 is cheaper than coax) and save a ton on command center equipment (see previous paragraph). With analog systems the actual cameras are still cheaper than IP cameras, but you can achieve a much better picture with the right IP cam. The price gap is also closing. What are you trying to do? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
survtech 0 Posted October 3, 2011 "0" latency for analog vs. 200+ms for IP. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dustmop 0 Posted October 3, 2011 It really depends on what your end goal is. "0" latency for analog vs. 200+ms for IP. We may be in one of the only industries where that actually matters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sexydadee 0 Posted October 4, 2011 is 200ms+ latency a big deal? we're trying to install 500+ analog cameras and all the dvrs have an IP port. Why not just use the IP port for virtual matrix switching instead of hardware video matrix? we have 42 bosch analog dvrs, and we plan to divide them into 3 gigabit switches to avoid bottlenecks and these 3 switches will also be interconnected to another switch which is connected to a main workstation for critical areas viewing. this setup will also allow the other workstations to be able to view the other dvrs located at a different switch. now if 200ms+ is a big deal, then I guess I will have no choice but to go for hardware matrix switches. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Soundy 1 Posted October 4, 2011 One thing to keep in mind is that a video matrix switcher and a network switch, despite their similar names, have very different functions and purposes, so there's really not an "either/or" here. That aside, "200+ms" is a bit overstated... I've seen anywhere from 50ms to 2-3s, depending on the camera, the network, and the viewing platform (browser, NVR, etc.). Codec used can have a huge effect on latency as well. 99% of the time, latency won't be an issue - consider that 99% of the time, 99% of users are using their systems to playback recorded video, where the video is delayed by hours, days, weeks, or even months from the actual event... 200ms added to that really isn't going to matter. Even most of the time for live monitoring (for example, a security guard watching cameras in a guard shack), if you consider the reaction time of your average person to see an incident, pick up a phone, call in the appropriate response, etc... if he sees the event happen 1/5 of a second later than it actually happens, you're really not going to see an impact on the overall response time. survtech works in a relatively unique situation (casino) where the ability to drive a PTZ to capture and zoom in on an event very quickly can be critical, and on a tight zoom, 200ms lag means you can easily overshoot your target... but unless you're doing something with analytics or machine vision where ultra-fast response time is required, the latency in an IP camera really should not be a concern. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dustmop 0 Posted October 4, 2011 survtech works in a relatively unique situation (casino) where the ability to drive a PTZ to capture and zoom in on an event very quickly can be critical, and on a tight zoom, 200ms lag means you can easily overshoot your target... but unless you're doing something with analytics or machine vision where ultra-fast response time is required, the latency in an IP camera really should not be a concern. Same industry here, hence my remark. If the facility is predominantly fixed cameras, or is more of a site perimeter/manufacturing/industry/military installation, then the latency is not a big deal. Where latency matters is in immediate real-time tracking. Think police helicopters or casino floors. For probably 99% of installations, latency won't really matter that much at all. Most people get used to it almost immediately. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropna 0 Posted October 4, 2011 Depends on system. If you build perimeter security - analog cameras and analog matrix is the best. No latency, equipment simple with minimum bugs and failure points, based on long time experience... If you want high functionality and flexibility system - IP "matrix".... Or, can be hybryd system - analog cameras and matrix with encoders with video analytic features to generate alarmas, etc...... Also, do not forhet about system security. Theoreticaly, you can connect from any IP camera point to whole system, and do, what you want..... This is impossible, when you use analog cameras... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
