Newbie Questions

[aethyr 0]

I do use my phone as a surveillence camera, what makes you think I didn't? I detect something that needs recording, it gets recorded. Works everytime.

And how much is missed while you're pulling it out, unlocking it, and and starting the recording?

 

The original question was not why a Flip is good or bad, why Cisco shut it down, but why can they make a Flip for $99 and it costs many more times that for an equivalent 1080P camera. Didn't say it had to work outdoors, didn't say it had to last more than a year, didn't say it had to record at night or include illuminators.

But that's exactly the point: you want a camera that will do all these things, it costs more than $99. You want to pay only $99, you get something that won't measure up to a lot of the demands that a professional surveillance camera has to meet.

 

It's really no different than the reason why $800 analog cameras are still made - and still sell - when you can get $20 analog cameras: you get what you pay for.

 

I don't have an issue with IP cameras costing more. My gripe is that they cost SO MUCH more. The main purpose of a camera is to record quality video. That is first and foremost, whether for security or consumer. If it takes crappy vids, its worthless, no matter how many bells and whistles it has.

 

Yes, an IP camera has security features a consumer cam does not. But the opposite is true too. A consumer cam has MANY features lacking in a sec camera. So removing all the fluff from the equation, what you're left with is image quality. And the fact is, $ per $, a consumer cam's video quality is better.

 

As for durability and motion detection... Why should that add 2x, 3x or even 5x to the cost? Motion detection is not worth that much. And as for durability, an indoor IP cam is nearly as expensive as an outdoor, so all it has to do is record 24x7, which is really is not that impressive. As others have mentioned, many consumer electronics operate 24x7 with great reliability. And the lauded reliability of IP cams is not that great - you read about many issues with them right here on this forum.

 

I still claim that it's market segmentation that has inflated their cost.

[Soundy 1]

I don't have an issue with IP cameras costing more. My gripe is that they cost SO MUCH more. The main purpose of a camera is to record quality video. That is first and foremost, whether for security or consumer. If it takes crappy vids, its worthless, no matter how many bells and whistles it has.

 

Yes, an IP camera has security features a consumer cam does not. But the opposite is true too. A consumer cam has MANY features lacking in a sec camera. So removing all the fluff from the equation, what you're left with is image quality. And the fact is, $ per $, a consumer cam's video quality is better.

There's a difference though, between "fluff" and requirements for the job at hand. A security camera, for example, NEEDS the ability to use different lenses for different purposes. A low-end consumer camcorder does not. If you want a camcorder that provides this feature, it adds substantially to the cost - see, for example, the Canon GL-1, listing at Amazon.com for a tidy $3,300.

 

"Zoom with your feet" is acceptable for something hand-held; it doesn't work with fixed installations.

[aethyr 0]

I don't have an issue with IP cameras costing more. My gripe is that they cost SO MUCH more. The main purpose of a camera is to record quality video. That is first and foremost, whether for security or consumer. If it takes crappy vids, its worthless, no matter how many bells and whistles it has.

 

Yes, an IP camera has security features a consumer cam does not. But the opposite is true too. A consumer cam has MANY features lacking in a sec camera. So removing all the fluff from the equation, what you're left with is image quality. And the fact is, $ per $, a consumer cam's video quality is better.

There's a difference though, between "fluff" and requirements for the job at hand. A security camera, for example, NEEDS the ability to use different lenses for different purposes. A low-end consumer camcorder does not. If you want a camcorder that provides this feature, it adds substantially to the cost - see, for example, the Canon GL-1, listing at Amazon.com for a tidy $3,300.

 

"Zoom with your feet" is acceptable for something hand-held; it doesn't work with fixed installations.

 

I don't think the GL-1 has lens interchangeability. But even if it did, that's a $5 piece of hardware, not $1000. And the GL-1's cost is due to its superb image quality, first and foremost and its that image quality that justifies its cost. I guarantee you that Canon would go out of business if they produced cameras that had poor image quality, but packed with other features and then tried to charge a huge premium justified due to those features. A changeable lens mount is very simple. So is motion detection. So are the handful of other features inherent to IP cams. I understand and accept it should add some cost. But as I said before, no way should it cost 5X more.

[Soundy 1]

Well then, I guess you're right, it's all a scam, MP CCTV cameras are overpriced, there's nothing special about them, and they can all be easily replaced by Flip cams. That's it, starting now, I'm scouring eBay for them, and I'm gonna start quoting nothing but Flips on all future sites. Next one is about a 46-camera installation, so I guess I'll need a few of them...

 

[aethyr 0]

Well then, I guess you're right, it's all a scam, MP CCTV cameras are overpriced, there's nothing special about them, and they can all be easily replaced by Flip cams. That's it, starting now, I'm scouring eBay for them, and I'm gonna start quoting nothing but Flips on all future sites. Next one is about a 46-camera installation, so I guess I'll need a few of them...

 

 

The only thing missing from the Flip cams are about $10-20 worth of hardware and firmware to make them have IP cam capability. I never said a Flip is suitable as-is for surveillance. My gripe has always been about the image quality differences and that IP camera specific features should add a little, but not astronomical cost.

[akelley 0]

I find this a strange discussion. I mean, a camera is simply a tool. Pick the right tool for the job. Thankfully, IP cameras come in many, many different types to choose from . If there was such a thing as one camera that was supposed to be good for every situation, I suppose you could compare that camera's price to what? What's the baseline? Surely, it's not the Flip! I also don't agree that image is everything when it comes to picking the right camera for your project's particular needs. I've seen many clients choose lesser image quality over a particular feature that was more important. As client requirements increase and become more complex, you'll see more cameras meeting these challenges; some better than others. Those will be higher priced as that's what the market needs, and what clients are willing to pay.

 

The Flip was a good handheld camcorder, but certainly didn't revolutionize that market. In fact, as we all know, the Flip went kaput. I don't know why people are trying to compare the Flip (a consumer product) to a surveillance camera (a business product). Two totally different markets.

[MaxIcon 0]

The only thing missing from the Flip cams are about $10-20 worth of hardware and firmware to make them have IP cam capability. I never said a Flip is suitable as-is for surveillance. My gripe has always been about the image quality differences and that IP camera specific features should add a little, but not astronomical cost.

 

Well, this is a pretty easy case to make. For starters, ignore the stuff the Flip can't do easily because of software and hardware, and do a comparison.

 

Set the Flip out for a week watching your front yard and street or something similar (use one of the $15 Amazon IR illuminators), record full-time video, and see how it comes out. Post some video of the images and clips at 2am, document how much HD space the week's worth of video took, document impressions of how easy it is to search the video, etc. In other words, review it as if it were an IP cam.

 

If it performs admirably, it's time to find out how much it would cost to make it remotely configurable, add email/ftp/whatever alerts, weatherproof it, change the lens focal length, convert the output so an NVR can record it, etc.

 

To stack the deck in the Flip's favor, you could compare to a $300 Vivotek IP8332, which is only 1MP resolution and is known to have mediocre nighttime performance. Presumably, it will kick the Vivotek's butt, due to better specs.