Best HDcctv camera?

[dustmop 0]

We can't use either one so I've never even tested them. I've had a couple of vendors approach me (one for HD-SDI and one for HDcctv), but my first question to any vendor is can they demonstrate the product on our system.

 

For our purposes, neither system is ready for casino use: it won't work with our cable infrastructure (70% UTP single-pair w/baluns - 30% coax with many runs far longer than 100m), it won't work with either our matrix or our NVR and it won't display on our monitors.

 

In essence, what's the point?

Actually in my line of work, zero latency would be a plus. However, as I stated above, there's no advantage to a technology that not only requires we replace much, if not all, of our infrastructure, is not capable of seamless integration with the rest of our system. No matrix switches or recorders capable of handling >1000 cameras. No ability to display on tens of monitors, etc.

 

I'm in the same boat as you, except that EVERY camera here is done over UTP (parking lot cameras are on fiber). The thought of a PTZ that isn't easily compatible with our switching matrix/every monitor AND has noticeable latency makes me shudder. For fixed cameras, latency is a non-issue, so going IP and with whatever resolution is required makes great sense (think face cameras, gaming tables, number plate recognition). So with a rather LARGE system that is compatible with both analog encoders and IP cameras (manufacturer will add support for unsupported cameras on request, and quickly), the transition to IP is much easier to accomplish than to HDcctv.

 

Add decoders to most of the existing monitors so they can decode IP streams, then leave a handful of monitors on the old analog matrix for use with the analog PTZs to eliminate lag. You can still display all analog cameras on the digital streaming/decoded monitors, but they will have a noticeable latency, hence leaving a few analog monitors. IP PTZ lag is getting to the point where we could tolerate it in our line of work thanks to multiple video streams.

 

As more and more IP cameras are added and old analog replaced, eventually the analog matrix and the analog encoders would simply dwindle away and disappear, freeing up rack space for more DVR/NVR units to record the IP cameras with. And with 7 racks full of analog switching and encoders, that's a WHOLE LOT of recording.

 

Also, the system I use is only limited by network bandwidth and disk i/o for the number of IP cameras you can record. What was that limit on HDcctv DVRs again?

Edited July 4, 2012 by Guest

[dustmop 0]

I can see the biggest benefit for you being in PTZ control, especially as this is one of the main areas where latency in IP cameras IS a problem. On that note though, I'm currently bench-testing an Axis Q1604 (their new highly-touted low-light/WDR toy), and I gotta say... latency might be MEASURABLE, but it's practically UNNOTICEABLE unless you're actually looking for it. I can point it at my screen, then watch on the DVR - moving a window on the screen, it's only intermittently that I can actually see a delay on the DVR.

 

I've played with some Axis cameras in the past, most recently the Q1755, and I love them. While I wish the Q1604 offered 1080 instead of 720, I think it's time to find one to play with. I can think of a few places here that a camera like this would help.

[survtech 0]

Yeah dustmop, we're just starting the process of evaluating systems to replace our aging Honeywell Enterprise purchased in 2003. One option we have been assessing is retaining the Pelco 9780 for Spectra PTZ control and monitoring while using a virtual matrix for the fixed cameras.

 

Do you have totally independent monitor/control systems for the two or what? I envision interfacing between the Pelco CC1's or joysticks and the VMS so that if we call say, Camera #501 (fixed) to Monitor 12, it only appears there while if you call Camera #120 (PTZ) to Monitor 12, it appears on Monitor 12 but also appears on a single analog "PTZ Monitor" on the console in front of the operator for zero latency control purposes. Since an operator can't control more than one PTZ at a time, that would work just fine.

 

I believe someone (manufacturer or integrator) should be able to write an app for that.

[Soundy 1]

I've played with some Axis cameras in the past, most recently the Q1755, and I love them. While I wish the Q1604 offered 1080 instead of 720, I think it's time to find one to play with. I can think of a few places here that a camera like this would help.

I gotta say, the more I play with this camera, the more I like it, just from a behind-the-scenes perspective. The control and live view interface work perfectly in Chrome; the JPEG push in Chrome is actually faster and smoother than the H.264 live-view in Explorer (H.264 in Chrome uses Quicktime, which is BRUTALLY slow). It has a remote-operable ABF that's very handy. Short of any quantitative tests, the low-light performance just sitting on my bench is stunning.

 

Oh, and point of interest, it actually does a full 1MP (1280x960), although it defaults to 720p.

[thewireguys 3]

Those of you concerned about latency issues keep an eye on Avigilon's new 4.12 software and there new PTZ cameras. This new latency optimization mode will also work with there encoders and analog PTZ cameras.

[dustmop 0]

Yeah dustmop, we're just starting the process of evaluating systems to replace our aging Honeywell Enterprise purchased in 2003. One option we have been assessing is retaining the Pelco 9780 for Spectra PTZ control and monitoring while using a virtual matrix for the fixed cameras.

 

Do you have totally independent monitor/control systems for the two or what? I envision interfacing between the Pelco CC1's or joysticks and the VMS so that if we call say, Camera #501 (fixed) to Monitor 12, it only appears there while if you call Camera #120 (PTZ) to Monitor 12, it appears on Monitor 12 but also appears on a single analog "PTZ Monitor" on the console in front of the operator for zero latency control purposes. Since an operator can't control more than one PTZ at a time, that would work just fine.

 

I believe someone (manufacturer or integrator) should be able to write an app for that.

 

For when I do have IP cameras in the system for testing purposes, they only show up in our VMS. Going forward we have looked at single monitor stream decoders or just going to several LARGE format monitors per station and doing monitor walls. In either scenario, we would leave probably 1 or 2 analog monitors per station simply for PTZ control of the existing analog PTZs. This would let us draw our 9780 down from the monster it is to probably just a few bays, along with taking out most of the UTP hubs for the twisted pair. We don't envision adding IP PTZ cameras to the gaming floor or money areas in great numbers for a long time yet, and even if we do, we're looking at possibly just adding some 360 degree cameras to get better overall coverage. IP fixed cameras will definitely be added soon, however, as latency is really a non-issue on a fixed camera, and the benefits (tables and money areas) are fantastic.

 

A virtual matrix for fixed cameras also seems like a decent compromise for a transition phase, but I'd have to see some pricing before making a decision to go that way or just use the existing analog matrix until the cameras are replaced with IP.

 

We also looked at some of the IP PTZs that also offer analog outputs, but the amount of cabling required for that makes me cringe, and not many cameras offer both.

 

I know you are at least familiar with the system I have here, but we don't actually use Pelco controllers; we currently utilize a USB controller that plugs into the workstations. The VMS software uses a Moxa ethernet-to-serial interface box (such an awesome piece of hardware), where one Moxa port is assigned a COM port for each workstation. Then you just wire it into the back of the CC1 like you would for a normal Pelco controller. This results in a latency on the order of maybe 30ms while it passes the data from workstation to server to Moxa, to Pelco; in other words, you can't tell at all.

 

Also, in our VMS here, we have a feature called "follow me", where you can make what your doing on one workstation automatically show up on a specific monitor. Normally used in situations where you want to show security or the gaming authority something, without having to tell them what camera to pull up. You just do it and it shows up to them automatically. You could set it up to where it would just control your analog monitor locally and put up the PTZ you want to control. So I'm sure something could easily be written if Honeywell or whomever doesn't already offer something like this. I'm lucky in that my manufacturer takes my input and requests rather seriously.

 

EDIT: We don't actually use the "Follow Me" feature here, so I just set it up and tried it to see if it would mirror changes on the digital review/spot/VMS/whateveryouwantcallit monitor to an analog monitor, and it sure does! Looks like at least I have a solution for us for the future.

[tomcctv 190]

Most of installers will agree that too much MP is not an awnser. And the optimum is about 2-3 MP, because IP cameras with have 5 MP or more, are absolutly blind at night and have a low frame rate per second.

 

But the main advantage of this sistem is that praticaly has no latency, could be a solution in some precision needed places, like shops, gas stations, banks. Even more, HD cctv can have 60 f/s, that make it even better for this situation.

 

So in conclusion, I'd like to say that HD cctv can find its place in a market for sure.

 

 

yes low latency....... only in live view. as far as FPs goes that depends on the recorder and out of the 3 makes in a demo today not 1 could get over 15fps and 1 unit could only do that if you changed from 1080 to 720.

 

 

the cable lenth problem of 100m can be extended at each 100m with repeaters but at a stupid price.

 

 

a 4 way HD-SDI with cameras and a few extenders falls way within the price of a avigilon system.

 

 

and its always going to be at the back of your mind........ the cost of spares. and loan units

[nDAlk90 0]

Seems like some good points Tom.

 

So basically this technology can only be practical for small applications if they don't need high fps and have short runs (under 100m). If they have the cabling in place and it is of sufficient quality. Also the cameras should be competitively priced and cheaper then MP IP.

 

Otherwise it seems like IP has its advantages in new installs and pricing in theory should get better over time.

 

yes low latency....... only in live view. as far as FPs goes that depends on the recorder and out of the 3 makes in a demo today not 1 could get over 15fps and 1 unit could only do that if you changed from 1080 to 720.

 

 

the cable lenth problem of 100m can be extended at each 100m with repeaters but at a stupid price.

 

 

a 4 way HD-SDI with cameras and a few extenders falls way within the price of a avigilon system.

 

 

and its always going to be at the back of your mind........ the cost of spares. and loan units

[Korgoth Of Barbaria 0]

I wouldn't totally agree with Soundy, because he's being a bit unfair about the whole situation.

 

First of all HD cctv sistems can offer simplicity IP sistems lacks. Just plug it in that's it, no networking knowlage needed, no protocol compatibility needed for different developer HD cctv cams and HD DVR.

 

Soundy was true, SDI has limitations 2 MP, but since this technology is rather new, there's a posibility to have even higher resolution in the future. For example, not to long ago, 3G SDI interface was developed, enabling to 1.485 Gbps.

 

Most of installers will agree that too much MP is not an awnser. And the optimum is about 2-3 MP, because IP cameras with have 5 MP or more, are absolutly blind at night and have a low frame rate per second.

 

But the main advantage of this sistem is that praticaly has no latency, could be a solution in some precision needed places, like shops, gas stations, banks. Even more, HD cctv can have 60 f/s, that make it even better for this situation.

 

So in conclusion, I'd like to say that HD cctv can find its place in a market for sure.

 

Well 5.0 Mpixel cams are nor blind @ night, there are some cameras that can give you nice picture.

For exaple, I made it with IQ765 5.0 Mpixel IQeye camera:

3HGm1fs8hxo

Also, low frame rate? Well in most cases interators use like 5-10 fps anyway so what is the problem?

 

No latency in HD-SDI? Maybe in future, now server/DVR have to encode that huge stream, so there is some latency.

Also if you use switches and have good software for IP CCTV, you can lower latency to practicaly non.

[survtech 0]

Those of you concerned about latency issues keep an eye on Avigilon's new 4.12 software and there new PTZ cameras. This new latency optimization mode will also work with there encoders and analog PTZ cameras.

We just completed evaluation of an Avigilon system. Latency was disappointing (>500ms) and the Avigilon joystick even more so. And it was v4.12. I asked the Avigilon engineers about the latency and was told that their encoders buffer 6 frames. That's 200ms alone, without including basic encode/decode latency. No wonder total latency was so high.

 

The joystick was a joke. Jog shuttle worked well but the button legends are impossible to read and the joystick had around a second of run-on. By that I mean that when you release the joystick instead of stopping, the PTZ continues for nearly a full second. Tested by "tapping" the joystick. On the matrix, that results in a brief movement of the PTZ. On Avigilon, that results in ~1 second of PTZ movement.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Guest

[thewireguys 3]

Those of you concerned about latency issues keep an eye on Avigilon's new 4.12 software and there new PTZ cameras. This new latency optimization mode will also work with there encoders and analog PTZ cameras.

We just completed evaluation of an Avigilon system. Latency was disappointing (>500ms) and the Avigilon joystick even more so. And it was v4.12. I asked the Avigilon engineers about the latency and was told that their encoders buffer 6 frames. That's 200ms alone, without including basic encode/decode latency. No wonder total latency was so high.

 

I will have to confirm but this new latency optimization mode might just be with their new PTZ cameras. Either way I want to get more info on this.

[survtech 0]

The other oddity was that their encoder's RS422/485 output couldn't control our Pelco Spectra PTZs directly unless they were in the same room (test PTZ). For our "working" PTZs with a total control cable length of ~200 ft. and ~1,200 ft., we had to add a Kalatel KTD-83 in the line to buffer the control signal.

[thewireguys 3]

I have had no issues of controlling analog PTZ cameras with the encoders.

[survtech 0]

I have had no issues of controlling analog PTZ cameras with the encoders.

Define "issues". Have you tried following a moving vehicle? A person running? 500ms latency is nearly impossible to overcome. For instance, a vehicle traveling 25mph moves over 18 feet in 500ms. A person running at 10mph moves over 7 feet in 500ms. Tough to follow, especially when you zoom in. When you add the PTZ "run-on", which Avigilon couldn't explain at all, it makes for poor control.

[thewireguys 3]

I have had no issues of controlling analog PTZ cameras with the encoders.

Define "issues". Have you tried following a moving vehicle? A person running? 500ms latency is nearly impossible to overcome. For instance, a vehicle traveling 25mph moves over 18 feet in 500ms. A person running at 10mph moves over 7 feet in 500ms. Tough to follow, especially when you zoom in. When you add the PTZ "run-on", which Avigilon couldn't explain at all, it makes for poor control.

 

I was referring the issue of the encoder not communicating with the PTZ camera. I have a couple of analog PTZ cameras connected to the encoders with pelco D and over 1000+ feet.

[survtech 0]

OK.

 

Avigilon couldn't explain the communication problems or the joystick run-on. When they were first setting the system up, the encoders couldn't control our Pelco PTZs at all, except when we brought our test setup into our Control Room and hooked its very short control line up. When they told us we should perform our PTZ tests with that setup, we balked. What good is a PTZ test in a small (20x24 foot) room?

 

After much "fiddling", we provided a KTD-83. After they hooked it up, control was enabled but the run-on was very apparent. They think it may be an issue with the encoder not sending stop commands. Not our problem, though.

 

One thing we didn't try (and they didn't suggest) was to change the communication parameters. We use 9600 baud. It's possible their encoders don't like that speed.

[normicgander 0]

HD-sdi will be good for trunk slammers and install company's that are afraid of IP and at this point if your not learning IP you will be obsolete in a couple of years.

 

I stop by here once and awhile and I see that the same arrogant, condescending cheese *sticks think they're so smart and have all right the answers.....

 

What happened here?

 

That being said HDcctv is awesome for real-time manned surveillance.

[thewireguys 3]

^^^ ok let me have it