IP versus Analog

[daveshoot 0]

I expected to find a FAQ on this and I have been searching "IP vs. Analog" quite a bit... planning a system for my rural home, and wondering where the advantages of each are.

 

I guess I think I like the IP megapixel route, because it sounds more modern with greater detail. Is low light performance one of the compromises versus analog? What else would I consider?

 

I am really interested in CCTV both for security and hobby reasons (used to sell in the industry a very long time ago, and everything has changed). I know I want IR capability and I would like to play with PTZ at some point.

 

I have 2.5 acres, house and garage in a corner of the property, so about .5 acre of actual concern, plus a barnyard about 250 feet away (in wire run). I am concerned about daytime break-ins when we are both gone, and perimeter surveillance when we're home at night. Coyotes and other predators are a secondary threat that I might like to check out in the night for corrective action. I wouldn't mind surveying some gopher holes during the day, since shooting them is my primary pastime, but that would just be gravy.

 

Internet availability is terrible, and at home we use 4G cell cards (with 5Gb limits) for connection, so online monitoring is not a major goal at present.

 

The property is at the corner of a private rural road and a highway, with a rolling gate near the house. It is very dark at night, although I can light the main entrance (gate is about 75 feet from the house). There are some interesting neighbors, one with a high volume of scruffy traffic at all hours. So generally, I want to know what is going on around the place. I would probably start with a DVR and a couple of fixed cameras (budget, maybe $1000 for these to start), adding as time and budget permit. I could see a case for 1-2 PTZs in addition to 4-6 fixed cams at completion (I admit I just want to play with PTZ and yes, it's an expensive toy, but it could pay off). I would want facial recognition ability at the gate area.

 

Under the circumstances, are there performance reasons to consider analog beyond price? It seems like the cost of hybrid NVRs is high, and the ability to go all one or the other would free up more budget for cams and accessories. I think my longest wire run would be 250 feet.

 

Currently installing irrigation, which gives me the opportunity to put in some wire ahead of time. Sounds like CAT5e is the way to go? Wireless is not very attractive and I can run under some sidewalks and the drive right now. If I plan ahead right, I can build as I go later on.

 

Thanks for the education I have already received here. I have looked through Dahua and CNB and other common recommendations, but sometimes I just confuse myself... if I could put the IP versus analog thing away, I would start planning initial purchases and wiring.

[Soundy 1]

Don't have time to go into a lot of detail at the moment, but first thing I'd say is: go ahead and start wiring with Cat5e: you can use it for both IP and analog video, as well as almost anything else you'd want to run over it in the future (meaning, make sure to pull an extra wire or two with each run).

 

While hardwired is always preferable, IP wireless is actually not that bad to work with, and is fairly cost-effective these days.

 

I guess I think I like the IP megapixel route, because it sounds more modern with greater detail. Is low light performance one of the compromises versus analog? What else would I consider?

That's the main thing. There ARE megapixel cams that do really well with low light, but they'll cost a pretty penny.

 

It seems like the cost of hybrid NVRs is high, and the ability to go all one or the other would free up more budget for cams and accessories.

Another option is to go NVR and in instances where an analog cam would be better, just add an IP encoder.

[daveshoot 0]

Great, thanks for the time you did take!

 

Extra wires- absolutely. Learned in previous projects. That, and always leave a pull wire even where you really think you have enough.

 

I read some more outside the forum and got slightly smarter about IP... IP does not always equal megapixel, add low light and they are some pretty pennies. Still, something to shoot for.

 

IP encoder, check. Gotta look those up next.

[Soundy 1]

I read some more outside the forum and got slightly smarter about IP... IP does not always equal megapixel,

This is an important distinction. There are a lot of cheap "IP cameras" out there that are low resolutions, usually marketed as "SD" (standard def), D1, or VGA (640x480).

 

There are some benefits to them, as IP does give you more flexibility in wiring and system layout, but they won't typically give you any better picture than any other analog camera, and you do pay a premium (although as you've found, an all-IP setup does eliminate the need for capture hardware and ITS associated cost, so they do balance out a bit).

 

Also, megapixel doesn't necessarily mean IP - there are a couple new standards on the market, one of them being based on SDI (serial digital interface) used in broadcast, to transmit uncompressed HD video over coax. However, current incarnations of HD-SDI/HDcctv are limited to 1080p (2MP), still cost the same as equivalent IP cameras, require their own special recorder or interface card, still require a home-run cable direct from each camera to the DVR, and despite claims, DO NOT necessarily work with "any" existing coax. On the whole, probably not worth worry about.

[Integrator Asia 1]

What other installers don't consider nowadays is that analog system is quite stable.

 

In terms of monitoring it will give you a quality picture at minimum cost. for sure you may want to put a high-end camera on few places but still need to put some cameras ( a low-end ) on other areas.

 

Also consider the distance with IP unless you are a big company with network connectivity in all areas maybe- you can be an all IP system. And don't forget in IP you need to buy a 24/7 capable network switch which should be reliable one. No matter how good the IP camera in the network switch is always defective then the system is nothing.

 

If cost concerns go with DVR and analog cams.

If looking for the future a Hybrid DVR with an IP megapixel on certain areas only.

[Soundy 1]

What other installers don't consider nowadays is that analog system is quite stable.

What installers DO consider is that IP can be every bit as reliable as analog.

 

90% of the failures I see are purely hardware related: hard drives are by far the most common thing to go, followed by the cameras themselves, then other components like power supplies. None of these have any relation to the transmission medium.

 

Similarly, probably 75% of connectivity issues I see are simply poorly-terminated cables - again, not specific to the medium. It's just as easy to screw up a BNC connector as it is an RJ-45. Beyond that, it's mostly damaged cables and corroded connectors due to weather exposure.

 

Neither system has any particular claim to greater reliability.

 

Also consider the distance with IP

OP already has - he's stated that none of his runs would be over 250'.

 

And don't forget in IP you need to buy a 24/7 capable network switch which should be reliable one.

I have systems that have been running on $60 5-port 10/100 switches for over four years; I've seen $1000 enterprise switches go up in smoke. Excessive cost is one of the greatest myths people still spread about IP systems.

 

No matter how good the IP camera in the network switch is always defective then the system is nothing.

 

In over eight years in the industry, I've had exactly the same number of switches and DVR cards fail spontaneously (meaning, not killed by something like a power surge or lightning strike). No matter how cheap the analog camera, if the capture card is defective then the system is nothing.

[daveshoot 0]

I do read here for advice, and appreciate all who respond. That said, in 30+ years of selling, installing, and troubleshooting various technical products, I have always found the great majority of installation trouble calls related to cables and connectors. Dirty power and lightning account for many more.

 

I have gotten pretty comfortable with IP communications and I believe it is best for me.

 

To adapt the analog camera output, is it best to encode right at the camera, or back at the NVR?

 

Is there a particular model of IP encoder you would recommend? I was back looking at the hybrids, but my intrinsic cheapness is a real obstacle here.

 

I want to lock up the NVR and operate it remotely from a PC, btw. Without reliable online access, I would sure want to secure any evidence it was able to gather, and this would have to be done on the premises, for now.

[ak357 0]

I do read here for advice, and appreciate all who respond. That said, in 30+ years of selling, installing, and troubleshooting various technical products, I have always found the great majority of installation trouble calls related to cables and connectors. Dirty power and lightning account for many more.

 

I have gotten pretty comfortable with IP communications and I believe it is best for me.

 

To adapt the analog camera output, is it best to encode right at the camera, or back at the NVR?

 

Is there a particular model of IP encoder you would recommend? I was back looking at the hybrids, but my intrinsic cheapness is a real obstacle here.

 

I want to lock up the NVR and operate it remotely from a PC, btw. Without reliable online access, I would sure want to secure any evidence it was able to gather, and this would have to be done on the premises, for now.

 

Check out IP Encoder by Avigilon

4 Ch, real time every Ch, H.264

[Soundy 1]

That said, in 30+ years of selling, installing, and troubleshooting various technical products, I have always found the great majority of installation trouble calls related to cables and connectors. Dirty power and lightning account for many more.

I've only been working professionally in CCTV for about 8.5 years now, but I have experience in computers going back to the early 80s (Commodore 64, represent!), and electronics well before that, including training and many years' experience in live audio and studio recording, plus a short stint in car audio. And through all that, your above statement holds true for all of them: problems and issues related to one technology vs. some other are minuscule compared to just plain and simple bad connections.

 

To adapt the analog camera output, is it best to encode right at the camera, or back at the NVR?

Really doesn't matter. I think it mostly comes down to which option fits your design and/or any existing cable. If there's already coax in place, then naturally it's better to make use of that and encode at the head-end. If there isn't, it may be more convenient to encode multiple cameras to a single IP stream and send them all over a single wire.