NEED HELP DESIGNING SYSTEM FOR CASINO

[ChrisL 0]

But I still work for a manufacturer that has more systems in casino's than any other manufacturer " title="Applause" />

 

Must be very impressive if you hide the manufacture's name.

 

It doesn't matter. I don't want anyone to be linking any of my stupid actions to my employer. Last thing I want is a web site with my name on the front of it under any title that involves the worth "Theft"

 

I'm not here selling my product, I'm not here promoting my product. I simply, and not-that-often post when I have a piece of information that no one else seems to know.

[thewireguys 3]

PM sent

[survtech 0]

By the way, when I asked Avigilon what caused such high latency, they stated that their encoders buffer six frames of video. That's 200ms alone.

 

Pelco Endura wasn't much better. It had >300ms of latency.

[ChrisL 0]

By the way, when I asked Avigilon what caused such high latency, they stated that their encoders buffer six frames of video. That's 200ms alone.

 

Pelco Endura wasn't much better. It had >300ms of latency.

 

That isn't really a fair statement. Endura is a VMS.

 

I have seen plenty of Endura systems w/no latency by utilizing the matrix integration.

[survtech 0]

By the way, when I asked Avigilon what caused such high latency, they stated that their encoders buffer six frames of video. That's 200ms alone.

 

Pelco Endura wasn't much better. It had >300ms of latency.

 

That isn't really a fair statement. Endura is a VMS.

What do you call Avigilon, Genetec, IndigoVision, Dallmeier or Geutebruck (the other systems we've tested)? Chopped liver?

 

 

I have seen plenty of Endura systems w/no latency by utilizing the matrix integration.

What's not fair. Pelco had very high latency, compared to every tested system and third party encoder (Axis, Bosch, TKH Siqura, Sony and Verint), except for Avigilon's. Endura also failed our evaluations for a number of other reasons:

 

1. Slow operation - it took a long time to switch from "live" to "playback" and back. Other functions also took forever.

2. Poor "live" and "playback" video quality.

3. High required bitrates for even decent picture quality.

4. Clip saving was a joke. Clips must be saved into a temporary folder based on how the user is set up, then moved to their final location. We have approximately 20 different save locations configured as network drives. I can't expect the users to learn how to move every file they create after creation and would expect many errors would creep into the process. That is the dumbest thing I've seen!

5. Playback video skipped and stuttered more than any other system tested.

 

And so what if we could use our existing 9780 matrix to eliminate the latency? We could do that with any system. The point being then we would need one set of monitors for analog and a second set for IP cameras. Users would have to learn which cameras can be called to what monitors. And, we would still have matrix bays eating up rack space, power and cooling.

[ChrisL 0]

And you believe the latency is a function of the VMS, not a function of the Encoder?

[survtech 0]

Of course not. Why else would I mention the lower latency on all of the other encoders? All other encoders (tested with Genetec, with the Axis and a Bosch continuing tests with Geutebruck) and all other systems with their own encoders and/or the Axis and Bosch encoders showed latencies well under 200ms on our analog cameras.

 

The only encoder that came close was either the Siqura or the Verint (I don't remember which). Then again, we tested the Bosch X1600 XF using both Baseline+ Profile and Main Profile. Baseline+ had the lowest latency, with Main Profile 'IP' having a bit more. As I added 'B' frames, latency increased.

[ChrisL 0]

I feel like we are going in circles here...

 

So because you don't think its a function of the VMS, its not an Endura issue.

The 5100 for example was Endura, and had extremely low latency... Of course it was an analog DVR.

 

I think you want to say the Net540x have high latency, in which case I would concede.

[survtech 0]

Semantics, semantics.

 

Ok, I'll rephrase that. Pelco Endura encoders had the second highest latency we measured. With that, Pelco wouldn't agree to let us test their system with any third party encoders, so WYSIWYG. And Endura still exhibited many other shortcomings, including the ones I listed and more (I have my full evaluations at work).

 

Besides, Pelco already recieved a copy of our evaluation, warts and all. They claimed they would send Endura engineers to discuss the perceived shortcomings, but never followed up.

 

What Pelco brought was their decision, based on the need for 1,200 channels, 90+% analog. If they had something better (and the 5100 would definitely not be it), they could've brought it.

[ChrisL 0]

Semantics, semantics.

 

Ok, I'll rephrase that. Pelco Endura encoders had the second highest latency we measured. With that, Pelco wouldn't agree to let us test their system with any third party encoders, so WYSIWYG. And Endura still exhibited many other shortcomings, including the ones I listed and more (I have my full evaluations at work).

 

Besides, Pelco already recieved a copy of our evaluation, warts and all. They claimed they would send Endura engineers to discuss the perceived shortcomings, but never followed up.

 

Endura is a crazy animal, with in 20 miles from one another where I live there are two 100% mirrored systems. One is fantastic, the other.. not so much. No real rhyme or reason as to why.

 

I am making the assumption that you did not evaluate the SM5200, but rather then SM5000?

[survtech 0]

Not sure. Endura was evaluated in September/October. It was supposedly the latest version.

 

It doesn't really matter. Based on many dealings with them over the last 17 years, I haven't seen much improvement from the dismal support they started offering after Schneider bought them.

 

Gone are the days when Level 1 support could answer just about any question. Also gone are the days when Level 1 would kick you as high as product engineering if you had a question or problem they couldn't answer.

 

- example: I lost documentation of how to program a time correction factor into autoexec.bat on the CC1. I called Pelco and asked Large Matrix Support what the command structure was. He didn't know and couldn't or wouldn't refer me to someone who did know.

 

I complained to our Distributor who finally got me in touch with an ex-Pelco employee who answered my question.

[ssmith10pn 0]

Not sure when you tested Avigilon but.....

 

It is especially problematic with analog PTZs, since Avigilon's encoders introduce 500(+) milliseconds of latency and have trouble with Pelco "P" protocol.

 

 

Avigilon H.264

Analog Video Encoder Firmware 2.0 Release Notes

H264 Encoder Release Notes Version 2.2.0.16

 

Released December 14, 2012

New Features

•Substantially reduced latency from video capture to display for analog PTZ cameras

•PTZ pattern execution support added to Kalatel protocol

Issues Fixed

•Potential camera time sync issue resulting in a streaming error is resolved

•Pan/Tilt speed in Pelco P and Pelco D protocols is fixed

•Menu button support is removed from Kalatel protocol

•Frame rate is not changed when encoder is rebooted without an analog camera connected

•Various web user interface issues resolved

[survtech 0]

Avigilon H.264

Analog Video Encoder Firmware 2.0 Release Notes

H264 Encoder Release Notes Version 2.2.0.16

 

Released December 14, 2012

New Features

•Substantially reduced latency from video capture to display for analog PTZ cameras

•PTZ pattern execution support added to Kalatel protocol

Issues Fixed

•Potential camera time sync issue resulting in a streaming error is resolved

•Pan/Tilt speed in Pelco P and Pelco D protocols is fixed

•Menu button support is removed from Kalatel protocol

•Frame rate is not changed when encoder is rebooted without an analog camera connected

•Various web user interface issues resolved

Too little, too late!

 

Still, interesting that the updates came approximately 5 months after we evaluated the Avigilon system. Guess they did read my evaluation...

[mikeek3 0]

hey guys is there a brand that doesn't require all these licenses i got quotes for the advance version of Avigilon vms and it was over 7000 US Plus some other licenses to. Let me know thanks

[survtech 0]

Not for larger camera counts. Axis has a simple VMS for small camera counts and Milestone has a lower grade but most VMS systems charge license fees - many charge per camera. Some also charge annual update/support fees.

[ssmith10pn 0]

hey guys is there a brand that doesn't require all these licenses i got quotes for the advance version of Avigilon vms and it was over 7000 US Plus some other licenses to. Let me know thanks

 

I'm assuming you meant the "Enterprise" version?

 

There wouldn't be any other licenses unless you wanted to do "Point of Sale", Audio, LPR, or a Mobile Device Gateway.

 

Don't forget you only need 1 license for a 4 channel Avigilon Encoder or 360° camera.

[mikeek3 0]

ssmith10pn

So if i get the Enterprise version is that it no more licenses and whats the cost if you know.

[ssmith10pn 0]

ssmith10pn

So if i get the Enterprise version is that it no more licenses and whats the cost if you know.

 

That's it. Unlimited Clients, Unlimited 24/7/365 support. And I have had them on the phone Christmas Day @ 4 AM.

[ChrisL 0]

Not for larger camera counts. Axis has a simple VMS for small camera counts and Milestone has a lower grade but most VMS systems charge license fees - many charge per camera. Some also charge annual update/support fees.

 

Does Endura have license fees?

[survtech 0]

I didn't ask. That would have been a question asked during Phase 3 of our evaluations and Endura didn't make it past Phase 1.

 

Phase 1 - Basic VMS and encoder testing - approx. 1 week per system.

Phase 2 - Intense VMS testing including with multiple IP cameras - approx. 1 month per system (in progress).

Phase 3 - Continuing discussions with manufacturers who passed Phase 2, Integrator discussions.

Phase 4 - RFP

[thewireguys 3]

So who made it to phase 2?

[ChrisL 0]

Or, maybe the safer question... How are you combatting technology changes over such a long period? By the tie you select a VMS there will be several upgrades.

 

As already pointed out on both the Endura and Avigilon

[survtech 0]

Dallmeier, Geutebruck and IndigoVision made it to Phase 2. Dallmeier was then eliminated so Geutebruck and IndigoVision have made the final cut. Still more negotiating to do before the RFP is issued, then we choose a system and Integrator.

 

Or, maybe the safer question... How are you combatting technology changes over such a long period? By the time you select a VMS there will be several upgrades.

Hey, we could test systems for years. There are always new versions being released (including of the ones that made the cut). Both Geutebruck and IndigoVision have a roadmap of changes, at least some of which are in response to our testing.

 

What do you expect? Evaluations and negotiations take time and we are not going to keep all the systems here for the better part of a year to see if the manufacturers magically fix them. They all knew what we wanted, based on our original stated goals. That's the way multi-million $$$ purchases work. Bring your best or go home.

[ssmith10pn 0]

They all knew what we wanted

 

Who is we?

[ak357 0]

They all knew what we wanted

 

Who is we?

He is working for Casino