IP Camera Systems

[rory 0]

Im looking at starting a 2nd company with a seperate partner, and it will be IP camera systems. Any pointers on the best products and solutions out there in this area?

 

Also, has anyone heard of or used Anister CCTP systems?

http://cor-ebiz-01.anixter.com/Marketing/feedback2.nsf/CCTP?OpenForm

 

Thanks

 

Rory

[AVCONSULTING 0]

I haven't seen this before but it looks pretty incredible. Any idea on the pricing? Anixter is actually a major distributor of wire that has been branching out into CCTV lately. AXIS is the leader in IP cameras so you might also want to check what they have to offer.

 

http://www.axis.com/products/video/

[rory 0]

axis is too cheap for my taste, plus anyone can buy them from anywhere. I need something high end, and not as easy for clients to buy themselves. Axis is like a kmart camera, its everywhere!

[rory 0]

actually this looks good, can replace existing cameras with them also.

 

http://www.iqeye.com/cctvcam.htm

[Pat 0]

It is worth noting that a consequence of the increase in pixel count is a decrease in frame rate. In the high resolution mode you only get 2 fps.

[rory 0]

ok thanks, is that local frame rate also, or just over the web?

 

And is that per camera or with others added?

 

Thanks

 

Rory

[cctv_down_under 0]

There is nothing wrong with Axis.... they have the lions share of the market here.. the only thing I will say about this issue is that a lot of the I/P cam manufactorers make poor or cheaper cams that are not up to the grade, therefore they do the I/P job, but lack image quality.

 

You can do the same thing with a small web server box (inexpensive) then you can use standard cams, the major draw back is that they do not store the date at the I/P pont and therefore not all cams that are I/P can compress the data, so bandwidth is an issue and you still need to store it at the other end... however the Hype for I/P based cams is huge, but really not warranted until they develop a fair bit further.

 

 

Just my opinion

[rory 0]

ok thanks.

 

Yep, maybe ill wait a bit before getting into it. I just tested an IQ3 camera online from the Ipix web site, which claims you can digitally zoom in and out etc, but you cant focus it, so it isnt clear, but I was using Ipix, so that may be the problem there. Cant get any of the other Ip remote software to work on windows ME, its all either for XP or does not have a demo IP to test, or needs a password. Ill leave it alone for now, thanks though.

 

Rory

[AVCONSULTING 0]

Check out this company. The local rep swears that it is the best in the world, but then he says that about every line he carries so judge for yourself.

 

http://www.mavix.com/

[ipProTech 0]

You might want to check out Sony's new IP Camera SNCZ20N.

This is the camera that I think can make a real reason for going with an IP camera solution for certain designs.

They also have a live demo where you can zoom. The camera looks great and it supports true power over Eithernet (802.3af). All other cameras, including Axis don't support POE directly and must use a splitter.

 

Anyway, you may wish to check it out. I'm starting to use it in my design proposals for IP Camera Solutions.

 

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/webapp/ModelInfo?m=10005&sm=0&p=2&sp=20075&id=72580

[cctv_down_under 0]

What happens if you want to view ten cams at once??

 

Can you get more than one in each applett?

[cctv_down_under 0]

Ohter than that.. not bad.. whats the price for the pan tilt zoom model it is pretty impressive

[rory 0]

ive looked at it, its not that great, good for a one camera app I guess. Quality is not better than the other higher res IP cameras. but like others say, its probably not worth messing with right now.

[Pat 0]

We should be looking at the control part of IP rather than the camera/encoder. Video compression is moving faster than I can keep up with and is interesting but tomorrow will hold something better (at least for awhile) so it is fleeting. Whereas the control parts are going to be fairly stable. The secret to IP is being able to make it operate like a conventional CCTV system (PTZ, Control, Integration). If multiple users can't control multiple cameras then it isn't much more than a web camera and that isn't a business to be in. There are IP systems out there with 300 cameras on them. This is where IP shines.

[rory 0]

I was thinking, if its only for ease of using cat5, then wouldnt a UTP active transceiver be better, direct to a high res CCTV Monitor, mux etc. I imagine the quality would be better. I could only see IP cameras usefull as a single camera app such as a PTZ IP camera out on a road somewhere, and where there is wireless Internet. It doesnt seem to be any cheaper than a DVR with Ip and traditional CCTV cameras, except when you get into the traditional PTZ cameras. Correct me if im wrong here?

 

Or places where you cant get wire and can get wireless internet.

 

Rory

[rory 0]

oh yeah, forgot about the megapixel cameras quality though...

[Pat 0]

When to use IP? The million dollar question. It has its price advantages in the single situations you mentioned for sure but what is going to be important is when does it become worthwhile for the larger install.

On paper some of the advantages of large IP systems.

 

Greatly reduced cabling - I do not mean cat5 is cheaper than coax but most large buildings/businesses are already networked if you are just jumping on an existing network then there are cost savings. Need to factor in the higher price of the IP camera though.

Greater flexibility. You can in theory allow anyone with a network connection to see or control any camera. This means moving a control room is not such a problem. Talking 50+ camera systems here. Concerns here are it is not a closed system. Have to have faith that the security built in prevents any messing around.

No 'matrix' - it becomes virtual - a CD rom.

Free recording (kinda). A DVR compresses video so that it can be stored on a HDD without taking up too much space. An IP camera does this compression before transmission. The compression cost the money. An IP recorder need just record network traffic and requires no powerful processing. This makes it low cost - but you are putting a compression engine into each camera rather than having one centrally.

 

Wow too much typing. The question of when IP meets analogue for cost will depend on the application for the next few years. However IP picture quality has reached analogue. I saw a demo at ISC of live v IP and could not tell which was which until I clapped and then it was just the latency that gave IP away.

[cctv_down_under 0]

I agree with pat 100%, I.P is not that far away indeed, the quality of the cameras is getting better and like he said the only problems they have is that you can not fully stream uncompressed images yet, the problem is that in a DVR you have to compress the images and the I.P cameras (well at least the good ones) need to do this as well so the cost is the same.

 

The main thing that people overlook though is that Fiber or Ethernet is usually already in place, I think that inexpensive smaller webservers will be the next trend until the I.P cams catch up. When cable is already there it is so much cheaper to implement a system, however the compression needs to be tight so that you do not affect all the other traffic that travels on the backbone of the existing network.

 

The thing is there are so many wireless networks propping up now that I.P cameras will HAVE to be the future, sure it is not a closed circuit yet, but encription methods get better every day and I see this as a major option in the future, think about not having to run wires...realise the bliss when a customer wants to move a camera... how much easier will it be.

 

Lets face it even wirless cameras would be popular if you could get enough frequencies.. there is no doubt in my mind that soon the standalone machine will be king.. but not as we know it now, just a small webserving interface with a HDD (actually probably rom storage), this device will have no moving parts and will webserve through browsers and phones and will recieve I.P cameras.... the biggest draw backs are....

 

1/ Not many security people that have been in the game long will survive as they probably do not know I.T. well.

 

2/ Computer companies will sell more than security companies.. this means sales at bulk with lower margins and less support.

 

3/ Less will break so there will be less to onsell..only versions and storage will change.

 

4/ Eventually someone like Microsoft will make a package system that can be part of your PC as a plug in and will sell in your local electronics store.

 

Hay I am not Nostradamus but I bet I am right!!!

[rory 0]

i doubt it, unless it becomes as good quality as wired, and a computer co. would need to learn CCTV.

[ipProTech 0]

IP vs Analog is something I think many of us struggle sometimes with to get a feel for it application and place. There is no doubt a cost factor difference between IP Camera solutions and analog DVR solutions. For the small business needing just fixed general purpose Indoor Office or Outdoor cameras with easy wiring and nothing fancy mentality, DVR/Analog seems to be hard to beat.

 

IP Camera solutions though can have great Pro's given the right application. Say large warehouse or lumbermill where you need flexability in Zoom or Pan and Tilt. Especially for large layout buildings or multiple buildings. If they have Eithernet drops, your wiring is very doable and you can create a very nice centralized solution. Large High schools with multiple buildings is a great example. The rub of course is cost and network bandwidth.

 

You have the more expensive Cameras (close to $1000 for anything of quality / frame rate) and you have the Server Management Software for viewing and storing video from the IP Cameras ($1200 - $6000 +)

 

I've just finished a design for the largest lumber mill in North Ameraica and the best solution was going with IP Network Cameras. But at the same time I still spec DVR for small businesses. I wish I could just sell IP camera solutions, but it just isn't going to happen.

 

Back to bandwidth, you do have to design in such a way that you don't swamp the existing network bandwith. This is done by segmenting off as much as possible as well as looking at the Server software that you are using. Some software allow you to throttle the camera speed, others only allow you to throttle the viewers speed. Big difference.

 

One thing I will do is start a thread on IP Server Software that lists some Pro's and Con's. I think it will be helpful as we all investigate and use different Cameras and Software to build sellable and usable solutions.

[rory 0]

For multiple building applications, i would think standard CCTV is better, You can link multiple DVRs/Muxes, with 1 cat5 cable or fiber, between them, for miles.

 

You can have as many of these DVRs/Muxes rackmounted, at each building.

 

At a central location, you have some keypads, which can bring up and control all of the cameras, in high CCTV quality, no need for a PC at all.

 

Traditionale CCTV systems are designed specifically for this type of thing. However, it will cost alot more than an IP system, but you will get much better quality.

 

You can also run cat5 to each camera from each DVR/mux, if needed, not using IP. Only the DVRs will have 1 IP each for PC access.

[cctv_down_under 0]

Rory has a point... we now sell converters to Cat5 now so the only advantage of I.P (wired) is if the existing infrastructure is already there, but if it is already there then you will have to throttle it from the server which will sacrifice either speed or quality or both, the problem is that if it exists already (wiring) then it is much cheaper and better to do but most of the time you will haev to sacrifice something in order use the existing framework, this is why using spare twisted pairs or better still Fibre is a much better option.

 

Mind you when these I.P cameras take of with Wireless then it will be the best and only option to go for as it will be so easy to install.

 

just my 2 cents worth

[cctv_down_under 0]

one other thing too.. you still need to record it so there is always somewhat of a HDD or DVR needed at the end anyway unless the I.P. camera has a HDD built into it and that would cost the same as making a 1Ch standalone anyway.

[ipProTech 0]

Depending upon the layout and the design, an IP Camera solution can be far better then a analog solution. If you have an open warehouse where you want to install cameras throughout, you can have a one location or a couple of locations to branch out from for your camera solutions. Combine POE and your wiring is simplified. Remember, with IP, you can string network cable in multiple directions supporting multiple endpoints, including your Server and still be on one switched network. Cameras to the switch, that switch to your Video Server, then to the rest of the network. You don't have to throttle anything if the networking design is done correctly.

 

Add in the ability with the new Zoom or PTZ IP Cameras and the end result is much better then your standard analog DVR system. The cost may be the same, may be more, may be less, but the functionality is likely to be much better. Even if you have a log run to a dark zone somewhere, you can run a fiber run to add support to that area.

 

If you know TCP/IP networking, I think you can have a much better solution for many applications. You need to know TCP/IP, routing and how the LAYER2 and LAYER3 Ethernet works.

 

Also, most networks don't have high utalizations on network traffic. If they do, then you throttle back some if you are utalizing part of an open network. But, if your camera is on the same switch as the Video Server, then the rest of the network isn't going to have to see all that traffic.

[rory 0]

From what you are saying, it still doesnt make it any easier or cheaper than a true CCTV system. You should take a look at www.nvt.com, and their UTP / cat5 solutions. A PTZ camera is still better quality than a IP PTZ camera, when using a keypad controller to bring up the camera on a CCTV monitor, and with active UTP you get no signal loss or interference.