IP Camera Systems

[qman 0]

YOu know, there is one little thing that has not been mentioned. CAT5 only has a limit of 320 feet of transmission, I know that there is equipment that makes the run to go as far as 1000' feet, but that's an extra cost, plus you also got to remeber that a lot of companies that already have networks in place, are always worrying that the network load is already too much for their existing equipment, so when you start adding cameras in top of it, then there is the chance that the normal network funcions could slow down to a crawl when the systems integration are not deployed properly, plus you also have the problem where most of the inexpensive back end equipment only supports 253 devices, I'm talking PC'S, Printers, Servers, Routers, ETC. and to my understanding IP cameras use a static IP, so for the 5-10 PC small network it will have little and no impact, but when you go to a big corporation, say a multi-branch Bank, then you might run into problems at the back end.

 

I always will have one belief, Computer and Security should work together, but not on the same lines, you never know what could happen.

 

My 2 cents

[rory 0]

YOu know, there is one little thing that has not been mentioned. CAT5 only has a limit of 320 feet of transmission, I know that there is equipment that makes the run to go as far as 1000' feet, but that's an extra cost, plus you also got to remeber that a lot of companies that already have networks in place, are always worrying that the network load is already too much for their existing equipment, so when you start adding cameras in top of it, then there is the chance that the normal network funcions could slow down to a crawl when the systems integration are not deployed properly, plus you also have the problem where most of the inexpensive back end equipment only supports 253 devices, I'm talking PC'S, Printers, Servers, Routers, ETC. and to my understanding IP cameras use a static IP, so for the 5-10 PC small network it will have little and no impact, but when you go to a big corporation, say a multi-branch Bank, then you might run into problems at the back end.

 

I always will have one belief, Computer and Security should work together, but not on the same lines, you never know what could happen.

 

My 2 cents

 

Actually, i wouldnt use go the UTP way unless i use an Active UTP transceiver, that gives you no loss up to 1.5 miles with cat5.

 

As for Baluns, you can run around 600' with just the balun to balun.

 

Passive to passive video transmission over UTP will have image loss similar to RG59 at same distance. This is because the signal is attenuated by the resistance of the cable. If you intend to use a DVR at the monitoring end, you should limit passive to passive transmission distances to 750' or less. (Digital recorders will reject or muddle video signals after 6-8dB of loss).

 

Passive transceivers or transmitters will give you up to 1000', or 3000' when using a passive transmitter with an Active Transceiver, or 3000' when using a passive transceiver with an Active Transmitter. Active Transceiver and an active Transmitter will give you up to 1.5 miles with Cat5 cable, 3000' with cat2 or cat3 wire. You can also repeat them to give you longer runs.

 

I like to keep the security seperate also.

 

You can link up to 32 DVRs/Keypads on 1 RS485 network, in any combination of DVRs and Keypad controllers.

 

A larger matrix system can have 512 cameras, 64 monitors, 64 keypad controllers, 64 muxes, 64 VCRs, 512 Alarm Inputs, 512 switched audio locations, unlimited remote surveillance. Up to 10,000 feet between each system device using RS422 wire. All rackmountable and does not use your PC network. This is where conventional CCTV shines with large facilities, universities, etc, of course it is not cheap though. They also have PC control with GUI software for all of this, that can connect and control all of the above, and also view a visual layout of everything in the system, and when things happen like a gate is activated, that camera comes up automatically, and the person using a badge for access is identified compared to their id record in the database.

 

I can see where IP cameras will be useful with wireless internet. It really seems the majority of people installing iP cameras are computer companies. This makes it easier for them as they do not have to learn all the other CCTV equipment such as matrix, muxes, BNC connections, etc. Its simply easier to install. Thats why I was actually looking at it in the first, was because it seems so much easier.

 

Rory

[cctv_down_under 0]

Unless wireless or run on fiber optics I think it is not viable for I.P cameras.

 

With fibre though you can make a second network very easily, and there fore you do not affect the traffic as much.

 

Rory is right there really is not as much of an advantage unless the old infrastructure is to be replaced and you can utilize the bandwidth, but if you are going to do that then most times new cables are required anyhow.

 

But wirelss is another matter and indeed in my humble opinion we will all be using I.P. cameras in the near future, better compressions are coming out all of the time but I do not think that I.P cams will rule the roost. I think web servers with built in HDD's will be the main stream and will allow for the ability to avoid networking bottle necks.

 

I.P cameras have advanced further than most think, in fact GUI and full control are available in most high end models already, the problems remain the same, you need to store it, there fore you still need the recording device anyway, and you really can not go over an existing network without killing the bandwidth unless you have plenty to spare on a large thoroughfare network set up.

 

I would bet money that in less than 2 Years we will all be using web servers.. as for static I.P's I do not think this is required as you can connect a I.P camera to a network internally and map it through a router for an internal forwarding from ports, you probably just set an internal address and then have a port for each camera through the router so you could have many cameras connected.

 

I.P cameras have a massive cost saving when used with many many cameras.. for example 64 cameras onto DVR is 4 machines.. that is a lot of cost and you have to cable them all, if you laid fibre then you could have almost endless I.P cameras all recording to one server, the cost cuts would be similar now because I.P technology is so expensive but webservers are very cheap, some probably have built in routers for connecting many I.P cameras to.. therefore I.P cameras can be a similar price if it is a major installation and they can also be a cost saving device when only one is used as one camera does not affect bandwidth too much.

 

Well thats my opinion but I still have a lot to learn about them but until prices drop and it becomes more viable I am not going to look into it.

 

I hope this helps,

[Pat 0]

Just come back from a UK show and need sleep. IP is definately going to be the future maybe not for everyone but for alot. I work for a company that makes large matrices and IP CCTV. We tendered and won Brussels airport a few years back (new terminal). The original tender was for an analogue system, it ended up as IP. This was because it turned out cheaper to do it with IP. There are something like 400 video streams. The existing cameras and speed domes were added onto the IP network using encoders, new cameras were IP cameras.

The IP solution was cheaper as the cost of the cabling was lower. There would have been many km of coax. There were requirements to allow a number of different users access to the system such as police, customs, baggage handlers, the train station, you name it they have it. The beauty of IP is that is is distributed. To move a control room you need only run one cable. As the systems grows you do not reach a limit on video feeds. The matrix is virtual. If a new feature is developed it can be added without wasting hardware etc. Not in the price range for small installations but it can be very cost effective in many. The strength is what extra you can give to customer with IP. Campus security with handheld Ipaqs and wireless etc.

[cctv_down_under 0]

The strength is what extra you can give to customer with IP. Campus security with handheld Ipaqs and wireless etc.

 

i agree with everything you just stated except the above statement...PC's are much mre advanced in this area and I like the thought of moving a control room with one cable but remember everything that I.P can do so can DVr, so you would not need to move the DVR's the control room can be run on internet or ethernet so same scenario when moving.

 

one thing I forgot to mention is that I.P cameras (that I have seen) lack video quality and are not made as well as standard cameras.

[ipProTech 0]

The ability to have shorter cable runs is a big plus for IP Camera solutions. Also, the ability to easily move the Head-end room in case of a remodel is big as well.

 

I also don't think you can properly compare the power of a Video Server to DVR's. They of course are very simular, but having a true Server is much more expandable, upgradable and powerful. I'm talking about Server level computers, not Store bought PC's. For large installations, our solutions are all on Server Class systems. This can included Dual Xeon Processors, Large Serial ATA or SCSI drives for Terabytes of storage if needed.

 

IP Cameras are coming just like VOIP is now the only way to go for telephones. It is a computer world, and it will continue to go that route.

[rory 0]

everything you can do with IP, you can do with conventional CCTV, but with better quality. Including long range wireless video, fiber, etc.

[rory 0]

The ability to have shorter cable runs is a big plus for IP Camera solutions. Also, the ability to easily move the Head-end room in case of a remodel is big as well.

 

I also don't think you can properly compare the power of a Video Server to DVR's. They of course are very simular, but having a true Server is much more expandable, upgradable and powerful. I'm talking about Server level computers, not Store bought PC's. For large installations, our solutions are all on Server Class systems. This can included Dual Xeon Processors, Large Serial ATA or SCSI drives for Terabytes of storage if needed.

 

IP Cameras are coming just like VOIP is now the only way to go for telephones. It is a computer world, and it will continue to go that route.

 

I dont even use PC based DVRs anyway. Security in most peoples minds around here = Stability, and that is where the stand alones and conventional CCTV shines. I still dont see IP cameras taking over CCTV, it will more than likely just stay in the computer company areas. For example, Casinos cannot use it, as the quality is not high enough, and the bandwidth would be slow. Perhaps for home users it will if it hasnt already take over, but the software would have to be free. Anyhow, will see in the future,, yes moving the head end unit is easier, but then you can do that with conventional CCTV when using a DVR for remote video, same thing. Still your cat5 network cables come back to one switcher, same as CCTV.

 

If they can get the same quality and speed of conventional CCTV, i will start using it, but not to date.

 

Anyway, on to the VOIP, check this out, it will make you laugh! In our country, the government run telecommunications company has made it illegal to use VOIP with a $300K fine! They are rackaeteering, they are a monopoly. I think they are getting to friendly with cuba!!

 

http://www.freedombahamas.com/

 

Rory

[Pat 0]

Hear what you are saying about the flexibility of digital recorders that are ethernet enabled giving flexibility but that is a smaller application to the large scale systems where you can have large 40+ monitor banks and multiple staff operating mutiple ptz cameras on one managed system. IP is ideal for the major systems.

 

The concern about the quality of the camera can be removed by using conventional cameras and seperate IP encoders. The quality of IP video is now at a point that you cannot easily tell it apart from composite. Some of the high quality (and expensive) mpeg4 encoders are capable of DVD quality. So if you want that quality you can have it. People need to look at the quality of the recorded images over the live ones. The live video from a composite system looks perfect. The live video from an IP system generally looks poorer as the compression has been set such that the image is not as good as it could be. The recorded images from IP and digital recorder will look the same as the are using the same technology to compress the video it is just done at different times in the system.

 

IP can look like composite but you wouldn't usually record that quality of video on a digital recorder as it would eat up too much disk space. Most IP systems stream at the quality that you record at this makes the live images look worse but the quality you see live is (or can be) comparable to that of a digital recorder.

[cctv_down_under 0]

As for the casino Rory, you can easily get the bandwidth needed for a full I.p solution just use Fibre for one solution and there are many.

 

As for quality, yes you can get composite quality over I.P but thats the point then you need to compress it again and that is already done on a DVR and that kind of quality gives bandwidth issues if not using a good thoroughfare network.

 

The common mistake many make is that most people see I.P camera demos remotley and most people that demo them set them for low quality for speed and bandwidth issues, therefore a comparison can not be made that the cameras are of lesser quality, the thing is though to buy a high quality one it is way too expensive...

 

The concern about the quality of the camera can be removed by using conventional cameras and seperate IP encoders.

 

This is a vdeo server is it not.. you do not need I.P cameras at all just webservers which you can get at $200 US for a four input so why would you pay $1000 x 4 for I.P cameras when you can run a webserver instead.

 

I.P and standard CCTV are the same at the head end and anything that I.P does DVR can do as well, they are cheaper than a matrix as it is easier to assign cameras but that is it.. Both can be moved if used over internet or ethernet and both cost the same for head end solutions. as I said I see the future not in I.P cameras but wireless networked cameras that feed to many small webservers that will store 1 day then schedule wirless back up to a head end, no cables what so ever. so you have 4 cameras in building 1 Another 4 cameras in building 2 they have no wires and they wirelessly connect to a 8 Ch web server which stores 1 300GB hdd or Hopefully a 300GB rom by then, this can be in a roof or anything and the webserver will be as small as a HDD, then that can send to head end for storage if needed after compression, making transmition fast, configurable, wireless, accessable at the webserver through I.P or by plugging in a small screen and will offer days of recording or an optional head end that does not even need to be a standard PC more like a NAS Storage Area Network device like a external Raid array, they are pretty cheap so your cost would be cheap as.

 

8x $250 for cameras that have wireless, $200 for the webserver and $200 for its HDD (optional) No labour No wires and that gives a few days to 1 week at full quality, then if you want max storage a networked storage box.. also wireless and you could hava a terabyte for aroound $4000

 

So for 1 week $2000 for a terrabyte $6000 and NO LABOUR, No lossed data as would replicate and no O/S and no Wires best of all when you move you take it with you, no cables to remove and no bandwidth issues as is its own secure encrypted network.

 

Thats the future boys!

[rory 0]

yep, sounds good, anyway to make life easier and still make money, is worth looking forward to

 

Unfortunately we dont have any wireless internet here as yet, the local communications company is a government monopoly, and have set laws against almost anything, unless you pay them a fortune in fees. So much for tax free! :-0

 

I do have a connection with a local company who has been setting up wireless internet, but its on the hush hush, and they primarily do inhouse wireless or hard wired networking. Hopefully once things take off, this will all get better. Then I can start looking at Wireless IP camera solutions.

 

You realise though, US casinos and the ones located here governed by the US casino board, still have set requirements, and they are still stuck on Tape. I have read it is different in other countries, I think it was a casino in Austrialia actually that went digital using Ultracks DVR Solutions, was in an atricle I read on the Ultrack web site a while back.

 

I dont know, I came into this when Tape was still being used, and still is by some, but though it is somewhat reliable, it is still tape, and can be damaged. Thing with digital, you can still archive to DAT tapes if you wanted to. Not my area of expertise though, but Im sure DVR knows this side.

 

One thing about Kalatel though, Im sure others in the name brand area, I asked about software for Pocket PC, they have nothing yet. Ill have to buy my own Pocket PC, and write my own, when I can afford one, unless someone wants to send me a used one!

[rory 0]

This is a vdeo server is it not.. you do not need I.P cameras at all just webservers which you can get at $200 US for a four input so why would you pay $1000 x 4 for I.P cameras when you can run a webserver instead.

 

I.P and standard CCTV are the same at the head end and anything that I.P does DVR can do as well, they are cheaper than a matrix as it is easier to assign cameras but that is it.. Both can be moved if used over internet or ethernet and both cost the same for head end solutions. as I said I see the future not in I.P cameras but wireless networked cameras

 

yep, that sums it up.

[Pat 0]

What do you mean by a web server and an IP camera. To me an IP camera is a camera and encoder in one box. As most IP encoders can be web servers I see no difference between an IP encoder and an IP camera. To me a web server is an IP encoder that streams to a web browser such as IE4 or netscape. Can you clarify the difference in your mind.

 

Most IP encoders with four composite inputs share the 25 (or 30) fps as there is only one encoding engine so you cannot fairly compare 4 * IP cameras with 1 * encoder with four inputs. Quite a few IP cameras have 3 * composite inputs to make them identical to IP encoders. So you use the IP camera as a hub.

4 * IP cameras would give you 4 cameras and 12 composite inputs.

 

How do you see the wireless cameras that would feed a localised webserver working, are these not going to be IP cameras or are you refering to 2.4ghz?

[rory 0]

2.4Ghz is not that good, 900, 1.2 or even better, 5.8ghz.

 

the other questions, dont know, then a DVR with IP is essentially the same as a web server, but just with a DVR? I see what you mean though, but then you have no stand alone machine, which is what most people in security would like.

[Pat 0]

If we can foretell the IP market we will be rich (richer?). It could go many ways each depending on the type of installation. If you are large enough and securuty is important you will have distributed virtual recorders that can act as redundant recorders for each other but I can't see that in a small office or retail environment. In which case conventional DVR with IP out would seem to be better.

[Napoleonbc 0]

I can't believe I missed this thread until now. See, being in the computer and networking field before CCTV I have lots of insight into this.

 

IP based systems do not put out video at all. An IP camera is a camera directly attached to a tiny computer. The CAT5 you hook up to it is putting out the same data and signal as a computer, laptop, or server. Once you have the CAT5 crimped and put into the back of that camera you can route it, switch it, convert it into wireless, convert it to fiber, anything. But you have to understand computer networking and the hardware infrastructure behind it.

 

IP based cameras are a whole other field. Yes, I'll be honest, there is a lot of money in computers and systems, but it is not very easy to get in. Mostly these type systems are adopted by internal tech departments or the technology companies they use. Of course they know nothing about cameras...so usually these systems....SUCK.

 

We've had large scale IP based systems sold a year ago...ready to go for schools and enterprise level buildings...and they fell through to internal departments. It is a really hard business to get into.

 

On top of that it is an EXPENSIVE market. These routers, switches, etc are not cheap to implement. It isn't like a passive or active amplifier...you have technical problems like latency, security, and encapsulation to worry about. Switching to fiber for every camera costs so much it isn't worth it...I can promise you, you would lose all your business if you had to rely on computer components.

 

In addition to all this, IP based systems have another issue. Quality and speed. If you know anything about networking or computer systems, companies spend millions and hundreds of millions of dollars a year to keep their systems up to the newest standard and gain speed out of their network. When you are talking cameras, you can't possibly expect clients to keep up. IP based systems (if you've installed them yourself) are slow as all hell and the quality just isn't there (unless you’re spending hundreds per camera). Features like Infra-Red are almost impossible to get on IP based systems. The technology isn't there yet to make these systems worth while for people who REALLY care about security.

 

Now there are some benefits to IP based systems. Recording is easy and cheap. Using a standard computer with a larger hard drive can easily become a DVR. With no hardware to install and the use of software to capture and COMPRESS the video it is well worth it. IP based recording systems compress video much better than CCTV and have a lot more options to remotely playback, burn, backup, archive, time search, and motion activate. In addition lots of cameras have remote pan/tilt/zoom. No more matrixes, with a joystick, etc. A simple mouse click and you’re moving the cameras left, up, and zooming in 22 times. It is actually AMAZING if you've used it. ABSOLUTELY amazing. Also remote capability is far beyond anything CCTV has on a standalone. Actually, I still install and sell these systems to shops and small stores who want remote access ONLY. It works great and is much more compact.

 

Finally, with appliances like web servers or remote dialup appliances to remotely view a CCTV system why would you need all these headaches? You get almost the same quality. With a simple T connector and a web server you can get cameras out to the internet and recorded digitally for less money and headaches.

 

There are benefits and drawbacks to both types of systems, but for right now, the technology doesn't exist to make these systems worth it. The idea is great and in theory they are genuinely better...but right now, pick up your coax, grab your BNC tester...CCTV is here for a while.

[loop 0]

Which IP Cameras/Server brands you had experience with?

[Thomas 0]

*coughs* You can already control PTZ camera's through mouse clicks. And the joy of IP camera's being webservers is you can redirect the streams.

[rory 0]

id rather a joystick over the mouse, ever tried a speed dome in full speed with a mouse? Used one the other day with a mouse, we had to slow the PTZ right down, just gets away from you unless you use a joystick :-0

[Thomas 0]

The other tech support person keeps bugging the programers to add an interface for a USB/Serial joystick. So far they just laugh.

[rory 0]

i guess the user can just use the keypad that comes with the same brand of PTZ locally.

[Rickd 0]

I'm new to the forum, it's great to see these topics discussed.

And here's my disclaimer - for the last 5 years I have worked for an IP camera mfg, IQinVision. Megapixel, and recently multimegapixel cameras.

 

The posts claiming poor performance from the general IP cameras of

years past is correct. If you have an IP based back-end for recording,

(benefits well discussed in this thread) then you have an option of traditional CCTV cameras with an IP convertor or an IP camera. Generally, the CCTV

cameras with a convertor do offer more choices and lower prices.

 

That's why IQinVision focused on designing cameras that do things that

CCTV can't. Recently introduced: the IQeye602 does 1.3 megapixel progressive images at 30 images per second, and 2.0 megapixel images at 20 images per second. 640X480 at 60 images per second. True day/night, with .5 lux performance.

 

The IQeye3 was superseded with the new IQeye301 and 302. These cameras offers low light performance and digital pan tilt zoom, which is really neat. The camera is recording the whole field of view, while each user can pan tilt and zoom around in the image. If you have enough source resolution you can get reasonable zoom ratios before there is any quality degradation. Multiple users can be zoomed into different parts of the scene at the same time. Pan tilt zoom works in archived video too.

 

This year IIPSEC (the UK IP video surveillance tradeshow) awarded IQinVision Best of Show Hardware for their camera's ability to record their

own video on a normal corporate file server (via FTP). The reliability issue of recording on a PC with software is real - but recording to a highly reliable corporate server keeps the costs low and provides secure archival.

 

Sorry for the commercial - you guys are asking great questions and there is a lack of info out there, so I thought I'd register and post one insider's viewpoint. IP cameras have to outperform CCTV cameras to make sense. And the total solutions have to be less expensive. And the installers and specifiers have to make money. (you won't find our products over distributed like some)

 

Casinos, Homeland Security, Aerospace, Finance - anyone who wants state-of-the-art is using IQinVision. check them out in your explorations...

[Napoleonbc 0]

Great response. I've worked with IP cameras by Panasonic, Toshiba, Sony, Axis, D-link, Veo, StarDOT, MatCo, Vivotek, and JVC.

 

D-link are the worst things out on the market. They are over-the-counter at Bestbuy and CompUSA and they suck bandwidth like you wouldn't believe!!

 

Vivotek are GREAT servers and their cameras are nice too...bad quality picture in my opinion but EXCELLENT refresh rate and remote access.

 

Panasonic is the best of both worlds. They have pretty good refresh rate and nice quality...plus they have many different flavors of wireless and wired type cameras with and without P/T/Z. Best Interface too.

 

Axis is probably what everyone hears about. They are really nice cameras, and do have good quality and speed...but they are VERY....VERY proprietary and don't have great support. They need special software, they are slow at times and they are expensive as all hell. They are a good product...but again...like I've said and agree with...they just aren't there yet.

 

In reference to IP based recording software...there is one choice and one choice only...I've used them all from Axis to custom Java applets...if you aren't using this your using a loser...

 

NetCam watcher Pro. New version 1.6. It has all the features you need, want, and has support like you wouldn't believe. This way you can mix and match cameras for a nice custom system and still have a central place to watch, record, and play from. Problem...full screen isn't there yet. So your constantly in a windows environment...doesn't output to external monitors well is what I'm saying.

 

Like I said...not there yet...but promising.

[Thomas 0]

Axis isn't so propritary....they host a website and stream the image. Not hard to grab the images and restream them. The tricky part is changing the settings.

[rory 0]

i was thinking about setting up the central station with video monitoring as well, using IP cameras, but they have to be cheap, indoor/outdoor, and good remote multi site software with remote recording/archiving, maybe only record when in event mode, or just send jpegs to archive.?? Any ideas, nothing expensive, this would be seperate of any local CCTV and probably just for ghetto retail stores and homes..

 

Rory