Simple question about IP cameras

[rory 0]

Most sell both an encoder (video server/IP camera) and a decoder .. you would use the decoder to convert the network video to analog.

 

However im not 100% sure this is what the GVbox is ..

 

EDIT. ironically UDP doesnt make a decoder from looking at their website /.. so this is just a video server .. so you can plug in cameras at a remote site to be monitored remotely by Geo software .. without a DVR at the location.

[kao 0]

Kao .. G e o is a software company, U D P makes their cards ..

 

Yes Rory...I know Geo is technically a "software" company. But let's face it, Geovisions software is so married to the cards they use, that we practically think of the card as Geo's.

 

When I was refering them to getting into the IP market, I did not mean to insinuate they are actually manufacturing the hardware

 

And BTW, I am reasonably sure that the encoder box does indeed go at the camera end of things, and that the Geo DVR will decode the video/audio.

So you have:

Camera -->encoder box-->network/internet-->Geo DVR.

That is a very simplified way of explaining it, but check out the following Power Point presentations I found. They are both in english, even though they are on a foriegn site.

 

In the upper right hand corner, click on download (pobierz). If you dont have power point installed, a free viewer is provided next to the download.

 

http://www.polvision.com.pl/files.asp?lang=en&id=93&find=

 

http://www.polvision.com.pl/files.asp?lang=pl&id=102

 

I also attached a couple of pictures from the slideshow.

I am looking forward to seeing how the attached storage works. If it works well, I can see some broad applications.

[rory 0]

Cool .. yeah i did put that in my Edit above ... also see this image from the trade link you provided ..

 

[GECAMGUY 0]

Lots of good stuff on this thread.

 

I'll chime in if I may.

 

First, for those that don't know me I'm the Product Manager for fixed cameras for GE Security. We're a late bloomer into the IP Surveillance market, but a strong bloomer nonetheless.

 

I state that right off the bat so that you can understand my position, which while biased, at least I admit who I am.

 

Okay on to the hype. Yep, you're right there's a lot of hype out there right now. Most of it is coming from Axis, with a lot also coming from Sony. Why? Because Axis doesn't even sell analog equipment. Their entire solution is IP, so they're fighting like mad to sell everyone on the IP solution. So keep that in mind when you read their literature. Sony, while not quite in the same boat as Axis, bet their Video Security farm on IP, so they're pushing that story too, though not was as much hype as Axis.

 

That's not to say Axis and Sony make bad IP products. On the contrary, it's very good stuff. Just consider the source is all I'm asking you to do. For us over at GE Security, we recognize that 95% plus of the market is still analog, so we've been shifting a lot slower. I'm just now introducing the first of my serious Network IP cameras, and even still most of my current R&D is in analog cameras. That's the way the market is, so it's the way GE is. When the market wholly adopts IP (and it will), we'll follow suit.

 

So that said, let me address a couple of the "Why IP?" points we see advertised.

 

"Leverage Existing Network" - Heh, not unless you're only going to run like five or fewer cameras or you've got a gigabit network or you're giving a dedicated subnet to your IP video system. Otherwise, that 3 MB (average unchoked bandwidth of most Network IP cameras) sucks up a lot of network traffic. That said, if you do have redundant CAT 5 in place or you can do a separate subnet, etc, then yes, you may be able to leverage existing infrastructure

 

"No copper to pull" - Actually I don't consider this hype, but a true advantage. Think about it, is it easier to pull one ring of CAT 5 for your video network or is it easier to pull a copper (coax) cable from each camera back the head-end? That's a no-brainer.

 

"More Remote Access" - Well most modern DVRs have remote, even network access, even if they're "analog" or "hybrid" DVRs. BUT, with Network IP you do get the benefit of using all the off-the-shelf PC protocols and equipment, which is nice. It also bridges Security and IT, meaning IT installers can begin installing security, and security installers can train to compete for IT installations. Believe me, both are occuring and I see it every day. Either way, doing cool things like checking your Network IP camera via a web browser from anywhere in the world that has a computer and internet access is a definite selling point. When you look at WAP applications and the ability to stream video to a PDA or cell phone, it gets really exciting. Guess what else? You can now completely setup your camera and DVR remotely. Okay you still have to focus the lens at the camera (for now), but if you need to change the actual camera settings you can do that from nearly anywhere (including a browser) without having to learn fancy terms like "coaxitron". With Network IP, it just works that way for all devices. With VMS (Video Management Software) applications like Omnicast or Xprotect you can even do global setup blasts that change the settings to a whole group of cameras at once. And since a lot of the intelligence resides in the IP camera, you can remotely flash upgrade the camera to the latest firmware or analytics. Try doing that with an analog camera.

 

"Lower Total Cost of Ownership" - Well, maybe some day, but not yet as we're still in the early adopter phase of network IP products and will be for the next 12-18 months. BUT, theorhetically, because you can leverage the much more massive volumes of products sold in the mainstream PC industry, theorhetically the equipment is or will be cheaper. Haven't seen it work out yet, but I have seen several IP installations that are very close to what an analog install would have ran. This runs more true on large enterprise applications then it does smaller installs.

 

Now for the downsides.

 

"Not CCTV" - as another poster indicated, it's not Closed Circuit anymore, though it could sorta be if you had a dedicated network that wasn't hooked into any other network or the Internet. On the other hand, with IP you have access to all that cool encryption that's part of the Information age. Can you keep out every hacker? Nope, but the same holds true of CCTV -- if somebody wants access to your security system badly enough, they'll get in. The difference is they generally have to be on site to get it with traditional CCTV, not the case with Network IP products.

 

"Subject to network outages" - Absolutely true, but what I think you'll see in years to come is things like buffer storage on IP cameras so that they can store video during an outage and re-synch to the Edge-of-Network device or NVR once connectivity is restored. When it comes to rock-solid, nearly outage free service, certainly analog has a leg up, but I think that gap cinches closer every passing month.

 

"Expensive" - Yep, for now expect to pay 2-3 times what you'd pay for the same analog camera. But when you look at reduced cabling costs and other factors I've seen the total cost of installs balance out for Network IP and analog.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

I swear I swear I swear I'm not trying to sell you on to Network IP. Do what's best for your customers and yourself. But be aware that the Winds of Change are definitely here and Network IP Security is growing in popularity every day. If you think it'll catch on, remember that 8-Track player pundits said the same thing about Cassette Tapes, who said the same thing about CDs.

 

It's coming, sure as I'm typing this.

 

GECAMGUY

[msecure 0]

"Subject to network outages" - Absolutely true, but what I think you'll see in years to come is things like buffer storage on IP cameras so that they can store video during an outage

 

The Brans Video Server already have this function, USB HDD/CF backup on network failure. It's not exactly an IP Camera though!

[rory 0]

"Subject to network outages" - Absolutely true, but what I think you'll see in years to come is things like buffer storage on IP cameras so that they can store video during an outage

 

The Brans Video Server already have this function, USB HDD/CF backup on network failure. It's not exactly an IP Camera though!

 

Sanyo had a Camera with an HDD for years now ...

http://www.sanyo.com/industrial/security/cameras/digital/index.cfm?productID=152

[troubledb 0]

both have there place but you cant beat how its suppose to be. everyone goes on about flippin ip. how many times do you go on the internet & 1 day its good & quick & the next its slow as well ya no what i mean. no im not talking about my pc im talkin about everyones. ok so like that you have a ip camera on a network & that network gets busy so your cctv is going to be jerky & slow. network goes down then your camera is off. analogue is great unless cut cable or rats chewing on it. why not have both so if the network does go down then you have your analogue still going.

[metafizx 0]

network cameras seem to offer more at first but as you create a system, you realize the problems:

1). the good software is expensive

2). hardware must be capable of processing all s/w functions

(adding a camera might break it)

3). adequate processing hardware is expensive

4). complexity of customer support is high

(they can't maintain it without IT help)

5). network bandwidth is comprised for normal usage

 

important to realize that just because the system works for 1 camera doesnt mean it will break after adding 2, 3, or how ever many cameras.

 

what feature will break the s/w ? motion detection for one.

how will you know ? and what can be done to fix it ?

build a faster computer ?

 

as opposed to network DVR systems:

1). DVR does all the motion processing, recording, not a PC

2). if it's 8 channels you can hook up 8 cameras and it will work, cuz it's firmware based.

3). if a camera dies, it is cheaper than an ip cam to replace

4). customer support is much simpler

5). network usage is based on need, otherwise local recording is done by DVR.

(6). you don't have to worry about M$ woes with VISTA.. if you are Windows)

 

Both ip and analog systems have there place, I don't argue that.

 

however with decent inexpensive network DVR's it makes it a better choice in most cases for end customer solutions. simple, cheaper, and effective.

 

network cameras need to be carefully reviewed for their advantages over an analog/network DVR system.

 

for example: a high res network camera can provide excellent images, way beyond that of a std CCTV camera, but at what expense ?

 

a gigabit network is more than likely required, otherwise the huge bandwidth hit of this mega pixel cam at 30 fps will have signifcant impact to the throughput. it will heavily load a typical 100 Mbps network. Add two and you are really dogging.

 

What is the software doing ? motion detection at 2fps ? no....so you turn that feature off. what is your storage capacity ? are you terabyte ready ?

 

IMHO, if you can't justify a network camera, then go analog with a network DVR. it's cheaper, more configurable, will work, cheaper to maintain, and customer can actually understand how to use it.

 

a good application of a network cam, is a PTZ implementation, users can log on and scan the area. simple to install and use. wheres a PTZ analog requires special wiring.

[troubledb 0]

it is fact that if you have 1 camera recording at 6pps & a file size of 18kb the usage on your hard drive will be 10gig a day. the best solution as the guy above was saying is to purchase a dvr. you can get many different varietys. personally i go for dedicated micros as there better than most. if you have static cameras then you dont need telemetry then go for the eco range. eco 4 - 4 cameras, eco 9 & eco 16. they are network ready & the software to run them is downloadable free of charge to put on your pc so you can view them, playback events & download images or events from your eco to your pc. if you want telemetry then go up a range to the SD. if your after the top spec go for the DS2. the netvu ds2 can go up to 100pps the older ds2 can go up to 50pps. all networkable & the software wont cost you anything. you can also add ip cams on to this system. i think they accept some jvc models & axis.

[jeromephone 6]

Well most of what we do as a company in cable pulling and I am somewhat confused by the argument that pulling coax is more expensive than Cat five or six. It has been our experince that pulling coax is cheaper than cat 5, connectors are less cheapest cat 5 rj45 jacks we are willing to use ul approved etc costs about 5.00 and you need two of them.

Stranded patch cords around 2 to three dollars and you need one or two depending on how you handle the camera end.

crimp on BNC around 1.50 you can splice the coax which can be a real advantage in getting through some tough areas.

 

My feeling on the network vs analog agrument is I want to use the network but I don't want to be dependent on it if I can avoid it. The access control system we use sends reports updates etc to the panels but if it is down the panels keep on working as programmed. I guess the same would hold true for a DVR.

[jrl 0]

...I am somewhat confused by the argument that pulling coax is more expensive than Cat five or six. It has been our experince that pulling coax is cheaper than cat 5...

 

I think when it was said the cost is cheaper, it is because you can use different configurations within the network to reduce cabling costs. where with coax you have to make a cable run back to the head end for each and every camera.

 

I cant put my opinion on the debate of which is better IP/Analog because I dont know.

 

But for cabling it appears (theoretically) that it would be easier for IP. Maybe not more cost-effective. But think about it, how many of you guys have spent hours in the attic pulling hundreds of cables sweating your you know what off. A few cat 5 pulls to me makes better sense. Even if your just using baluns and analog.

well thats my .02 cents

-Joe

[kao 0]

It's kinda funny how this thread dropped and was started up almost 1 year later (minus 20 days).

In that time the Geovision analog to IP to DVR converter has been released and seems to be selling well.

Now Geo is about to offer a complete software IP NVR solution.

The winds of change are blowing.

[user1 0]

Not reading all the many replies, it boils down to a couple things.

 

IP is the future, not many serious people can deny it. So from a consumer standpoint, if making a 'significant' investment it would be wise to go IP. If putting a few cameras in a gas station then yes, a dvr with analog video still works. But we've all seen the news and you get what you pay for.

[metafizx 0]

Not reading all the many replies, it boils down to a couple things.

 

IP is the future, not many serious people can deny it. So from a consumer standpoint, if making a 'significant' investment it would be wise to go IP. If putting a few cameras in a gas station then yes, a dvr with analog video still works. But we've all seen the news and you get what you pay for.

 

I guess this is a matter of application. IP cams are great for some installs but the good ol' analog (cctv) cams to a network dvr is hard to beat.

 

for example if a vandal destroys an analog cam, or it dies out due to environment, or other reason, it is way cheaper and easier to replace than a corresponding network cam. The network cam will be 2x the cost atleast, and will require a tech knowledgable about the system to install.

 

I can go on and on, but I don't think you can say that network cameras are the future. There are good reasons to use both kinds, depending on the application.

[Soundy 1]

Wow, don't ya love people bumping ancient threads?

 

I've flipped through this debate (not reading EVERY message) and the one thing I haven't seen anyone mention is the RESOLUTION possible with IP cameras.

 

NTSC analog cameras max out at, what, 520 vertical lines? Your basic capture card gives you maybe 720x480 resolution digitization. Anything beyond that is going to get VERY expensive, and you're still limited by the maximum resolution of analog video.

 

The cheapest IP cameras we work with are 1.3MP - 1280x1024, almost twice the horizontal resolution and 2.5 times the vertical detail of analog capture. They're about twice the price of the most expensive analog fixed cameras, but I can use one 1.3MP camera to cover what would typically take me FOUR analog cameras.

 

Working a lot with gas-station installs, they want to have clear pictures of people's license plates at the pumps. One analog camera set wide enough to see both sides of a pump will just BARELY result in a legible plate under ideal conditions, otherwise two cameras are required, one for each side. If you have two pumps on an island, that's four cameras to get good, clear plates.

 

Alternately, I can put a single 1.3MP cam on the building or a pole off the end of the island and cover all four pumps easily... on one site I even have two cameras covering 6 pumps on three islands (12 fueling positions), both sides of an outer island and one overlapping side of the center island. Another station has three cameras in its store, and they get clearer views of faces and activities through the whole store than a similar station gets from 8 in-store cameras.

 

TCO may still be lower on a "per-camera" basis with analog, but that difference quickly fades when you consider what you're able to see and how many cameras are actually required.

 

And as HAS been noted, infrastructure CAN potentially be cheaper, because you don't need to use a star topology and home-run every cable. Yes, outfits like NVT make video baluns and multiplexing systems that will let you get away from the star topology, but that's going to drive the cost up again.

[rory 0]

NTSC analog cameras max out at, what, 520 vertical lines?

 

811(H)x508(V) NTSC, 785(H)x596(V) PAL - varies depending on camera.

[zmxtech 0]

Yes sir...IP CAMS are the future but they need to catch up when it gets dark. Most drop the RES to half and go B&W mode.

 

I don't see any problems with a correct installations. The problems amount to the lack of networking knowledge of installers -they are plumbers and electricians all clambering for a fast buck

-they basically give IP a bad name as do IP web cams people use on the PC`s

IT "gurus" also are guilty putting 10+ cameras on a 100Mb work groups switch. then complaining !

 

Most IP cams are great -full of features but when it gets dark the sales people run and hide.....

 

Can anyone name an IP cam that works well in low light or with IR ?

so far I see the "extreme IP ex82" new one and the Arecont 3130.

 

z

[Soundy 1]

Yes sir...IP CAMS are the future but they need to catch up when it gets dark. Most drop the RES to half and go B&W mode.

 

Most analog cameras that have "day/night" modes switch to B&W in low light as well...

 

I don't see any problems with a correct installations. The problems amount to the lack of networking knowledge of installers -they are plumbers and electricians all clambering for a fast buck

 

This affects the industry as a whole, in my experience. I went on one site - a gas station - where a new corporate-selected CCTV supplier had sent some electricians to install a new DVR (replacing existing MUX and VCR), three LCD monitors, and replace a bunch of cameras and the power supplies (it had been running mostly on a bunch of 24/40 wall-warts on a couple power bars). The electricians had the place ripped up for close to a month, botched the job of hanging the monitors, and attached the car-wash cameras to nothing more than the soft vinyl siding inside the car wash. Instead of using a single 16-channel power supply, they used one eight-channel unit and two four-channel units... and then doubled-up a number of channels, so only 11 of the total 16 available screw terminals were actually in use. And then they HARD-WIRED them all into the line power running BX into a gang box. And these are monstrous Pelco power supplies that are now eating up a ton of shelf space in the office.

 

IT "gurus" also are guilty putting 10+ cameras on a 100Mb work groups switch. then complaining !

 

Yuck!

 

Most IP cams are great -full of features but when it gets dark the sales people run and hide.....

 

Can anyone name an IP cam that works well in low light or with IR ?

so far I see the "extreme IP ex82" new one and the Arecont 3130.

 

z

 

I really don't have much experience outside the IQEye cameras, but I find they have pretty good low-light performance. Not "amazing", but perfectly acceptable in most situations. Take a look at http://www.iqeye.com/IQeye750-Day-Night.html

 

The biggest drawback I find, actually, to most IP cameras is their lack of auto-iris support - it makes fine-tuning them a little trickier in contrasty areas, and manual-iris lenses are getting harder to find.