Simple question about IP cameras

[root 0]

Around the office, we've had an ongoing debate on whether IP cameras provided more benefits than regular CCTV cameras.

 

Can someone break this down for me so I can understand why it is better or worse to have an IP based camera?

 

TIA

[kingofholland 0]

• You can use your existing cat5 network, no need to run coax
  You can use Power over Ethernet to power the (PoE enabled) cam
  Easier to integrate with thrid-party software
  Analog cameras use interlacing, network cams use progressive scan
  IP is sexier!
   
  

 

Martin

[VST_Man 1]

You can use your existing cat5 network, no need to run coax But, using video on a data network will increase "traffic" and a noticable slowdown will accur. Video IP sucks up bandwidth!

 

Easier to integrate with thrid-party software...

please explain? IP camera's have no standardization of software and each comes with a unique set of programs. If you stick with one manufacture of IP cams you "might" attain this integration theory, but, there are only a handful of Manufactures (Videoinsight) that support multiple IP CAMS under one software program.

 

IP cams have a place but I integrate ONLY where I cannot use/build a analog archeticture based on client to cash flow ratio.

[kensplace 0]

You can use your existing cat5 network, no need to run coax

 

You can use your existing cat5 network with analogue cameras, just use baluns, which are cheap - still a lot cheaper for a analogue cam with 2 baluns than a comparable IP camera.

 

You can use Power over Ethernet to power the (PoE enabled) cam

You can send power over the same cable as video with suitable baluns, again, cheaply available for analogue cams.

 

Easier to integrate with thrid-party software

Really? How?

 

Analog cameras use interlacing, network cams use progressive scan

 

Analogue cams dont operate at really, really, really slow frame rates for decent resolutions, IP ones usually do.

Analogue cams dont use up huge amounts of bandwidth.

 

IP is sexier!

 

Matter of personal opinion that one, to me IP cams are in the main nothing more than glorified web cams, or digital cameras with basic interfacing/streaming capabilities bolted on and stuck in a case.

 

IP has a long way to go before I would bother with it, especially as any 'expensive' state of the art stuff you buy now, will more than likely look like utter junk in a year or two, when compared to its replacements which will probably be faster, higher res, etc

[Thomas 0]

The marketing for IP is overhyped. But there are some legitmate advanatages to IP.

 

Wireless: You can encrypt the stream and the Wi-Fi standards have better handling of interfearance.

 

Remote use: For single camera remote sites, 1 IP camera can be a cost effective option.

 

Potential benfits:

 

Forensics: With current generation of CCTV gear you can't do much in the way of post video Forensics. What you see is what you see. But Photographers can do a ton of stuff right now. So why can we? Because we lack some of the info they have. A high end digital SLR will record the properties of the Lens. How it's focused, etc. From there you can actully start doing something with the data. NTSC and PAL both look like there will not be enough bandwith for that kind of data. IP will be able to do it.

 

High Resolutions: Right now no one in the analog industry is pushing for a move to something like HD. We're pretty rapidly growing closer to the resolution cap for cameras. IP is probley going to beat Analog to the market for really high end solutions.

 

And while I'm willing to call the IP people's BS, I will point out Kensplace that you have a bit of disinformation in your post. While the cameras themselves will put out 30/25 fps at thier resolution, it doesn't mean the recorder is.

[rory 0]

JSNTIP

 

www.NVT.com ...

[kensplace 0]

Lost me, whats JSNTIP?

 

Just trying out some nvt baluns, pretty good results so far, even using one on alarm cable at one end only, which technically should not work, but seems to improve the picture considerably so far (although, its a rubbish cam, and its now pitch black so cant see real results yet, but the worst of the interference has cleared up).

[rory 0]

LOL ... just say no to ip ... (cameras)

[kensplace 0]

LOL, like it

[WirelessEye 0]

Hater

[rory 0]

Hater

 

[Thomas 0]

It's like any tool Rory. Sometimes it's the right tool and some times it is. Just because 90% of the screws you deal with are Phillips head doesn't mean that a torx bit will never be useful.

[woodyads 0]

Advantages of IP are massive in certain environments. But you do need to understand your networking. In other applications CC is a better technology.

 

My environment has few cameras and may viewers spread over a large area. We also have issues with too many RF devices in the area where we require remote cameras. (in excess of 130 devices not including 2 way radios)

 

IP Alows us to reduce the RF useage. Combine it with other devices. Slope Radars, Siesmic Sensors over one link. Have failover by using Canopy network devices and using Spanning tree protocol. And at the end of the day uses much less cableing.

 

On one hand bandwidth is an issue but if you are delivering to many users broadcast over IP is more efficient than closed curcuit.

 

We also have a security over who can do what, and view what, to each camera and recorded stream.

 

Another advantage is we have intergrated the Voice recording of 2 way radios onto the same system. You can play back and syncronise any number of camera's with any number of 2way radios.

[rory 0]

Hi ... Everything you mentioned can be done with a DVR also .. using their remote software ...

[woodyads 0]

So at what point do you move to IP? Between the Camera and the End Viewer, Camera and Recorder, or Recorder and End Viewer?

[rory 0]

The DVR's are networkable, meaning you can assign an IP address and access them remotely over the network or internet. Difference is that it is recording locally.

[woodyads 0]

I asume you mean record localy at the camera. If so what is the Memory capacity?

[rory 0]

DVR means there is a System at the location ..

it records locally at the system ... not at the camera

(unless you buy one of those cameras).

 

With supplied software you can also record offsite over the internet.

 

...

 

If its the wireless part you are questioning, you can put the DVR anywhere and still use Wireless if you like, either using Analog wireless (Real Time non networked) or Networked Wireless (Video Servers). You can then use High Performance CCTV Cameras and if using Video Servers you would use the decoders at the DVR, otherwise there is just a TX and RX for each camera.

 

Personally unless i'm doing more than 16 cameras i'd stick with analog wireless; no bandwidth issues between the camera and the DVR, and no (or not noticable) quality loss.

 

It depends on which DVR is used, as to how many features you will have. GeoVision for example has all those features you mentioned.

[WirelessEye 0]

Nothing against DVR's, but I just don't get why people use them....

 

You lock yourself into something that is only mildly upgradeable, if at all. Not only that, but the costs are generally outrageous for anything half way decent.

 

So my question is, why would anyone use a DVR when they can use an NVR which can be infinitely expandable in most cases, and for much less money?

 

Again, not wanting to start a flame, I'm just curious.

[rory 0]

High Quality (Real Time) Video. Larger selection of cameras, for all types of applications. Not dependent on a Network or Network staff. Low maintenance, Reliability. Less expensive in most cases.

 

As to expandable, add more Cards/DVRs ... simple as 1+1=2

 

With PC based DVRs you are paying for the software, not the card, but they start as low as $100 (GV250) for something with software that breaks almost any IP Software. Add a $50 color bullet camera and you have a better image than most NVR with IP Camera setups .. or at least comparable ... for next to nothing .. Plus you have the best of both worlds, you can still use IP cameras or do offsite recording/monitoring/playback .. though I dont see the use of IP cameras in most applications.

[Thomas 0]

Because NVRs are no more upgradable then DVRs. Either it's an embeded unit that can have a firmware update or not, or it is a PC based unit that can get software upgrades. You may end up being able to do more camera on a single machine but you could also say that just makes you dependant on single failure point.

 

The other major problem is that IP/Network based cameras do not have anything resembling standard access protocols for software clients that aren't webbrowsers. Accessing Sony cameras will not give you access to Toshiba which won't give you access to Axis. Hell, even firmware revisions can break software compatability. We ran into that with firmware updates to the Toshiba cameras.

 

Wireless, if you consider "lack of upgrade ability" to be a killing point, how is "vendor lock-in" any better?

 

These are tools. There are times when one is the right tool. There are times when the other is the right tool. There are times in which both are useful tools.

[murphomatic 0]

A couple of things that make me chuckle about IP systems...

 

People say you can use your existing network infrastructure so you don't have to run coax cable...

 

... ok - that's great, but how many places have network workstation drops at the far north-east corner on the roof? Looks like you're gonna be running cable ... even if it's not coax.

 

The "CC" part of "CCTV" is CLOSED CIRCUIT. IP cameras basically blow that whole concept away. Welcome to OPEN CIRCUIT ...where if someone is savvy enough, they can hack at your cameras all day.

 

I'm a software engineer, and in my day - I've seen PLENTY of network outages.... switches blow, routers croak, etc... Ever seen a coax cable "crash"?

 

We have a client that has about 60 analog cams and has been sold on the marketing hype of IP. He's slowly starting to move over - new cameras installed are all IP. .. so far, he's got about a dozen IP cams up and working. A couple months ago - they had a network outage that lasted for 3 days. Needless to say - he didn't get much video over that time period.

 

Like people have said - use the right tool for the job. Sometimes it's analog, sometimes it's IP ... but I agree with someone else's statement that IP has a looooooong way to go yet.

[rory 0]

I forgot to mention, there are many many people that have issues using a PC at all, other than MSN and Google ... so PC based DVRs and NVRs are out the door, then comes the embedded stand alone DVR with simple push buttons/VCR like controls ..

[Thomas 0]

Rory, that's a crappy arguement. How many people can barely operate a VCR. Most people can't even program them to not flash 12:00. The UI benfits of a standalone just don't exist.

[rory 0]

Rory, that's a crappy arguement. How many people can barely operate a VCR. Most people can't even program them to not flash 12:00. The UI benfits of a standalone just don't exist.

 

Its very real, at least down here. Security Booth Guards for one thing ... most of them down here never touched a PC before in their life.

 

The point is push buttons that say 1, 2, 3, 4 way, 9 way, are much easier to use than a mouse and a keyboard with a windows GUI ... granted you can set your PC DVR up in full screen with an IR remote, but most installers dont.