IP CCTV signal conversion to analog Video

[amka 0]

Hi

 

Is it possible to multiplex 4-6 IP camera signals and convert them in PC for real-time retransmission (analog) back to coax? What I want to acheive is

 

1. Record MPEG signals from IP cameras on PC's harddrive.

2. Transmit the combined video back to TV monitors via common coax.

 

Are there any solutions for this config?

 

thanks

[shropna 0]

One of solutions:

http://www.boschsecurity.com/ipnetworkvideo/en/start/index.htm

you can use encoders on each camera, record MPEG streams, and get second stream via decoders to the analog coax.

Or Axis:

http://www.axis.com/products/video/about_networkvideo/index.htm

[kandcorp 0]

Get a hybrid DVR card such as Avermedia NV5000 Card. This will allow you to pull all cameras as if they were connected via analog and record them to the hard drive. But it all depends on the make of your IP cams, as Aver only supports 10-12 major brands.

[amka 0]

The Bosch IP cameras are appealing!

 

I thought that I can install IP cameras, combine all IP data from 4-6 cams on a PC and send nicely mixed signal on all TV video inputs around a house where all images from cameras appear on the same monitor.

 

Could be a cumbersome task.

 

Instead, I will get a few cams with Ether (PoE) and BNC options.

 

Thanks to all

[rory 0]

Firstly, why do you want to use IP cameras?

 

Secondly, you can simply use an RF Modulator to send the video signal out to the TVs.

 

If using a DVR card such as Geo you can get one with a DSP output which gives you a high quality real time RCA output, then connect that to the RF Modulator. If you want to break up the signals to different channels youd need Loop out cards or muxes or quads, and multiple RF mods depending on which views and how many you would want on however many channels. For instance, you can simply use a Loop out card to loop out 4 cameras to a 4 channel RF Modulator (channel vision) and then you could view each camera on an individual TV Channel. Dont forget filters.

 

If you use IP cameras you can still use a DVR by using Video Decoders to convert it back to analogue for the DVR's BNC Inputs. If you are going to use an NVR (build it yourself easily) or Hybrid DVR (analogue and IP) instead, the software and the Hybrids will have to be chosen according to which cameras you buy.

 

Avermedia and Video Insight are Examples of Hybrid PC Based systems.

GeoVision and NetProMax are examples of PC Based DVRs. I havent seen any decent Stand Alone Hybrids yet, though Bosch seems to have one, it is pretty new. Dedicated Micros has had it for a while but the one i used was not very good.

 

Also, you can simply use the TV out (RCA or SVideo) from the PC's Video Card to put the video out to the TVs.

 

Rory

[Thomas 0]

I haven't played with it, or any of thier DVR's but I know Toshiba has one too.

[cctv_down_under 0]

There are several ways you could achieve this.

 

1/ Use a Bosch IP camera, this has both analogue and IP output, you can take the analogue output and put it into the RF Modulator, that takes care of the Analogue option, then use the IP software to record on NVR.

 

2/ Use an anologue camera and a distribution amplifier and a decoder and encoder, you would take the Analogue signal and plug it into a 1 In 2 Out Distribution amp and then you have two signals, signal #1 can go into your RF Modulator and signal two into an IP encoder, you could then use either a NVR or a Hybrid machine to record the IP traffic.

 

3/ Use a Hybrid dvr with analogue out, you could use either Bosch IP cameras or any anolugue camera that is fed to an encoder and then recieve that IP stram on a hybrid machine like the Bosch Dibos, this would then allow you to record all IP traffic on the DVR, the Dibos then has two programable analogue outputs that you could feed into your RF modulator.

[amka 0]

Yes for IP cameras:

 

1. Feature rich

2. Single cable for data and power

3. Better video quality

 

However, IP cameras are somewhat expensive (the good ones) and this can be prohibitive for me, as I need to put a few of them around the perimeter of my house. Nevertheless this is what I’m eventually going to get!

 

Will I be able to convert easily 4-6 signals into one mixed signal (for simultaneous observation of all zones) and send it over existing RG-59 to all TV points using RF modulator? I'm concerned about Digital TV setup box, which has to get free to air standard definition TV signal over the same cable. Will that RF modulator affect the quality of this signal after mixing up with IP camera signal?

 

Can I in real-time receive IP data from cameras, process it in PC and loop back combined one back to RG-59 or modulator? It has to be real-time.

 

The Bosch cameras have dual signal output. I can certainly run all analog signal down to hub and then.....? What device can combine all signals and create a single one with 4-6 images appearing together on TVs?

 

 

Thanks to all for your contribution to my DIY project!!!

[rory 0]

One thing though, typically they are much worse video quality and less features.

[Thomas 0]

I don't mean to pick on your but I generally try to kill the marketing hype (for both sides).

 

1. Feature rich

 

There is generally very little that the camera does that analog DVR or IP DVR software doesn't do. Analog cameras may be "dumb" but the DVR's generally make up for that.

 

2. Single cable for data and power

 

Siameise cable is one cable that runs video and power for analog. And if the runs are really short I can do the same with Cat5 and analog cameras. As far as the PoE stuff goes, you either need an injector or PoE capable switch. The first is kind of a pain to find, the second is expensive.

 

3. Better video quality

 

Yes and no. At the very, very high end on the IP cameras you can get some great images, but the camera generally limits your framerate to 3 to 5 fps (not useful for certain apps like LPR or slight of hand theft). At the low to middle sections your getting 640 x 480.

 

Something I do want to point out. Comparing an IP camera on a web browser to an analog camera on a spot monitor is a rigged comparison. The IP camera is compressed already and is going to lose less quality then the uncompressed analog camera. If you're going to do head to head, then it really needs to be done as recorded video.

[cctv_down_under 0]

Post subject:

I don't mean to pick on your but I generally try to kill the marketing hype (for both sides).

 

1. Feature rich

 

There is generally very little that the camera does that analog DVR or IP DVR software doesn't do. Analog cameras may be "dumb" but the DVR's generally make up for that.

 

2. Single cable for data and power

 

Siameise cable is one cable that runs video and power for analog. And if the runs are really short I can do the same with Cat5 and analog cameras. As far as the PoE stuff goes, you either need an injector or PoE capable switch. The first is kind of a pain to find, the second is expensive.

 

3. Better video quality

 

Yes and no. At the very, very high end on the IP cameras you can get some great images, but the camera generally limits your framerate to 3 to 5 fps (not useful for certain apps like LPR or slight of hand theft). At the low to middle sections your getting 640 x 480.

 

Something I do want to point out. Comparing an IP camera on a web browser to an analog camera on a spot monitor is a rigged comparison. The IP camera is compressed already and is going to lose less quality then the uncompressed analog camera. If you're going to do head to head, then it really needs to be done as recorded video.

 

1/ I disagree...there are many things IP can do that analogue can not, the ability to adjust the streaming point and directional flow of the cameras data for one, several codecs in one camera for another, multiple streams, and video content analysis at the camera end, Higher resolutions and firmware upgrades, downloading of settings and alarm state to any IP address, and yes I realise a DVR can do a lot of this, but not all of it. IP servers can have protocols built in as well, menaing you do not need to run control cables for things such as access control and PTZ protocols, it is easier to interface a protocol to a camera than having to send it all the way back to the control room first.

 

2/POE is in most network devices I use already, I agree that if you are going to talk about the ability of a network cam to plug into an existing network, then it is unlikelty and messy if you have to add on...that said, imagine doing a shopping centre with 200 cameras, all individually run back to the DVR, that is a lot of labour hours, personally I would rather run one fibre and add switches near the camera locations, much less labour, I admit on a small job it is not worth it but on big ones the benefits are better

 

3/ I agree with point number three

[rory 0]

personally I would rather run one fibre and add switches near the camera locations, much less labour, I admit on a small job it is not worth it but on big ones the benefits are better

 

You can do that now (for years actually) with regular CCTV .. Multipair UTP and Blocks with Active Tranceivers such as NVT (or fiber for longer than 1.5 mile runs) ..

 

Most of the high powered cams need their own power .. like EXtreme CCTV gear, id never dream of running them on network cable ..

[cctv_down_under 0]

can you really run 200 cameras in one cable 400 cables in one without affecting anything

[rory 0]

Whats the point ..??

[cctv_down_under 0]

I am confused...I mentioned that for 200 cameras you need to run only one cable in a ring to make a network, then you can put your cameras in small groups and put swithces at each group, this not only makes for redundancy but allows correct traffic flow.

 

I am not sure how you were saying you can already do that, I am aware you can use UTP per camera, but how do you avaid running 200 cables or is there one cable that has 200 pairs in it that can work in the same mannor?

[rory 0]

Okay .. Fiber to UTP Tranceivers (you can even loop UTP Transceivers to gain much more than 1.5 miles), cat5 to each camera just as you are talking about .. you will still have cables to each camera whichever method you use. If you are talking about looping from one camera to the next, yes you can do that with 1x multi pair, but when 1 wire goes down before each camera, all those cameras after that wire, go down, never has been very secure for a security system, though we still do it with alarms, but only if we cant run 1 wire to each location (suggested).

 

Or are you talking about Wireless IP, which is the only application i currently see worth using IP for ..

 

Back to wired, lets look at price ..

10 Hub Locations, lets forget Fiber for now, prices approx, wiring extra

Equal Camera Quality at the Camera.. everything on the low end ..

 

IP

200x$600 - Cameras - $120,000

20x$500 - Switches - $10,000

12x$3000(per 16) -200 Camera IP Soft Licence - $36,000

 

$166,000 <-Still need the Servers

 

UTP

200x$400 - Cameras - $80,000 (including TXs)

20x$2000 - UTP Tranceivers - $40,000

12x$3000 - 16ch-DVRs - $36,000 (including CMS soft-64 cam views)

 

$156,000 <-Higher Quality Real Time Video

 

.. well something like that ..

[cctv_down_under 0]

Not exactly, most IP recording systems allow for Unlimited camera packages for much less, I was not awre you could Use UTP as a switch type environment, regardless, it is not as powerfull as a switch, because a switch is more programmable, especially with network traffic, if you go to one point with more than a certain number of cameras you will run into memory and bandwidth issues, you can only have a certain amount of data stream heading in both directions at the same time from one point...having it all go to one point will create congestion on your netwrok wehn people want to use network remote viewing...for example....if you have three points A,B,C then B and C may want to view 32 cams each and review 16 each at the same time, let me tell you that without a managed network you can run into issues, a switch can route the camera traffic to those that need it and you can plan so that traffic does not clash, this allows for a smoother network.

 

Also with UTP you are bound by where the cable terminates????

With the network option you can relocate the NVR to any location and reprogram the switch, it is also easier to trouble shoot.

 

I could be wrong but relocation is a major concern for these kind of jobs.

 

Also protocols do not go well wit UTP transmition between anything other than Ethernet.

[rory 0]

UTP doesnt use Ethernets so no bandwidth Issues ...

Relocation would be the same, you are using the same cable ..

 

Only diff is you can plug the IP camera into an existing hub .. Yep forgot though .. IP = Bandwidth Issues .. And if you want any kind of decent quality you need $2000+ Cameras, Really Expensive Network Setup, and then you still have those bandwidth issues .. UTP is real time, just like using Coax, and same quality. Essentially UTP Active is a cheaper alternative to Fiber ..

 

Im sticking to the UTP way as its still CCTV .. for now ..

 

Decent IP software cost a fortune though, like Milestone ..

And they still dont match the DVR software ...

[cctv_down_under 0]

rory UTP will not require bandwidth, that is correct, but how do all the people see the cameras they want, that must be done on Ethernet, unless watched from a central point, therefore the Bandwidth will still be used, in big jobs it is uncommon that one point be the ONLY place to view the cameras, and it is normal that several points will only wan to view certain cameras, so there would still be traffic for the remote clients, plus reviewing would be an issue, for example....if 10 different users all wanted to review data from that one point you havea bottle kneck especially if you have 10 more trying to look live remotely at the cameras, so in order to avoid this you can use switches to route the traffic.

[rory 0]

The network would be at the DVR side .. simply assign Users in the DVR software ..

 

Otherwise Recording will be on the DVRs in high quality Real Time not effected by bandwidth issues at all ..

[cctv_down_under 0]

You are not understanding me...I think....

I agree you can get the 200 cams to one point on UTP, but how do the 20 or so users (on remote software) view them, they would not all be in the one location, so to get the video from the DVr to them you would do it on the network, therefore all the video streams from one place...even the recordings for review, this would be too much of a bottle kneck.

 

Getting to the recording part is easy, but watching it from other locations on site can only be done by ethernet?

[rory 0]

It can be done by Ethernet just the same way the IP system would be viewed .. you would control the bandwith the same way you are doing it for IP .. Im talking about CCTV now so I wont get into the network administrators job ..

 

But you can also send to monitors or other UTP hubs or muxes at viewing locations or near them ... so they wont even need to use the network. basically you can do anything .. if they have cat5 running for the network or whatever, all you need to do is find spare pairs ..

 

Ideally they wont be monitoring it through the network on the property, as you would want real time high quality video with no possible drawbacks. If this is a security application you would not want 20 users monitoring the system anyway, especially over the network, just the security and perhaps management checking in, though they would not have to do this through the network. If anything a remote CMS would need network monotoring on certain events.

 

there are many ways for controlling the DVRs also, attaching muxes or whatnot .. you can control for example muxes up to 10,000 feet plus with a single keyboard over twisted pair (eg. GE), or loop them with either multiple muxes or multiple keyboards .. soo many things and all would be high quality video and no bandwidth issues.

 

I know what your saying, just add in a camera and boom its got its own ip .. but its not high quality real time motion video ... Ive seen most of the IP software and hardware 1st and 3rd party companies on the web and havent found any software that wasnt really cheesy .. not to mention most of them dont make the hardware themselves ofcourse .. most dont even have the compression down yet, Acti was one of the few that had low bandwidth for real time video, but still bandwidth issues and low quality can occur.

 

Id still use IP if it was a large wireless install, and i have quoted it before, for that reason, though i still didnt use IP cameras as they would not work in the locations, just video servers and switches.

 

Anyway, thats how i feel on the issue ..

[Thomas 0]

1/ I disagree...there are many things IP can do that analogue can not, the ability to adjust the streaming point and directional flow of the cameras data for one, several codecs in one camera for another, multiple streams, and video content analysis at the camera end, Higher resolutions and firmware upgrades, downloading of settings and alarm state to any IP address, and yes I realise a DVR can do a lot of this, but not all of it. IP servers can have protocols built in as well, menaing you do not need to run control cables for things such as access control and PTZ protocols, it is easier to interface a protocol to a camera than having to send it all the way back to the control room first.

 

2/POE is in most network devices I use already, I agree that if you are going to talk about the ability of a network cam to plug into an existing network, then it is unlikelty and messy if you have to add on...that said, imagine doing a shopping centre with 200 cameras, all individually run back to the DVR, that is a lot of labour hours, personally I would rather run one fibre and add switches near the camera locations, much less labour, I admit on a small job it is not worth it but on big ones the benefits are better

 

3/ I agree with point number three

 

1. Except that everything you mention can be done on the DVR end. It doesn't change much because you wouldn't set the settings on each camera by going to it via a web browser, or telenet or serial cable. Firmware updates are almost always going to be bug fixes and minor features. And keep in mind that you are going to have to maintain this set up. I can set up redunant DVRs for analog if I if I need to update/upgrade DVR. What happens if you have a bad firmware update? Well then I run on my redunant DVR for a while. Can you set up redunant cameras for this?

 

2. Except you still have the cable to run to each camera. Given the number of switches you will use, any labor cost savings are dead due to cost of switches. Also keep in mind you won't be able to use centralized power for those PoE switches if you don't run all of thier power sources back to the source.

 

I'm not saying IP is bad, just that it's advantages are limited. They are all great on paper, less great in the field.