How to handle 100 units of IP camera??

[dannyhong 0]

Our company currently preparing a proposal which requires 100 cameras to be viewed in monitoring centre. Please check the scenario show at below:

 

1. All 100 cameras install in 40 outlets. This should not be the problem as each outlet only requires 2 or 3 cameras to be installed. The problem that we are facing is in HQ. They want to view 100 cameras at their HQ. can you provide me some suggestion about this project?

 

Please consider the aspects of below:

1. Internet connection?

2. How many PC or Server?

3. Current software only can supports up to 16 channels.

4. Speed

5. Performance

6. Frame per second

[CollinR 0]

Probably not cost effective.

 

Explain to them exactly how much data they are taking about moving.

[rory 0]

1. Internet connection?

They will need to pay for some mega bandwidth

 

2. How many PC or Server?

well depends on the amount of cameras ... and the server's you will be building.

 

3. Current software only can supports up to 16 channels.

Ahh, you can get software to handle much more than that, MileStone for example, or even customize your own.

 

4. Speed

5. Performance

6. Frame per second

THis is where you will need to get the buggest baddest superfast LAN ...

 

Look at other options, such as CCTV ... IP isnt CCTV ... if the cable runs are long then look at either UTP gear (cat5, etc such as NVT.com), or Fiber.

 

Either put certain areas on their own DVR .. like 8 cameras in section A could have a 8 channel DVR, 4 Cameras in section B could have a 4 channel, etc .. Look at the Geo Vision and also their Center Software ..

 

You could also home run them all or to certain "blocks" .. then rack mount Servers, 16 channel for each one ..

 

Anyway there are a lot of options,

 

Rory

[dannyhong 0]

Applying DVR is not suitable as all the camera is IP based, unless we get a NVR but very expensive. They are viewing through Internet, not through LAN. That's why it troubles me a lot. I am planning to get 7 PCs for 4 internet lines, each PC views 16 cameras. How do you think? Some of them said getting 2 servers to handle 100 cameras, 2 broadband lines.

However, I wonder how would the speed is if each server handles 50 cameras, some more they want to do recording.

[Thomas 0]

What kinds of speeds are we talking about here? Because your idea of 50 cameras per machine...it's very, very high.

 

And it sounds like you purchaced the cameras already?

[Ronnstor 0]

Check out Lenel OnGuard video management software. They will be releasing recorded video analytics soon that are very cost effective when considering hard drive space for recording. Because the system is digital it is completely scalable.

 

You can establish unacceptable behaviors, based on what the business activity is and manage by exception. We use a Dell PowerEdge 2850 with a Raid 5 configuration and are running about 15 fps using mjpeg format.

[WirelessEye 0]

We bring in a ton of IP Camera feeds into our central monitoring station.

 

We currently have the capability to watch 200 feeds in our 2000 sq. ft. complex, and will soon be expanding our capability to 600 and over 6000 sq. ft. It does take a ton of servers, a massive SAN, ultra-mega-ungodly internet pipe, a rather large monitoring staff (with IV's full of coffee) and robust A/V equipment. But it's only money. =) Speed and performance are probably the best you can get with remote IP cams.

 

Since 50% of our feeds are WLAN, our internet pipe doesn't have to be nearly as large as anyone else who is attempting to do what we do, but soon we'll be in the OC-12'ish area.

 

I would make sure the monitoring center can handle that amount of cameras. I don't know of many that have the infrastructure, or the money to upgrade their infrastructure to meet your needs.

[CollinR 0]

We bring in a ton of IP Camera feeds into our central monitoring station.

 

We currently have the capability to watch 200 feeds in our 2000 sq. ft. complex, and will soon be expanding our capability to 600 and over 6000 sq. ft. It does take a ton of servers, a massive SAN, ultra-mega-ungodly internet pipe, a rather large monitoring staff (with IV's full of coffee) and robust A/V equipment. But it's only money. =) Speed and performance are probably the best you can get with remote IP cams.

 

Since 50% of our feeds are WLAN, our internet pipe doesn't have to be nearly as large as anyone else who is attempting to do what we do, but soon we'll be in the OC-12'ish area.

 

I would make sure the monitoring center can handle that amount of cameras. I don't know of many that have the infrastructure, or the money to upgrade their infrastructure to meet your needs.

 

 

A mild suggestion... Might look into budding up with a hosting company. The best thing about hosting companies is their bandwidth is often going the other way. Either that or start hosting webspace too, your current subsciption system might be able to handle some of that too.

[cctv_down_under 0]

Youa re going to want to set up a private IP network, you do not need to big a conenction if only three cameras or so at each site and I agree that Ip is the way to go, the bys are right the biggest headache is going to be the control room, sometimes it is better to have several sites for this spread out, but you need to add up the bandwisth coming in, you will definately need at least three NVManagers and three NVR recording servers, the most important thing is to consider your flow of traffic....you will need multiple lines coming in and what aboiut redundancy?

 

Your best bet is to talk to an ISP becasue 40 odd sites would be large enough to raise interest to help you, work out your back bone and then there are many options to allow for the control you need, there are plenty of bandwidth calculators around so it should be easy enough to work out

[kelvin 0]

I will suggest install video server in each outlet for direct internet connection without pass through the PC or DVR. The recording will be done in the HQ.

 

reason

- save cost on purchase PC or DVR

- less maintenance on the 40 outlet in future

- avoid intruder harm your PC/DVR becox it is common to see intruder harm or direct bring the PC/DVR away

- Video server allow multi-site preview, record and playback in the same time

- Able to Remote Central Managment via LAN or internet

- Remote control via specific IP video.

- Remote anolog video through LAN or internet

- Less bandwidth

- Able to fix with different type of camera based on site requirement

 

Specification

- 2ch or 4ch video server depend on the outlet camera need.

- MPEG4 - Smaller file size and better quality

- CIF resolution - medium resolution but can avoid of bandwidth bottle neck in HQ remote view/record/playback. Most important less internet monthly subscription unless you have the budget then you may think to go for D1 resolution.

- 5-7fps remote view/recording - less kbps to download in HQ. can avoid of bandwidth bottle neck in HQ remote view/record/playback. still the same...unless you got the budget then may go for high FPS.

- Auto reconnect function

- Remote Motion/Schedule/Continuous recording

 

For HQ

- 7 PCs and each pc with 16 video - less burden on the RAM, graphic board...etc

- internet access with dynamic IP or fix IP

- use bandwidth management controller to control the bandwidth run in smooth and faster condition

 

Most important you have to understand by yourself what do you want this surveillance system to do for you and what is your budget limit. Then you will come out with a clear picture on which product will be more suitable to you.

[Thomas 0]

- use bandwidth management controller to control the bandwidth run in smooth and faster condition

 

Yes, this is called your network admin. Given the amount of bandwith this is going to require, you need a networking guy. While there is some software that will help, you'll be looking at the high end networking gear and you'll need someone with skills to tweak it.

[WirelessEye 0]

MPEG4 - Smaller file size and better quality?

 

h.263 is much smaller in terms of bandwidth (about 90% smaller) in my experience, however quality suffers. h.264 works by only decoding the pixels which have changed, and it does this in a "block mode". The lower the resolution, the more evident you'll see this. h.264 on the other hand is actually smaller than h.263, but is broadcast quality with much less blocking. Make sure you know what you're getting.

 

But looking at the rest of your issues, this will be the least of your problems.

[kelvin 0]

MPEG4 - Smaller file size and better quality?

 

h.263 is much smaller in terms of bandwidth (about 90% smaller) in my experience, however quality suffers. h.264 works by only decoding the pixels which have changed, and it does this in a "block mode". The lower the resolution, the more evident you'll see this. h.264 on the other hand is actually smaller than h.263, but is broadcast quality with much less blocking. Make sure you know what you're getting.

 

But looking at the rest of your issues, this will be the least of your problems.

 

 

 

Of course H.264 compression file size definitely smaller than MPEG4. But in term of pricing..... it is pretty "nice" as well. Let's imagine 100 units of H.264 IP cameras or video server, how much will it cost.......hehe

[WirelessEye 0]

MPEG4 - Smaller file size and better quality?

 

h.263 is much smaller in terms of bandwidth (about 90% smaller) in my experience, however quality suffers. h.264 works by only decoding the pixels which have changed, and it does this in a "block mode". The lower the resolution, the more evident you'll see this. h.264 on the other hand is actually smaller than h.263, but is broadcast quality with much less blocking. Make sure you know what you're getting.

 

But looking at the rest of your issues, this will be the least of your problems.

 

 

 

Of course H.264 compression file size definitely smaller than MPEG4. But in term of pricing..... it is pretty "nice" as well. Let's imagine 100 units of H.264 IP cameras or video server, how much will it cost.......hehe

 

True, but since you are on costs, you must look at the BIGGER picture: Bandwidth Costs. Wouldn't you rather have a little more expensive up-front cost, and save a ton of $$ a month on what is already going to be super high bandwidth costs?