Never really been sold on NVR's...yet

[Maui Custom Surveillance 0]

that why I put "~" for "approximate"

 

True, Im not disputing the higher quality video of a color IP camera.

Though going by the article above, their 0.4 Megapixel is 4Cif, thats 704x480.

 

See this thread here, the last post.

http://www.cctvforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6460

Most quality CCTV cameras are higher than D1.

 

I hardly know what to say, we are quibbling about whether analog cameras are .4 megapixel or .45 megapixel.

 

Meanwhile I'm installing three megapixel IP cameras, and I'm looking at eight megapixels in the near future

[Maui Custom Surveillance 0]

Whenever there are wires, you have the possibility of having your video feeds comprimised. Wireless/Solar on the other hand is much more difficult to bring down.

 

$0.02

 

I can bring down wireless with a microwave oven

[Maui Custom Surveillance 0]

Things such as performance, open

systems interoperability, flexibility, future-proof, and network

connectivity.

 

We've already debunked these Myths in other posts on the forum.

 

Also, Ive read that article also before, and the writer doesn't seem to have had much experience with CCTV.

 

Are you trying to say you have debunked all 10 points?

 

I am sorry I missed that debunking, maybe you could just debunked one of the 10 points for me?

 

Sorry, but there are many posts on the forum in reference to this already.

Thanks

Rory

 

I figured that might be your reply, that's why I was asking for only one

[ak357 0]

Maui I kinda agree with you

 

lately I do only megapix cam

and I love to compete with regular dealer

so far did not lose to nobody

unless customer want to buy "Webcams on Steroids" I sell them DVR

[rory 0]

Things such as performance

There is no improvement, actually most higher quality CCTV Cameras are better in this respect, especially with Day Night Infrared Applications.

 

open systems interoperability, flexibility

In case the author hasnt already seen it, www.NVT.com

Its been around for several years. Also, unless the IP System is wireless, there is still wire to be run, no different and no cheaper than RG59 cable, especially when you couple in the cost of the IP camera (megapixel or not).

 

future-proof, and network connectivity

DVRs are networked also, as are some CCTV cameras.

As to future proof, there is no way for them to know the future.

Also, PC parts will need to be changed over time.

 

1. End to interlace problems. An analog camera at high resolution

(4CIF) has a significant problem with interlacing. This is because

with an analog video signal, even when connected to a DVR, all

images are made up of lines, and each image is formed from two

interlaced fields. When an image has a lot of movement, the image

will become blurry. The blurriness results from the objects moving

between the image capture of the two interlaced fields. A network

camera employs “progressive scanâ€

Edited December 23, 2006 by Guest

[rory 0]

I figured that might be your reply, that's why I was asking for only one

 

Sorry, but after 10,000+ posts I tend not to like repeating myself these days, especially when I am in the middle of work, and there are already many threads and posts on the same topic .. but i took the time out just for you .. see above post ..

[Maui Custom Surveillance 0]

Things such as performance

There is no improvement, actually most higher quality CCTV Cameras are better in this respect, especially with Day Night Infrared Applications.

 

open systems interoperability, flexibility

In case the author hasnt already seen it, www.NVT.com

Its been around for several years. Also, unless the IP System is wireless, there is still wire to be run, no different and no cheaper than RG59 cable, especially when you couple in the cost of the IP camera (megapixel or not).

 

future-proof, and network connectivity

DVRs are networked also, as are some CCTV cameras.

As to future proof, there is no way for them to know the future.

Also, PC parts will need to be changed over time.

 

1. End to interlace problems. An analog camera at high resolution

(4CIF) has a significant problem with interlacing. This is because

with an analog video signal, even when connected to a DVR, all

images are made up of lines, and each image is formed from two

interlaced fields. When an image has a lot of movement, the image

will become blurry. The blurriness results from the objects moving

between the image capture of the two interlaced fields. A network

camera employs “progressive scanâ€

[rory 0]

Dont get defensive now, everything I pointed out are undisputed. The motherboards are not propriatory for PC DVRs. That would be a crazy price for wiring though, wow! I guess you called the wrong contractor

 

I have seen the Arcont camera, from a year ago. I dont see them advertising its night vision, I would like to see some demo shots with some Extreme CCTV UF500's flooding an area, but thats the problem with most if not all Network Camera manufacturers, they are mostly talk. I refuse to buy something that expensive to "test" these days. If I were to, I would go Panasonic, because they are proven in the CCTV world.

 

Remember this is a CCTV Forum, we use IP systems also, when needed, and most of us are involved in networking, but most of us do not use it religiously as well, there is no way that is all you could sell. Its like saying all we can Sell is a $5K DVR, Geez I just did a quote for $500!

 

Regardless of cost, I'd like to see a PC that can stream 16 cameras in 4000x pixels and record them at that, all at the same time in at least 7.5fps per camera. Definately everyone wants higher quality video, but most clients also want fast enough video to capture an event. More and more clients are going for faster video, over quality. When you can do both, using Hardware compression cards for example, real time video and high resolution, thats the way most clients will go. Avermedia has them, and Geo just released their hardware, and others have been doing them also for some time now.

 

A MegaPixel camera is not required to identify an object, capure a persons face or a licence plate; High Res CCTV cameras do this just fine. The argument is normally that you can use less Megapixel cameras, but thats also not the case in most applications, as they cannot see around a corner, through someone's head, wall, or vehicle, etc.

 

Like I mentioned before, Network Video Servers & Decoders (not neccessarily cameras) are definetely worth it in Wireless Installs where there are more than 16 cameras, or better yet, Temporary or distant camera installs.

 

No, Im afraid Network Cameras are not neccassarily the Future, they are here now and yet they have not taken over the industry; Noone knows what the future will bring, networks may become obsolete. The industry in question is still CCTV, ofcourse we will find more IT guys with little experience in CCTV going the Network Camera route, Less Security guys going the IP route, and Hybrid DVRs will see an influx for obvious reasons, but as for being the future of CCTV in the security world; the Network itself will always be the drawback, unless technology changes drastically.

Edited December 23, 2006 by Guest

[rory 0]

You should check out Arecont Vision 3Mpixel+1.3Mpixel Day/Night Network(IP) Camera. Really remarkable considering it isn't equipped with infrared, but you could easily add infrared if you needed to. There's no way an analog camera can compete with the IP camera with overly large 1.4 megapixel chips, more pixels takes in more details in the dark.

Actually lower resolution (420TVL) is preferred for Infrared Night Vision applications.

 

Some links to check out.

http://www.cctvforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6122

you could contact Extreme CCTV if interested in further details.

[kensplace 0]

My first digital camera, a ricoh rdc-2 was low res, but could take great photos in not so bright conditions, I upgraded to a 2.3 megapixel state of the art at the time rdc5000 and it was useless in anything less than perfect lighting.

 

Higher resolution does not always mean a larger ccd, they can just as easily, and usually do just put more pixels on the same size ccd - leading to much reduced night vision capabilities.

 

If the high res cams were any good at night vision, the manufacturers would have proof of this, but seeing as non of them that I know of seem to show any, I find that odd.

[rory 0]

Now to do the same job today, I would put in a commercial Asoka home plug standard switch. This commercial switch uses the existing power lines in a hotel or large building to create a network running up to 1000 foot. The switch has 23 ports, each port can support 15 devices at 85 megabyte per port. I can get the switches for under $3000, and the electrical contractor to install it for maybe $2000, for a net savings of $25,000. For $5,000 I can build one hell of a server. In fact, I could build a complete server for 16 IP cameras with the software for about $2500 my cost. Compare that with a $5,000 proprietary DVR! I sold a lot of DVR's, and after three years some of the motherboards started to burn out. They were totally proprietary, it cost $700 to replace a motherboard for a four camera DVR. With a NVR, you could run down to OfficeMax in an emergency an build a server the next day, just by changing out the network card and adding the archiving software's. I've got quite a number of installed 16 channel DVRs costing retail about $7,200, I'm going to really dread when these DVRs start burning up and I have to explain to the client how much it's going to cost to replace them.. I can build a pretty adequate server with the archiving software for about $2000, and for the $3000 savings I could just about replace most of their analog cameras to boot. Even without the Asoka switch, for this particular hotel I only need to run one ethernet connection to the rooftop, and with a switch connect the other six cameras, instead of having to run six different coaxial cables. And ethernet is much easier to pull.

 

I would have directed you to www.NVT.com

1 Multipair UTP cable to the Roof top location, into a punch block.

Active Receiver and Transmitters for amplified Real Time Motion video without any bandwidth or ground loop issues.

 

And also a decent PC based DVR System, instead of an Embedded DVR.

Video Insight and Avermedia also sell Hybrid PC Based DVR systems, which can be used with CCTV and Network cameras/servers. Costs are much less than the prices quoted above. Parts are also standard PC parts so maintenance is not an issue. GeoVision also now sells a Video Server, which can be added to any CCTV camera (including $50 bullet cameras), to send video over a Lan or Wan to a Remote DVR for recording, essentially making that DVR a Hybrid System.

Edited December 23, 2006 by Guest

[rory 0]

My first digital camera, a ricoh rdc-2 was low res, but could take great photos in not so bright conditions, I upgraded to a 2.3 megapixel state of the art at the time rdc5000 and it was useless in anything less than perfect lighting.

 

Higher resolution does not always mean a larger ccd, they can just as easily, and usually do just put more pixels on the same size ccd - leading to much reduced night vision capabilities.

 

If the high res cams were any good at night vision, the manufacturers would have proof of this, but seeing as non of them that I know of seem to show any, I find that odd.

 

I would love to use a MP camera and NVR system that does what my DVR systems can, and at the same low cost, but to date I have not seen anything that comes close. Anyway most clients these days cant even afford the High Res CCTV Box cameras, so to put food on the table, most people in the industry must sell cheaper budget bullet cameras.

[Maui Custom Surveillance 0]

Dont get defensive now, everything I pointed out are undisputed. The motherboards are not propriatory for PC DVRs. That would be a crazy price for wiring though, wow! I guess you called the wrong contractor

 

I have seen the Arcont camera, from a year ago. I dont see them advertising its night vision, I would like to see some demo shots with some Extreme CCTV UF500's flooding an area, but thats the problem with most if not all Network Camera manufacturers, they are mostly talk. I refuse to buy something that expensive to "test" these days. If I were to, I would go Panasonic, because they are proven in the CCTV world.

 

Remember this is a CCTV Forum, we use IP systems also, when needed, and most of us are involved in networking, but most of us do not use it religiously as well, there is no way that is all you could sell. Its like saying all we can Sell is a $5K DVR, Geez I just did a quote for $500!

 

Regardless of cost, I'd like to see a PC that can stream 16 cameras in 4000x pixels and record them at that, all at the same time in at least 7.5fps per camera. Definately everyone wants higher quality video, but most clients also want fast enough video to capture an event. More and more clients are going for faster video, over quality. When you can do both, using Hardware compression cards for example, real time video and high resolution, thats the way most clients will go. Avermedia has them, and Geo just released their hardware, and others have been doing them also for some time now.

 

A MegaPixel camera is not required to identify an object, capure a persons face or a licence plate; High Res CCTV cameras do this just fine. The argument is normally that you can use less Megapixel cameras, but thats also not the case in most applications, as they cannot see around a corner, through someone's head, wall, or vehicle, etc.

 

Like I mentioned before, Network Video Servers & Decoders (not neccessarily cameras) are definetely worth it in Wireless Installs where there are more than 16 cameras, or better yet, Temporary or distant camera installs.

 

No, Im afraid Network Cameras are not neccassarily the Future, they are here now and yet they have not taken over the industry; Noone knows what the future will bring, networks may become obsolete. The industry in question is still CCTV, ofcourse we will find more IT guys with little experience in CCTV going the Network Camera route, Less Security guys going the IP route, and Hybrid DVRs will see an influx for obvious reasons, but as for being the future of CCTV in the security world; the Network itself will always be the drawback, unless technology changes drastically.

 

I hope I not sound too defensive, but it was late.

 

Yes that $30,000 quote was rather it extravagant, but I had more than one quote in about the same price range, this is Maui after all. Plus, these hotels are huge, and the location of some of the cameras were nearly impossible. Imagine tearing out the walls of a plush hotel while it's occupied to install wiring.

 

Regarding your questions about the 16 camera system, admittedly I have not built a 16 camera IP system yet. I have only got up to eight cameras so far, and I would certainly be asking a lot of questions from a lot of people if I were to go to 16 and expect a high frame rate. I am not entirely an IP camera company, I will install DVRs in some instances, I guess I will have to look into some of the new DVRs you are describing for they may be suitable in some instances. As you know, every client has different expectations and needs, so a system has to be designed around those. For instance, I can tolerate three fps of high definition overlooking a parking lot, whereas if I am watching a bartender I would prefer a full 30 frames, and would go to a lower resolution to get it. But that's the thing about IP cameras, I can configure the system either way for the most part. I have never attempted to get 30 frames a second for 16 cameras for instance, I'm not certain that it's possible for an IP camera. Of course, none of my DVRs were capable of that either, but maybe you could suggest one that is capable, I would be interested. So the question of frames per second versus quality is all a matter of application. My DVRs have overall faster frame rate in the IP cameras, but they are of such low resolution running in h.264, that many times license plates and faces are unrecognizable. One thing about having a lot of DVR analog experience, and then switching over to IP cameras, I can revisit in my imagination former analog projects and their difficulties and limitations, and compare them to the newer IP systems. I know one thing for certain, I would have done things much differently in the past if I had access to the newer systems. More than once I would visit a client who had an event, and called me to help him with his new DVR, to copy the event to a CD-ROM for instance for the police. And after spending $15,000, not being able to clearly recognize people, and the police would just say we cannot help you with such a picture.

 

When you say megapixel cameras are not required to identify a person or a license plate, I would like to be convinced, but it a maximum of ..45 megapixels, I don't see how that's possible. The reason I say this is because when I choose a megapixel camera, whether it's a 1.3 megapixel, a 2.1 megapixel, or a 3.1 megapixel, it depends on how far the camera is from say were a car stops to Punch in access codes to open a gate, how many feet depends on which megapixel camera I choose. Most the time it's at least 2.1 megapixel, if I go to 1.3 megapixel, the license plate is no longer legible if it is over 25 foot away, what to say of a .45 megapixel analog camera no matter what kind of DVR running on.

 

Re: the argument about using less megapixel cameras then analog cameras on a project, depends entirely on the layout. For instance, I did a 16 camera DVR for a gas station once. The client was adamant about capturing license plates because of all the drive offs. I tried analog cameras of every kind, but the roof of the overhang for the gas station was approximately 15 foot high, and from that height no matter what camera I tested I could not read a license plate. I actually ended up running conduit down the polls and installing peephole cameras at waist height to capture the license plates as the car drove by to satisfy this client. It worked pretty good, but it was expensive. We had to dig up the pavement to run the conduit out to the gas pumps, there were eight cameras located out at the pumps including the ones to catch the license plates. Now, I might have ran a conduit out to a poll on the corner of the property, and installed one day night 3.1 megapixel camera, and captured every license plate and every car that entered or left that gas station in much more detail than all of the eight analog cameras that were installed with much cost. Of course, you would have to have the right line of sight to do that with one camera, it might take three cameras, but even that would be an improvement over the eight analog. When I do surveys now, it's from an entirely different perspective taking into account megapixel capture.

[Maui Custom Surveillance 0]

You should check out Arecont Vision 3Mpixel+1.3Mpixel Day/Night Network(IP) Camera. Really remarkable considering it isn't equipped with infrared, but you could easily add infrared if you needed to. There's no way an analog camera can compete with the IP camera with overly large 1.4 megapixel chips, more pixels takes in more details in the dark.

Actually lower resolution (420TVL) is preferred for Infrared Night Vision applications.

 

Some links to check out.

http://www.cctvforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6122

you could contact Extreme CCTV if interested in further details.

 

That is correct, that is why the Arecont Vision 3Mpixel+1.3Mpixel Day/Night Network(IP) Camera, has two ccd chips and two lenses, one for day at 3.1 megapixel, and one for night at 1.4 megapixel. And according to the manufacturer's advertisements, the 1.4 megapixel is on a larger ccd chip to take in more light, and since it is for night time only in monochrome, there is no RF filter.

 

I have a lot of experience with night vision cameras with infrared. There was one difficult project I recall, consisting of 10 mansions on the beach, each worth $10 million, and beach people were coming up from the beach and swimming in the rich people's hot tubs and swimming pools, for the most part these large homes are not occupied most the time of the year and the resident manager is not always able to catch these people. So I put up a number of infrared cameras, the name of which, slips my mind. The client was not entirely happy with the nighttime pictures, so I spent the next year testing eight different cameras at that location, some quite expensive, and ended up keeping the originals. The infrared was built into the cameras, and could see about 60 foot with 6 mm lens, there was absolutely no light source other than the cameras and the moon.

I would like to see what the Arecont Vision 3Mpixel+1.3Mpixel Day/Night Network(IP) is capable of with an illuminator

Here's a link to a picture I just put up for you showing a nighttime picture last night, there is no moon, and the lights you see are not spotlights.

 

http://mauics.com/puamana/nightc.jpg

[rory 0]

I hear yah man . hey we are here to learn from each other ..

Ive used Luxriot before, just tested only though.. posted some stuff about that actually in the DVR Card section as it works for both. They are a member on the forum also. .

[rory 0]

When you say megapixel cameras are not required to identify a person or a license plate, I would like to be convinced, but it a maximum of ..45 megapixels, I don't see how that's possible. .

 

Licence Plates are difficult with CCTV cameras, but basically once the camera is manually zoomed in on the width of the vehicle it is not a problem, though there are LPR cameras designed for this.

http://www.extremecctv.com/products.php?producttype_id=6&whichpage=1

http://www.bahamassecurity.com/ExtremeREG/

 

Most other identification is easy enough, once the lens is not too wide and the object is not too far.

[rory 0]

Here's a link to a picture I just put up for you showing a nighttime picture last night, there is no moon, and the lights you see are not spotlights.

http://mauics.com/puamana/nightc.jpg

 

thanks .. yep i seem to be the only one on this island here that always gets stuck with low light apps .. or pitch dark in a few cases .. almost every app ive done has been light challenging .. Id just like a simple one for a change ... .. Arghh.

 

I wish someone could persuade Arcont to set up a demo with some UF100's and UF500's .. then again most manufacturers dont do that anyway, including GE, Bosch, etc .. but would be nice

 

PS. Doesnt Arcont have its own software.. Is Luxriot better than it?

[WirelessEye 0]

Whenever there are wires, you have the possibility of having your video feeds comprimised. Wireless/Solar on the other hand is much more difficult to bring down.

 

$0.02

 

I can bring down wireless with a microwave oven

 

Are you for real? I'd really like to see you bring down any of our wireless equipment with a microwave oven.... Since 90% of microwaves use ~2.4GHz and the other 10% use 915MHz, our equipment wouldn't even know the microwave was there.

[Maui Custom Surveillance 0]

Whenever there are wires, you have the possibility of having your video feeds comprimised. Wireless/Solar on the other hand is much more difficult to bring down.

 

$0.02

 

I can bring down wireless with a microwave oven

 

Are you for real? I'd really like to see you bring down any of our wireless equipment with a microwave oven.... Since 90% of microwaves use ~2.4GHz and the other 10% use 915MHz, our equipment wouldn't even know the microwave was there.

 

I guess I'm behind the times concerning wireless transmission of analog signals, what exactly is" our equipment"

[WirelessEye 0]

Whenever there are wires, you have the possibility of having your video feeds comprimised. Wireless/Solar on the other hand is much more difficult to bring down.

 

$0.02

 

I can bring down wireless with a microwave oven

 

Are you for real? I'd really like to see you bring down any of our wireless equipment with a microwave oven.... Since 90% of microwaves use ~2.4GHz and the other 10% use 915MHz, our equipment wouldn't even know the microwave was there.

 

I guess I'm behind the times concerning wireless transmission of analog signals, what exactly is" our equipment"

 

Our equipment is higher frequency (>5Ghz)

[Maui Custom Surveillance 0]

Whenever there are wires, you have the possibility of having your video feeds comprimised. Wireless/Solar on the other hand is much more difficult to bring down.

 

$0.02

 

I can bring down wireless with a microwave oven

 

Are you for real? I'd really like to see you bring down any of our wireless equipment with a microwave oven.... Since 90% of microwaves use ~2.4GHz and the other 10% use 915MHz, our equipment wouldn't even know the microwave was there.

 

I guess I'm behind the times concerning wireless transmission of analog signals, what exactly is" our equipment"

 

Our equipment is higher frequency (>5Ghz)

I think you mentioned it was extra high frequency, but what is the name and model of the equipment?

[WirelessEye 0]

Whenever there are wires, you have the possibility of having your video feeds comprimised. Wireless/Solar on the other hand is much more difficult to bring down.

 

$0.02

 

I can bring down wireless with a microwave oven

 

Are you for real? I'd really like to see you bring down any of our wireless equipment with a microwave oven.... Since 90% of microwaves use ~2.4GHz and the other 10% use 915MHz, our equipment wouldn't even know the microwave was there.

 

I guess I'm behind the times concerning wireless transmission of analog signals, what exactly is" our equipment"

 

Our equipment is higher frequency (>5Ghz)

I think you mentioned it was extra high frequency, but what is the name and model of the equipment?

 

No names or models to give:

 

We build our radios in-house from components we have tested to work well together to get optimum throughput, range and minimal signal loss--certainly better than any overpriced, off the shelf systems we've tried in the past.

[cctv_down_under 0]

That is a huge post and I really do not have time to go through it all but there are a lot of things that could be debunked and Analogue could make several lists themselves..here are just a few that are not mentioned by your average IP cam sales person.

 

1/ Hard wired cameras are always more reliable.

2/ Hard wired cameras are considerably cheaper.

3/ The same capture technology is in each camera that is in a DVR, it is only resolution that differs.

4/ Progressive wscan is available in Analogue cameras.

5/ When a network goes down the recording stops ...PRETTY CRITICAL POINT..this means a simple virus can effect the entire network

6/ Have you ever unplugged a network socket..pretty simple way to disable a system.

7/ Even if the network dies a analogue system is still recording.

8/ The cost savings will only work for new business without large core infracture to begin with...keep in mind that the ONLY time network becomes cheaper is when a large number of cameras are used and unfortunately this usually means you CAN NOT use existing infrastructure and therefore you need a seperate network.

9/ Networked systems run through many points giving many points of weakness, you will still need to cable to the camera becasue it is unlikely that you will ever put a camera only looking at a hub or switch!

10/ To upgrade a 64ch DVR system to later technolgy compression requires the replacement of 2 DVRS as apposed to replacing 64 cameras as the compression is on the camera.

11/ It is easier to find a larger variety of performing types of cameras in analogue compared to IP, I am yet to see a specialised explosion proof or freezer camera?

12/ It is easier to add several brands of analogue cameras to a system than it is of IP cameras.

13/ More bandwidth is required from IP cameras than that of a DVR because you can stream and record differently on a DVR unit.

14/ IP cameras are much harder to trouble shoot, for example a firewall etc?

 

Personally I like IP cameras and I use them a lot, I think the resolution will see IP cams take over...but ONLY when storage and bandwidth are available for it (wont be long) the ONE thing that stops me using them is the fact that if the network goes down THERE IS NO RECORDING (ON MOST MODELS) this is TOO important to ignore!

[WirelessEye 0]

1/ Unless someone has wire cutters.

2/ Only if you don't have to trench more than 3 feet.

3/ Not sure what you mean here.

4/ Any anolog camera can be IP adapted.

5/ When someone cuts your wiring the recoding stops too.

6/ Have you ever unplugged a BNC cable?

7/ Never actually seen a network "die".

8/ QOS networking allows you to use equipment on any existing network without effecting the existing network.

9/ I would rather have 3 feet of Cat5 going into a router than hundreds of feet of RG-59 into a DVR.

10/ Most IP cameras have firmware flashes that make them relatively future-proof. You cannot flash an anolog camera. At the same time, when you IP enable an analog camera, you can easily upgrade the device that IP enables it.

11/ All you have to do is get an Ex-site from Pelco (or anyone for that matter) and hook a video server up to it.

12/ We have numerous IP brands, all running on the same system and flawlessly.

13/ DVR's are old school. The latest compression technologies are being implemented faster in the IP arena than in "retrofitted" DVR's. Our NVR can bring in full resolution MJPEG, MPEG-4 and H.264 and then stream it to remote clients in any resolution and/or codec. I don't know of any DVR's that can do that.

14/ Not if you have a Network Admin on staff.

[rory 0]

1/ Unless someone has wire cutters.

dont think wire cutters will cut through conduit. in any event coax is tougher to cut/break than cat5. overall it is much more reliable cable, unless the cat5 is run in conduit, it is a security risk; though same could be said for Coax.

 

2/ Only if you don't have to trench more than 3 feet.

it is cheaper anyway you look at it.

 

6/ Have you ever unplugged a BNC cable?

first you have to get to the DVR.

You never let the network admin or any other IT guys near the DVR or any Security system. With the IP only system they have to be there to maintain it .. security risk.

 

9/ I would rather have 3 feet of Cat5 going into a router than hundreds of feet of RG-59 into a DVR.

You will have equal amounts of cat5. We arent talking wireless here.

 

10/ Most IP cameras have firmware flashes that make them relatively future-proof. You cannot flash an anolog camera. At the same time, when you IP enable an analog camera, you can easily upgrade the device that IP enables it.

Actually you can flash upgrade "some" Digital CCTV Cameras.

 

13/ DVR's are old school. The latest compression technologies are being implemented faster in the IP arena than in "retrofitted" DVR's. Our NVR can bring in full resolution MJPEG, MPEG-4 and H.264 and then stream it to remote clients in any resolution and/or codec. I don't know of any DVR's that can do that.

DVR's are still relatively new, and they are improving just as any other technology is.

 

14/ Not if you have a Network Admin on staff.

Most small businesses and even luxury homes, dont have that.

 

In any event, I can see the usefullness for large wireless jobs, or remote single camera jobs, highway cameras, etc, but for most installs CCTV cameras and a DVR would be the best application, not to mention the lower cost. When an IP camera is $50 let me know ..