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

[WirelessEye 0]

1/ I agree. However high frequency wireless is difficult if not impossible to jam, and impossilbe to cut wiring on.

 

2/ Wireless is cheaper if there is trenching and conduit isn't free either...

 

6/ We have a protected Network room. Unless an employee cuts the IT guys eyeball out to get past the scanner, no one is getting in.

 

9/ I am talking about wireless.

 

10/ True- But you generally cannot update their technology (for example sony camera flashes can allow for new codecs and features).

 

13/ DVR's for security are still alive and kicking, but let's be honest, they are a dieing breed. They are generally proprietary and typically limited in expansion. NVR's on the other hand can use numerous software packages and since they are running on PC's that are much more upgradeable than a DVR based system, you aren't stuck in a couple of years when more cameras are needed, etc.

 

14/ If it is a small business or a luxury home, then the network would be bare bones anyhow.

 

Believe it or not, we are starting to have some clients that RFQ'ing "sold systems" that require DVR's. However, we have built and maintained a very successful CCTV business and have not used a single DVR while doing it. What that allows us to do is change with the times-- without changing all of our hardware.

[rory 0]

Can you install an IP system in a home or business for under $3000, or better yet, $500? Thats the majority of customers these days, with the cost of living so high, there are more and more people that are just not willing to pay for high cost toys these days. If you are only targeting the rich, fine, but the majority of people in the security industry cannot rely on the rich alone.

 

You may have a protected Network room, but thats not the case with the majority of businesses in the world. If anything their security is very minimal. Course this is a problem regardless of using IP or CCTV systems.

 

Either way, DVRs are definitely not a dying breed in the security world. If anything they are advancing more and more. We have to distinguish between a Proprietory Embedded Stand Alone System, and the PC DVR Systems. Whether you have an NVR or a PC DVR, PC parts are going to change, so with both of them you will be upgrading them over time. DVR software changes and is updated regularly. Even with the Embedded Standalones, you can flash them with updated Bin files in most cases, though they typically lack the hardware upgrade features. Network hardware will also change, whether using a DVR or an NVR, that will also require replacement or upgrades.

 

Network's may become obselete in 2 years, 5 years, or 10 years from now, who knows, some new technology may appear and push it on the side. Ofcourse this will mean all Network based DVRs and NVRs would need replacing or upgrading .. but the CCTV cameras would still work

 

Hey, there's a market for both, but the myths that the NVR marketers come up with against using a DVR are just incorrect.

[jisaac 0]

instead of bickering over what is best why dont you:

 

continue to do what makes you the most money.

 

if you are not making money then change your tactics.

Honestly I would much rather install basic dvr systems with home run cables. But the times ARE changing I am have to change with them. We are installing more and more IP systems and nvr's. Why? because if did not then we would have sold alot less last year.

[WirelessEye 0]

I wouldn't install any CCTV system that was $500. I wouldn't install anything that's less than $2,00 for that matter. There's simply no money in it, and using equipment that is inexpensive generally yeilds unfavorable results. Not only that, but we don't do residential because there is little or no profit margin like there is for commercial and industrial. Also, since we don't sell hardware, we sell service, we keep the equipment and must warranty it for the life of the contract. I don't want to have to replace cheap equipment that has a lot MTBF.

 

Anyhow, DVR's do have their place, albeit a shrinking place. You must at least admit that. Anyone who has been going to security shows for the past 4 years has seen the trend of DVR booths getting fewer and fewer.

 

It is important that we discuss what a DVR really is-- it is a computer with hard drives in it, that uses software to do a job. Now lets discuss what an NVR is-- it is a compuer with hard drives in it, that uses software to do a job. The only difference is the NVR can use any software you want it to, and you can upgrade it more readily. True, DVR's can be upgraded as well, but not as easy as an NVR as the DVR is limited by it's internal software and hardware setup. Our NVR can support UNLIMITED cameras. As far as I know, that isn't even possible with a DVR.

 

For what it's worth, I know there will always be DVR's. However there will be fewer as time goes on, and that's not because analog cameras aren't great. It's because just like with 50" plasma tv's started off at $15,000, they are now < $2,000 and the same is happening in IP.

[jisaac 0]

Can you install an IP system in a home or business for under $3000, or better yet, $500? Thats the majority of customers these days, with the cost of living so high, there are more and more people that are just not willing to pay for high cost toys these days. .

 

thats what I think alot of peoples problem is that they feel that what they are selling is exactly that.....TOYS. Of course people are going to want to pay 500 or 2000 for toys. We install 10,000 to 20,000 dollar residental systems 3 or 4 times a month that never get above 4 cameras each. There is a huge market for high end residentals. You just cant be associated with cheap systems if you want to tap it.

[rory 0]

I wouldn't install any CCTV system that was $500. I wouldn't install anything that's less than $2,00 for that matter. There's simply no money in it, and using equipment that is inexpensive generally yeilds unfavorable results. Not only that, but we don't do residential because there is little or no profit margin like there is for commercial and industrial. Also, since we don't sell hardware, we sell service, we keep the equipment and must warranty it for the life of the contract. I don't want to have to replace cheap equipment that has a lot MTBF.

 

Anyhow, DVR's do have their place, albeit a shrinking place. You must at least admit that. Anyone who has been going to security shows for the past 4 years has seen the trend of DVR booths getting fewer and fewer.

 

It is important that we discuss what a DVR really is-- it is a computer with hard drives in it, that uses software to do a job. Now lets discuss what an NVR is-- it is a compuer with hard drives in it, that uses software to do a job. The only difference is the NVR can use any software you want it to, and you can upgrade it more readily. True, DVR's can be upgraded as well, but not as easy as an NVR as the DVR is limited by it's internal software and hardware setup. Our NVR can support UNLIMITED cameras. As far as I know, that isn't even possible with a DVR.

 

For what it's worth, I know there will always be DVR's. However there will be fewer as time goes on, and that's not because analog cameras aren't great. It's because just like with 50" plasma tv's started off at $15,000, they are now < $2,000 and the same is happening in IP.

 

Im glad you have enough business that you can be picky .. most of us cannot though.

 

Yep, and the Plasma quality hasn't got any better

[rory 0]

thats what I think alot of peoples problem is that they feel that what they are selling is exactly that.....TOYS. Of course people are going to want to pay 500 or 2000 for toys. We install 10,000 to 20,000 dollar residental systems 3 or 4 times a month that never get above 4 cameras each. There is a huge market for high end residentals. You just cant be associated with cheap systems if you want to tap it.

 

didnt you use to only sell mace?

[WirelessEye 0]

Im glad you have enough business that you can be picky .. most of us cannot though.

 

Yep, and the Plasma quality hasn't got any better

 

Ever hear of 1080p resolution? Primo picture for Blue Ray and HD DVD.

[jisaac 0]

didnt you USE to only sell mace?

 

sure did. Which proves my point. When I used to sell mace I had a hard time selling any high end systems. Cut them out, only sold high end systems and sold 2.2 million last year.

[kensplace 0]

Wirelesseye, you normally dont make me cough, but when you said your nvr can support unlimited cameras, well, I did.....

 

Unlimited cameras? Even the worlds best systems, all networked together cannot support that.. Its a stupid statement, typical of what IP people come out with.......

[cctv_down_under 0]

1/ Unless someone has wire cutters.

I find this an idiotic statement, if a person wants to disable a security system they most certainly can, what I was trying to say originally is that you can have a DVR hard wired and still use it on the network, however the hard wired part is not as likely to have a problem becasue it is indeed hard wired and not succeptable to a netwrok crash, I find it insulting to my intelligence if you are going to pretend that a network will never crash as it is highly possible at some point and unrealistic to assume it will never happen.

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

Once again I disagree, I was talking about the actual camera device and NVR software compared to an analogue camera and a DVR unit, I will admit though that IF and I do say "IF" you can use an existing network then it is obviously cheaper but it is RARE that you can and achieve full resolution and limited compression of numerous cameras, there is also a point that must be considered....Imagine doing a shopping centre...well there would be hundreds of cameras, the labour alone to run hundreds of cables is extreemly expensive and having one fibre ring can realy reap savings benefits so I was wrong when discussing IP with large numbers of cameras.

3/ Not sure what you mean here.

To clarify, the Network IP cam consisits of a the same things found in a DVR the only difference is that they are in the camera...the dvr does the compression or the camera does there is no real difference except the ones that you rightly pointed out...larger resolution, less processing load and the ability to use PTZ through ethernet..but that can be achieved in DVR's as well...however transporting the signal a long way is easier with IP cams.

4/ Any anolog camera can be IP adapted.

I do not recall ever saying they could not be! A simple webserver can be used on any video feed (almost any).

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

This is true, but most of the time that wiring is in the roof and a lot harder to get at than a data port...my point is not about the fallability of cutting wires because it affects both...my point is that a network failure or one bad hub etc can stop the recording, ...by making it ONLY IP you remove the redundancy or hard wired cables and you casue the system to haev many more parts (hubs,switches etc) and therefore more risk of failure

6/ Have you ever unplugged a BNC cable?

I certainly hope so...but in order to do so I would have to be at the back of the DVR or on a ladder, Once again, if you wish to bring down a CCTV system then both are fallable and I was not saying you could not do it to a DVR system, I was just pointing out that they are both easy to tamper with.

7/ Never actually seen a network "die".

Perhaps "Crash" is a better term then...for gods sake if you have never seen a netwrok crash then i would find it hard to beleive you have seen many networks or ever worked for business that has one!

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

This is true but......if your pipe is only so big, then you QOS your butt off and i am sure it will be MORE stable but will you have the space to get the reult in resolution and compression, the fact is if sharing a network and especially an older one, the chances of you streaming many cameras onto their network at full resolution would require you to QOS until their normal other network needs had no room or visa versa, too little room for the video...video = bandwidth!

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

I wouldn't !!!!!! I would rather have one long run...for the simple reason that it has less points of weakness and I might add that if you were mounting a camera 3 feet from a router are you only ever going to put cams in network rooms, becasue I would assume most cameras would be more than three feet from the nearest router!

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.

You are a long way off here: A/ All the cameras I use can be firmware upgraded up the Coax Cable and this has been true for quite some time.

B/ Upgrading a webserver will not change the compression chip inside it (I could be wrong here) C/ Think about this...if you had two 16 cam Geovision DVR's and a new compression chip was invented..chances are you could remove two Geo cards and presto all 32 cams now record in the new compression because of the new chips on the cards..to do this for IP cams means changing 32 expensive cameras a massive difference in prices.

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.

Agreed but why buy two compenents when you only need one, you have to admit there is not the same range of cameras for IP that there are for analogue.

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

I agree with you, but ANY analogue cam can work on a DVR system and not EVERY IP cam can work on a NVR, try mixing a few MPEG varieties in and find this out...I will admit that JPEG is more standardised

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.

I agree about the streaming in dual codecs etc...about the compressions, I tend to disagree, they are at equal stages because the companies developing them are doing it for both markets, anything inside an IP cam can be replicated into the DVR? I must say thugh that there is an advantage to being able to do massive resolutions (if you have the bandwidth) that a DVR can not handle due to PCI bus.

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

A network admin should not have to remedy a fualty security system and very few companies here have them "on staff" they tend to contract them in, I assume this may be different in other countries.

 

 

Look...you make some good points but the one thing in the back of my head is that if the netwok fails...bye bye recordings...now I know about webservers with HDD's that can replicate...but isnt that a glorified DVR anyhow?

[WirelessEye 0]

Wirelesseye, you normally dont make me cough, but when you said your nvr can support unlimited cameras, well, I did.....

 

Unlimited cameras? Even the worlds best systems, all networked together cannot support that.. Its a stupid statement, typical of what IP people come out with.......

 

A stupid statement? Please don't post if you haven't done your homework. If you don't believe me try here: http://www.d3data.com

 

While no one can substantiate an "unlimited camera" claim, certainly well-ported software does not have any physical limitations like: The number of BNC connectors you have.

 

Sorry to make you cough.

[WirelessEye 0]

I find this an idiotic statement, if a person wants to disable a security system they most certainly can, what I was trying to say originally is that you can have a DVR hard wired and still use it on the network, however the hard wired part is not as likely to have a problem becasue it is indeed hard wired and not succeptable to a netwrok crash, I find it insulting to my intelligence if you are going to pretend that a network will never crash as it is highly possible at some point and unrealistic to assume it will never happen.

What is it with DVR people and their fear of Network crashes? Listen I've been in IT for 9 years and I have yet to have a network crash at any of the places I've worked at. Nor has my company had a network crash in the 4 years we've been in business. You have as much chance of DVR equipment dieing as you do a network crashing for that matter anyway, so I don't see what your arguement is here.

 

Once again I disagree, I was talking about the actual camera device and NVR software compared to an analogue camera and a DVR unit, I will admit though that IF and I do say "IF" you can use an existing network then it is obviously cheaper but it is RARE that you can and achieve full resolution and limited compression of numerous cameras, there is also a point that must be considered....Imagine doing a shopping centre...well there would be hundreds of cameras, the labour alone to run hundreds of cables is extreemly expensive and having one fibre ring can realy reap savings benefits so I was wrong when discussing IP with large numbers of cameras.

If you were doing full resolution with limited compression, then you would be correct in stating it would be difficult to integrate any existing network for the job (unless it's a gigabit lan with multiple subnets and switches)-- and I admit Fiber is a great addition to wired installations. I was talking about a wireless job however and with that, you would only have to have power. But even I, an IP and wireless proponet can freely state that both have their place, and muliple indoor cameras with tons of HVAC and electrical interference is not one of them.

 

To clarify, the Network IP cam consisits of a the same things found in a DVR the only difference is that they are in the camera...the dvr does the compression or the camera does there is no real difference except the ones that you rightly pointed out...larger resolution, less processing load and the ability to use PTZ through ethernet..but that can be achieved in DVR's as well...however transporting the signal a long way is easier with IP cams.

I understand that. There is also the fact of easier installation to consider, which is at times paramount for rather large installation. Take an IP PTZ camera: No comm cables to run or terminate for movement. Obviously the fewer connections, the easier to test, troubleshoot and install. Also if you take into account that the camera on my cell phone has over 4 times the resolution of an analog camera, there are also resolution issues to think of.

 

I do not recall ever saying they could not be! A simple webserver can be used on any video feed (almost any).

I understand that, was simply pointing out that analog technologies are available for IP as well.

 

This is true, but most of the time that wiring is in the roof and a lot harder to get at than a data port...my point is not about the fallability of cutting wires because it affects both...my point is that a network failure or one bad hub etc can stop the recording, ...by making it ONLY IP you remove the redundancy or hard wired cables and you casue the system to haev many more parts (hubs,switches etc) and therefore more risk of failure

There is hardly any wiring with Wireless, which is what I was referring to. But again, I will state that DVR's are appliances as well, which are just as prone to failure as IP appliances. The only difference is that you can have redundant appliances for automatic failover with IP.

 

I certainly hope so...but in order to do so I would have to be at the back of the DVR or on a ladder, Once again, if you wish to bring down a CCTV system then both are fallable and I was not saying you could not do it to a DVR system, I was just pointing out that they are both easy to tamper with.

True, it is up to the company who is installing to protect their equipment every bit as much as they are protecting the customer- if not then both IP and Analog systems are equally prone to tampering.

 

Perhaps "Crash" is a better term then...for gods sake if you have never seen a netwrok crash then i would find it hard to beleive you have seen many networks or ever worked for business that has one!

Again, I have been in IT for 9 years. Every company I have worked for has trained technicians with years of experience in proactive network reliability measures. I can honestly say that I have experienced zero network failures/crashes.

 

This is true but......if your pipe is only so big, then you QOS your butt off and i am sure it will be MORE stable but will you have the space to get the reult in resolution and compression, the fact is if sharing a network and especially an older one, the chances of you streaming many cameras onto their network at full resolution would require you to QOS until their normal other network needs had no room or visa versa, too little room for the video...video = bandwidth!

I agree, QOS only goes so far. But if you're using QOS enabled hardware on a network... it is not going to be an "older" network. Gigabit Lan equipment is not that expensive anymore, and even businesses not doing IP CCTV would be wise to upgrade for the minimal amount of money it costs to do so. What a Gigabit Lan and QOS hardware allows you to do is network share, obviously if you have a large office infrastructure or large IP CCTV system, you would want to seperate the two.

 

I wouldn't !!!!!! I would rather have one long run...for the simple reason that it has less points of weakness and I might add that if you were mounting a camera 3 feet from a router are you only ever going to put cams in network rooms, becasue I would assume most cameras would be more than three feet from the nearest router!

All of our cameras are less than 3 feet from a router. Why you ask? Because they are wireless-- which is what I was referring to. We don't like miles of wire around here.

 

You are a long way off here: A/ All the cameras I use can be firmware upgraded up the Coax Cable and this has been true for quite some time.

B/ Upgrading a webserver will not change the compression chip inside it (I could be wrong here) C/ Think about this...if you had two 16 cam Geovision DVR's and a new compression chip was invented..chances are you could remove two Geo cards and presto all 32 cams now record in the new compression because of the new chips on the cards..to do this for IP cams means changing 32 expensive cameras a massive difference in prices.

What benefit do you get from flashing firmware on an analog camera? Does it have a built in computer? I understand this has been possible for quite some time, but doing so doesn't unlock any features. I know that Axis products and Sony products have flashes that have added new codec's to the products. That's a fact, because I've done it tons of times. I wouldn't know about a "compression chip" on a DVR as we don't use them, but one could certainly assume that flashing the DVR's software could allow for different features and camera support. You must also consider that if your DVR dies, you lose all connections to those 32 cameras. If you lose 1 of your 32 IP cameras-- well you get the point.

 

Agreed but why buy two compenents when you only need one, you have to admit there is not the same range of cameras for IP that there are for analogue.

Well, if you are using Pelco Exsite Equipment on an oil rig 15 miles offshore, and it needs to make it back to land: Wireless! Or if you prefer, you can run a fiber line on the ocean floor. Also, how long has analog been around, and how long has IP been around? Video servers were invented to take advantage of the existing analog market to begin converting it to IP, until more IP cameras are available.

 

I agree with you, but ANY analogue cam can work on a DVR system and not EVERY IP cam can work on a NVR, try mixing a few MPEG varieties in and find this out...I will admit that JPEG is more standardised

Actually ANY analog cam will work on an NVR as well via a supported video server. Bending the rules a bit you say? The same can be said about using a transcoder to modify an IP cam to analog for use to a DVR. It's true not every camera is supported by every NVR (although our NVR supports nearly 100 different models). However, since hardware support is only a matter of SDK integration, every camera is capable of being supported.

 

I agree about the streaming in dual codecs etc...about the compressions, I tend to disagree, they are at equal stages because the companies developing them are doing it for both markets, anything inside an IP cam can be replicated into the DVR? I must say thugh that there is an advantage to being able to do massive resolutions (if you have the bandwidth) that a DVR can not handle due to PCI bus.

DVR's do have benifits, but most of the people I know who use them are so limited by the DVR's available disk space, you cannot take advantage of the massive resolutions they offer. With our NVR, we actually back up to a SAN and can from that point have all of our video stored (for 30+ days) in full D1 resolution. I don't know what an DVR is capable of as far as resolution, but I was under the impression that D1 was about as good as it gets for analog.

 

A network admin should not have to remedy a fualty security system and very few companies here have them "on staff" they tend to contract them in, I assume this may be different in other countries.

A network admin does not have to remedy a faulty security system, but they should be there to make sure all the hardware, etc. is running smooth. If you do IP CCTV, then it makes sense to have one on staff.

 

 

You make good points too, possibly why the 2 types of systems are both in existance today is because they both have their place-- not only that, but they are both the same type of setup with processing done of different sides of the system. We just do IP because we've done both, and IP is easier-- especially wireless.

[jisaac 0]

I think that I fall somewhere right in the middle of pro dvr and pro nvr.

About the time I always think that one way of setting up systems is the way to go is when I learn a hard lesson. One thing we all have to remember is that its not about us. (those of use who are actually not end users). Its about the person in front of you wanting A systems. Not a particular system Its about what fits their specific needs. and we cant say that one particular system is better than the others as every application is different. So in saying that why cant you guys see that both of you guys are right. In certain applicaitions one type of system is better than another. Because what it all really boiles down to is providing the best possible system that fits the customers needs for the least amount of money. You can design the best system but if they cant afford it then you loose. You can also design a system that is much more affordable but not what they need then we all loose.

[CollinR 0]

<<< Getting popcorn

[jisaac 0]

<<<<<

[WirelessEye 0]

I think that I fall somewhere right in the middle of pro dvr and pro nvr.

About the time I always think that one way of setting up systems is the way to go is when I learn a hard lesson. One thing we all have to remember is that its not about us. (those of use who are actually not end users). Its about the person in front of you wanting A systems. Not a particular system Its about what fits their specific needs. and we cant say that one particular system is better than the others as every application is different. So in saying that why cant you guys see that both of you guys are right. In certain applicaitions one type of system is better than another. Because what it all really boiles down to is providing the best possible system that fits the customers needs for the least amount of money. You can design the best system but if they cant afford it then you loose. You can also design a system that is much more affordable but not what they need then we all loose.

 

I agree completely. Let's just remember that to each their own. I think the Analog vs. IP debate is much like the people going back and forth on Windows vs. Linux-- each have their own place and both have a devoted following.

[woodyads 0]

IP is a way better technology, but you really need the synergy of other projects to raise the quality to justify its cost so that you receive the resources required to set up the network properly. The average company network administrator lacks the skills and resources required to set up a IP network for a security system.

 

Sorry guys but you can set up far more advanced monitoring, redundancy and security on a IP system that you will ever be able to on an analogue system. Claims to the contrary only strengthen the argument that network administrators and people setting up IP video systems lack skill and resources to do the job properly.

[rory 0]

IP is a way better technology, but you really need the synergy of other projects to raise the quality to justify its cost so that you receive the resources required to set up the network properly. The average company network administrator lacks the skills and resources required to set up a IP network for a security system.

 

Sorry guys but you can set up far more advanced monitoring, redundancy and security on a IP system that you will ever be able to on an analogue system. Claims to the contrary only strengthen the argument that network administrators and people setting up IP video systems lack skill and resources to do the job properly.

 

Quick question, which DVRs have you had experience with?

 

BTW, it's not called analogue, its CCTV, it can be a mix of Digital and analogue.

[cctv_down_under 0]

A stupid statement? Please don't post if you haven't done your homework. If you don't believe me try here: http://www.d3data.com

 

While no one can substantiate an "unlimited camera" claim, certainly well-ported software does not have any physical limitations like: The number of BNC connectors you have.

 

I disagree again, there are still Display, Data Bandwidth and even storing the compressed images to consider, Unlimited is never likely, this is a myth...I have designed many IP systems and I have ahd to include several NVR's amd Several NVW's becasue there is indeed a limit to what can be processed, viewed, stored and transfered on one machine....the product I used ahd the unlimited tag..but there is indeed a limit.

 

What is it with DVR people and their fear of Network crashes? Listen I've been in IT for 9 years and I have yet to have a network crash at any of the places I've worked at. Nor has my company had a network crash in the 4 years we've been in business. You have as much chance of DVR equipment dieing as you do a network crashing for that matter anyway, so I don't see what your arguement is here.

 

I could prove my argument by way of a poll but there is no point..it is ludicrous to suggest networks do not fail ever, that is pure rubbish and if you are indeed working in the IT industry as possibly a netwrok admin, you must have had a very boring job if you never had to fix anything..I am sure there are statistics, but I cant be arsed finding them...i think others have and you must just have been lucky!

 

I understand that. There is also the fact of easier installation to consider, which is at times paramount for rather large installation. Take an IP PTZ camera: No comm cables to run or terminate for movement. Obviously the fewer connections, the easier to test, troubleshoot and install. Also if you take into account that the camera on my cell phone has over 4 times the resolution of an analog camera, there are also resolution issues to think of.

 

Ummm not all ptz cameras require coms cables!! the ones i use can be controlled up the Coax!

 

Your phone may be able to do that resolution and I dont recall arguing about resolution, but what IP sales people talk about is using IP cams on an existing network to save money...well you HAVE to lower the resolution with IP, but you dont HAVE to with a DVR, the bandwidth does not come into play with a hard wired DVR...keep in mind IP has to be compressed first, so you have to record at the bandwidth available..this is not the case for DVR.

 

All of our cameras are less than 3 feet from a router. Why you ask? Because they are wireless-- which is what I was referring to. We don't like miles of wire around here.

 

Wow...you use a router per camera..thats gotta be expensive and its not like the cams arent expensive in the first place..sheesh 32 wireless routers, changing to gigabit lan, changing network equipment and all network cards....before even starting with cameras...cant see how that is so much cheaper sorry!

 

What benefit do you get from flashing firmware on an analog camera? Does it have a built in computer? I understand this has been possible for quite some time, but doing so doesn't unlock any features.

Ummm yes it does!!!

 

You must also consider that if your DVR dies, you lose all connections to those 32 cameras. If you lose 1 of your 32 IP cameras-- well you get the point.

Ummm doesnt the same thing happen if your NVR stops working..ok i admit you can haev redundancy but so can you with DVR, this is a silly point and I am surprised you made it considering that a network failure makes your system redundant, unplugging one netwrok cable at the NVR kills all cameras..not just one!!!

 

Well, if you are using Pelco Exsite Equipment on an oil rig 15 miles offshore, and it needs to make it back to land: Wireless! Or if you prefer, you can run a fiber line on the ocean floor. Also, how long has analog been around, and how long has IP been around? Video servers were invented to take advantage of the existing analog market to begin converting it to IP, until more IP cameras are available.

 

nope heaps of ways..I cuold even put it into a dvr on the rig and use the same connection you would, only difference is that if that link every broke...I WOULD STILL BE RECORDING...DVR makes it an ethernet connection and to be honest HOW OFTEN aare you installing on OIL RIGS..be realistic here!

 

Actually ANY analog cam will work on an NVR as well via a supported video server. Bending the rules a bit you say? The same can be said about using a transcoder to modify an IP cam to analog for use to a DVR. It's true not every camera is supported by every NVR (although our NVR supports nearly 100 different models). However, since hardware support is only a matter of SDK integration, every camera is capable of being supported.

 

I am well versed with the use of webservers encoders and decoders and I dont beleive I ever eluded to them not existing however it is EASIER to pick any cam you want rather than having to DEVELOP SOFTWARE for the one you want!

 

DVR's do have benifits, but most of the people I know who use them are so limited by the DVR's available disk space, you cannot take advantage of the massive resolutions they offer. With our NVR, we actually back up to a SAN and can from that point have all of our video stored (for 30+ days) in full D1 resolution. I don't know what an DVR is capable of as far as resolution, but I was under the impression that D1 was about as good as it gets for analog.

 

Most DVR's these days actually can record to a network drive, SAN or NAS so I do not get your point, I have been mapping even standalone DVR's to SANS and NAS for some time, there is no difference, a good DVR can do D1 so I fail to see your point....the argument you should have made is that you can send even larger resolutions, the point is ONLY if you have the bandwidth.

 

 

I think that I fall somewhere right in the middle of pro dvr and pro nvr.

About the time I always think that one way of setting up systems is the way to go is when I learn a hard lesson. One thing we all have to remember is that its not about us. (those of use who are actually not end users). Its about the person in front of you wanting A systems. Not a particular system Its about what fits their specific needs. and we cant say that one particular system is better than the others as every application is different. So in saying that why cant you guys see that both of you guys are right. In certain applicaitions one type of system is better than another. Because what it all really boiles down to is providing the best possible system that fits the customers needs for the least amount of money. You can design the best system but if they cant afford it then you loose. You can also design a system that is much more affordable but not what they need then we all loose.

 

Agreed, I never said DVR was Better!!! I like IP solutions, i just hate that becasue they are new they are expensive...so they are harder to sell...harder things to sell means you have to find better ways to sell them...and I just hate IP sales garbage, I have used both MANY times, I have no preference because it comes down to the particular project and suitability of both, there is no point in IP installs if there is not systme admin and no point to put in DVR if you only have a few cameras per site and network redundancy...both have their places and I am happy with both of them..I just like debunking things....and I love eating popcorn

 

Sorry guys but you can set up far more advanced monitoring, redundancy and security on a IP system that you will ever be able to on an analogue system. Claims to the contrary only strengthen the argument that network administrators and people setting up IP video systems lack skill and resources to do the job properly.

 

I agree and disagree with this post, can you please tell me what in particular can be done by IP that can not be done with a DVR i ahve done both and I can make both secure, redundant and excellent montioring...I know you can mention some points, i can think of them myself...I am surprised they were not mentioned....things like..Resolution, the ability to move your recording device etc etc

[WirelessEye 0]

I disagree again, there are still Display, Data Bandwidth and even storing the compressed images to consider, Unlimited is never likely, this is a myth...I have designed many IP systems and I have ahd to include several NVR's amd Several NVW's becasue there is indeed a limit to what can be processed, viewed, stored and transfered on one machine....the product I used ahd the unlimited tag..but there is indeed a limit.

Perhaps there is a limit, but the software we use is a distributed system that uses a master/slave setup to allow for "unlimited" control a single NVR server or Multiple NVR servers. As far as I know, even if you network ethernet capable DVR's you cannot manage them all from one master Server, in one interface.

 

 

I could prove my argument by way of a poll but there is no point..it is ludicrous to suggest networks do not fail ever, that is pure rubbish and if you are indeed working in the IT industry as possibly a netwrok admin, you must have had a very boring job if you never had to fix anything..I am sure there are statistics, but I cant be arsed finding them...i think others have and you must just have been lucky!

Perhaps I am lucky, or perhaps its good planning and preventative maintenance...

 

 

Ummm not all ptz cameras require coms cables!! the ones i use can be controlled up the Coax!

 

Your phone may be able to do that resolution and I dont recall arguing about resolution, but what IP sales people talk about is using IP cams on an existing network to save money...well you HAVE to lower the resolution with IP, but you dont HAVE to with a DVR, the bandwidth does not come into play with a hard wired DVR...keep in mind IP has to be compressed first, so you have to record at the bandwidth available..this is not the case for DVR.

Not a lot of PTZ cameras can do up the Coax for comm. At least not a lot of the higher spec cameras. None of the analog cameras I've dealt with have that capability.

 

We have only done a couple of existing network installs, and none have had to require reducing camera quality for integration. However, I do agree that a separate network is the most reliable way to go for a large IP setup, that's not a point of arguement. If you are going to cable for analog cameras, you are technically doing the same thing as installing a new network-- it's just a coax network. How is that any different then installing cabling for new IP network?

 

Wow...you use a router per camera..thats gotta be expensive and its not like the cams arent expensive in the first place..sheesh 32 wireless routers, changing to gigabit lan, changing network equipment and all network cards....before even starting with cameras...cant see how that is so much cheaper sorry!

Its not cheaper, it's better and more organized due to the lack of wiring. Better usually doesn't cost less.

 

Ummm yes it does!!!

Please explain. Can I firmware flash a Pelco and have it take less bandwidth without image quality loss? Or am I just going to get some new window blanking options?

 

Ummm doesnt the same thing happen if your NVR stops working..ok i admit you can haev redundancy but so can you with DVR, this is a silly point and I am surprised you made it considering that a network failure makes your system redundant, unplugging one netwrok cable at the NVR kills all cameras..not just one!!!

This is not apples to apples. I am talking about a hardware failure, and you are talking about sabotage. You can take measures to prevent sabotage, you cannot take measures to ensure that electronics don't die.

 

nope heaps of ways..I cuold even put it into a dvr on the rig and use the same connection you would, only difference is that if that link every broke...I WOULD STILL BE RECORDING...DVR makes it an ethernet connection and to be honest HOW OFTEN aare you installing on OIL RIGS..be realistic here!

We actually have an outstanding bid to an oil-rich country that has 8 off-shore rigs they want watched.... If you are talking about what ifs: People can tamper with recordings (the people you are watching) and lets also remember that if there is an accident on the rig, all the footage would be lost.

 

I am well versed with the use of webservers encoders and decoders and I dont beleive I ever eluded to them not existing however it is EASIER to pick any cam you want rather than having to DEVELOP SOFTWARE for the one you want!

But didn't I just say you don't have to with analog integration via videoserver? If you are talking about an IP camera to an NVR, then yes- limitations do exist, but very few. I haven't found a new IP camera that I wanted to use that my NVR doesn't support.

 

Most DVR's these days actually can record to a network drive, SAN or NAS so I do not get your point, I have been mapping even standalone DVR's to SANS and NAS for some time, there is no difference, a good DVR can do D1 so I fail to see your point....the argument you should have made is that you can send even larger resolutions, the point is ONLY if you have the bandwidth.

Ok... so you are telling me that a DVR is as easy to backup to a SAN or NAS as a PC? Can you set your DVR to keep XX amount of days and then automatically remove the oldest stored video every day to keep storage consistant? If you can, I'd like to see that DVR. But yes, IP can send at much higher resolutions-- this does take bandwidth, but how much bandwidth do you really think it takes? A full resolution H.263 cam can stream @ 10 FPS with only 1Mbit of bandwidth. On a dedicated Gigabit LAN (with some overhead) you could easily do 700+ cameras. Doesn't seem like much of a limitation to me.

 

I didn't make the other statments, so I won't comment on them. However, stating that an IP installation is limited by bandwidth is absurd. Just as with an Analog/DVR installation that is done right, an IP/NVR installation that is done right will work great. Sure you have to take other things in to consideration with an IP system, but you can forget some of the other things having to do with Analog/DVR setups.

[Thomas 0]

Perhaps there is a limit, but the software we use is a distributed system that uses a master/slave setup to allow for "unlimited" control a single NVR server or Multiple NVR servers. As far as I know, even if you network ethernet capable DVR's you cannot manage them all from one master Server, in one interface.

 

We do that now with Analog DVR's. We perfer to do a Client/Server set up but you can do Master/slave. I perfer to avoid single failure points.

 

 

Ok... so you are telling me that a DVR is as easy to backup to a SAN or NAS as a PC? Can you set your DVR to keep XX amount of days and then automatically remove the oldest stored video every day to keep storage consistant? If you can, I'd like to see that DVR. But yes, IP can send at much higher resolutions-- this does take bandwidth, but how much bandwidth do you really think it takes? A full resolution H.263 cam can stream @ 10 FPS with only 1Mbit of bandwidth. On a dedicated Gigabit LAN (with some overhead) you could easily do 700+ cameras. Doesn't seem like much of a limitation to me.

 

We use a seperate utility that we wrote for the moving of the files. We do it as a seperate application because it allows us to move the CPU overhead from trimming framerates and reencoding to a differant machine.

 

Everything an NVR does is at the software level. It may sit on an embeded device but the software is the important part. But any feature it does can be done if other software is writen to have that feature. There is no mystical thing that NVR software does.

 

We have it easier in that we do a PC based solution so we can take advantage of some underlieing Windows API's to handle things like SANs. But in your Pelco DVR example, the only reason the Pelco DVR can't do it is because Pelco hasn't writen the code. Not that it's impossible, it's just a feature that's not implemented.

 

And some of Rory's examples are really stretching it as well. Both of you frankly are at opposite ends of the zealotry spectrum. And in many ways you both are wrong about the capabilities of the other side, as well as it's limitations.

 

This thread is very close to wandering into the Mac vs. Windows vs. Linux vs. OS/2 vs. VMS arguements.

[rory 0]

And some of Rory's examples are really stretching it as well.

 

which ones?

[cctv_down_under 0]

Perhaps there is a limit, but the software we use is a distributed system that uses a master/slave setup to allow for "unlimited" control a single NVR server or Multiple NVR servers. As far as I know, even if you network ethernet capable DVR's you cannot manage them all from one master Server, in one interface.

 

Incorrect, many of the DVRs that we use can be controlled and monitored from one master unit, including roll outs, updates, alive pings, health montioring and much much more. I am not sure and perhaps Thomas will explain..I have not read his post yet...but there can NOT be limited connections, even windows itself has a limit to this and your bandwisth is not going to support an unlimited number of connections all pulling traffic in different directions, you need to realize that you can not have 40 people reviewing and 20 people viewing etc, the bandwidth is SIMPLY not there to do so! This is why things like Twin server was designed for Geovision and why VCS and many other IP products recommend only a certain amount of connections.

 

Not a lot of PTZ cameras can do up the Coax for comm. At least not a lot of the higher spec cameras. None of the analog cameras I've dealt with have that capability.

 

The PTZ cameras that I use have this facility, thre are many models that also support this, ALL BOSCH and Panasonic and even I think PELCO PTZ's support this and none of these are considered "Lower Spec" I will conceded that ONLY on wireless is there advantage to PTZ becasue of the lack of a need for cable, to argue that an IP camera PTZ requires less cable is wrong becasue I could use a balun and the same cable you use cat5 to get the same result, I do recall stating that there is an advantage to IP PTZ's for transporting long distance protocol and have used many a WEB SERVER to achieve this (especially to avoid digging up airports or roadways etc)

 

it's just a coax network. How is that any different then installing cabling for new IP network?

It isn't...I am not saying you do.....but...most IP CCTV sales guys sprout the advantage of IP is to use the existing infrastructure of the network to save on cabling and most times that is not possible, the cost saving is lost if you have to put in more routers, switches etc etc compared to using what is existing there already.

 

Its not cheaper, it's better and more organized due to the lack of wiring. Better usually doesn't cost less.

 

Better is debatable, but I am not going to argue that, nor have I ever said IP was not better....but what you said was that it can be as cost effective (I can not scroll back so if I am wrong I am sorry) but I seem to remmeber you saying it was sa cost effective and that was the point I was trying to make.

 

Please explain. Can I firmware flash a Pelco and have it take less bandwidth without image quality loss? Or am I just going to get some new window blanking options?

 

I can not speak for Pelco and granted the IP cam has the ability of having more software on it than your standard Analogue cam but the difference is that the software is in the cam not aT the dvr and that is the main difference...to answer your question though. I recently upgraded all my Bosch Cams to the latest firmware for several reasons and yes one of them had a lot to do with bandwidth...not that it is a concern to a HARD WIRED SYSTEM you do not need to adjust bandwidth for a hard wired system!!!! it was for a feature that reads each frame and looks for the frame with the least noise and then sends the approriate frame reducing the need for noisy recordings...but once agin, the DVR can have the features you are talking about and there is no concern here because I do not have to reduce the bandwidth in the first place for DVR and it can be adjusted at the DVR.

 

This is not apples to apples. I am talking about a hardware failure, and you are talking about sabotage. You can take measures to prevent sabotage, you cannot take measures to ensure that electronics don't die.

 

I am sorry but I think it is..I agree on the sabotage point but my DVR and your NVR are both PC's however my DVR can be a standalone, they both can crash and if they both crash you do loose all cameras, to say you only can loose one camera is wrong...if your NVR crashes (oooh hang on, you have prolly never seen Windows crash either ) then you are in the same boat, granted yours MAY not be working as hard as your average DVR so there can be less risk but the DVR will operate if the network goes down and hardware compression alleviates the load anyhow.

 

We actually have an outstanding bid to an oil-rich country that has 8 off-shore rigs they want watched.... If you are talking about what ifs: People can tamper with recordings (the people you are watching) and lets also remember that if there is an accident on the rig, all the footage would be lost.

 

No it would not be lost, there are things like Geovisions Control room software that can always be streaming, much like your IP setup, you can argue all you want but DVR will give you two points of redundancy, hard wired and ethernet, you only have one with IP and that can still be used by DVR ...Ethernet, if there was an accident your IP cam would also be affected surely?

 

But didn't I just say you don't have to with analog integration via videoserver? If you are talking about an IP camera to an NVR, then yes- limitations do exist, but very few. I haven't found a new IP camera that I wanted to use that my NVR doesn't support.

 

Then you are lucky because it is an issue with most products, please list the product you use and the brands it also supports especially in H264 and MPEG4 as you suggested it can do, I would like to show you some IP cams that will not work on your system, after that can you please show me an Analogue cam that will not work on mine!

 

Ok... so you are telling me that a DVR is as easy to backup to a SAN or NAS as a PC? Can you set your DVR to keep XX amount of days and then automatically remove the oldest stored video every day to keep storage consistant?

 

Actually yes I can with most DVR's I have to say it is harder with Standalone's but my DVR can be a PC so anything you can do it can do, it just takes either third party software or the some software that is designed fro the DVR, Geovision (One of the cheapoest PC DVR's) has this facility too I think in its backup scheduling, regardless intelligent SAN box's can do it as well..I do not agree with this point but grant you that not using third party and having it as part of your software is intelligent but some of the DVR's I use do it anyhow!

 

This thread is very close to wandering into the Mac vs. Windows vs. Linux vs. OS/2 vs. VMS arguements.

 

No it is not...I would never use a Mac but I do use IP cams, have never even said IP was not better, just blowing a few holes in points...

 

PS I will be buying an IPHONE though (Mac Product) have you seen this beast Thomas it is amazing!

 

Although this thread is argumentative, I think you should keep it open, people will learn from it, I personally see IP as the major way forward and we will ALL be using it very shortly, I just hate that in order to sell a more expensive products, Myths are made up to justify costs....the three things remain for me!

 

1/ There is very little that an IP cam can do that is that important other than Resolution.

2/ Networks do fail and having two points of redundancy is ALWAYS better than one.

3/ Once the network cams have storage (Flash Storage) onboard that is large enough and affordable enough they will surpass DVR's because of the redundancy...but wont they then be a DVR with a built in camera?

[rory 0]

No it is not...I would never use a Mac but I do use IP cams, have never even said IP was not better, just blowing a few holes in points...

 

never say never

 

For the record (for the others) we currently do use IP for the DVRs ... just a different way. Also, I dont think anyone suggested that DVR users would never use IP Servers also. Nothing I was arguing was against using IP, but simply started the convo to debunk the myths provided in the original article.

 

In fact, Geo has a web server now also. Nice thing is I can add a $34 bullet to it and use Geo's software to do offsite recording for that as well as other clients, so the client only needs the server and the cheap bullet, and they have recording at our central station. Course if the ISP goes down then the recording stops .. but they have a choice; add a DVR.