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

[Thomas 0]

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

 

which ones?

 

Generally your statements on physical security of DVRs/NVRs. All DVR's and NVR's have a single cable that can be tampered with to make them into expensive bricks. The power cable can be removed from the wall/box and that's all she wrote for it.

[rory 0]

Well sure, but i was talking more in the area of workmen in the ceiling kind of thing, cat5 cable gets damaged all the time.

[jisaac 0]

every system in place has ways it can be very quickly disabled, breached, broken, or in same altered to a state other than its intended set up. You guys are arguing over the obvious. Well how often is the power cord available to every criminal that wants in? If it is then who ever installed it should be shot.

[rory 0]

Well ill reiterate .. i was merely debunking the myths in the original article that was posted regarding how much "better" IP was over CCTV. However cctv_down_under did a much better job .. now if one still chooses to believe those myths, that is their rights.

[WirelessEye 0]

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.

I will have to agree with you. There cannot be an "unlimited" amount of cameras. Just like there cannot be an "unlimited" amount of servers on the internet (in theory). But just like the internet adds clusters and routing capabilities, you can do the same with a networked system. An NVR is different than a DVR. Many NVR's use a "relay server" that opens a single connection to the IP device then splits it into however many concurrent connections wish to connect to it. You are connecting multiple times to the NVR, NOT the IP camera. This allows for MANY more connections and bypasses the OEM limits on connectivity to the IP device-- and also saves a lot of bandwidth to that side of the connection.

 

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)

I've used Pelco's and Bosch before, never seen anything having to do with Coax Comm. Perhaps you have to have a DVR controller to use this functionality.... Of course I'm talking about wireless... I believe I've stated that many times. I have little or no interest in running wires. Even a balun can't send streaming video over 20 miles.

 

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.

I believe I've already agreed on this part... you can only do this on small systemsk if at all.

 

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.

I never said IP was as cost effective. Only more capable-- which is why it costs more.

 

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.

Bandwidth isn't a concern? So you don't record anything at all-- or are you pulling in 2FPS at full resolution? I know that I can build a PC Based NVR that has more storage for much less money and record WAY more video. Most of us here are recording under 10FPS anyhow, I don't see how 1Mbit of bandwidth @ D1/10 FPS is going to come close to bogging down any network-- even a 10/100 base.

 

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.

An NVR can't be standalone? I've seen plenty of Windows bases systems crash. I haven't seen too many 2003 Server boxes crash though, certainly not more than 1 in 3 years-- of course that one that crashed was because the power supply died... Not only that, but since I can use any high-end hardware I want when I build NVR servers, I can make them much more powerful than most custom built DVR's and leaps and bounds over pre-assembled DVR's. Our dual Xenon NVR's for example are at about 4% processor utilization (hardware compression is done before it even gets to the NVR) with 50 cams on each. FYI- Network utilization is 1%.

 

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?

An NVR is already your control room software, redundacy is not needed as all the video is stored in a safe place on a Raid setup. You don't have to be affraid of technology, it is supposed to make your life easier-- and no the camera would not be hurt-- remember the part about IP enabling a pelco ex-site explosion-proof cam?...

 

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!

Exactly how is it an issue with most products? Please explain? If you mean some NVR packages only support certain cameras, that's true. Just like some DVR's are proprietary in what they'll control. It all depends on what you buy. All I'm going to say is we use expensive NVR software and expensive cameras, and they work fantastically together.

 

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!

Interesting to know, but certainly the functionality-- on the rare case it is integrated with the DVR-- is limited compared to the flexibility of multiple archiving times for network balancing, etc. of the NVR. (and yes, you DVR guys have to worry about network balancing if you are backing up to a NAS or SAN).

 

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?

I make it a point to say that I don't SELL anything that I buy. My company sells the remote monitoring capability and service that only IP can deliver. We probably monitor more remote customer surveillance feeds than any other privately held corporation on the West Coast. Sure customers can have an IP enabled DVR for us to monitor from our command center, but that is one more point of failure for us and another issue to worry about from an integration standpoint. IP is simply easier to install, configure and maintain remotely than analog. Period.

 

Redundancy is important, and if you are doing an IP based CCTV system, you must build it into your system much like an analog installer would. Both are surveillance systems and both should be installed correctly.

 

Some of the IP cameras we use do have onboard storage, others have an inline DVR that records and digitizes for IP. Either way, we don't use them-- nor in 4 years of operation have we ever needed one, but never say never- they say.

 

[edit by mod - fixed quote tags]

[cctv_down_under 0]

There cannot be an "unlimited" amount of cameras.

Then why advertise that it can be done..this is my argument.

 

I hate the statement "With Ip cams you can have unlimeted cameras" and I have heard it too many times!

 

Many NVR's use a "relay server" that opens a single connection to the IP device then splits it into however many concurrent connections wish to connect to it. You are connecting multiple times to the NVR, NOT the IP camera. This allows for MANY more connections and bypasses the OEM limits on connectivity to the IP device-- and also saves a lot of bandwidth to that side of the connection.

Correct but DVR's offer this I mentioned Geovisions "Twin Server", you must rmemeber after the video is recorded a DVr can BE a NVR and do the same things over a network!

 

I've used Pelco's and Bosch before, never seen anything having to do with Coax Comm. Perhaps you have to have a DVR controller to use this functionality

 

No need for a controller, all Bosch PTZ's can be controlled over the coax and through software and updated through coax as well as ugrades etc, this functionality is called Bilinx!

 

Bandwidth isn't a concern? So you don't record anything at all-- or are you pulling in 2FPS at full resolution? I know that I can build a PC Based NVR that has more storage for much less money and record WAY more video.

 

I think you have misunderstood me, what I was saying was that with a hard wired system, the bandwisth is not a concern, becasue it is not ON the network, it can have whatever the DVR can handle becasue it is hard wired cable, with wireless and "network only" IP cams, you have to be concerned with the amount of data transfer, with a hard wired system you do not have to! As for your statement about building a NVR cheaper and with more storage, that is incorrect....My DVR can be a PC and can have the SAME box or storage that you use, so the same limits apply to me as do for you, my DVR can also record at the same frame rates, i can not comment on price, but I DOUBT your solution of NVR and buying software as well as having to use IP cams is cheaper than a DVR using analogue and in the same PC box as yours!

 

An NVR can't be standalone? I've seen plenty of Windows bases systems crash. I haven't seen too many 2003 Server boxes crash though, certainly not more than 1 in 3 years-- of course that one that crashed was because the power supply died

 

this is a pointless argument, your NVR can be standalone, so can mine, yours can be PC so can mine...we are succeptable to the same risks, I was not saying yours was more succeptable to crashing, it wsa you that stated yours was more stable, they are exactly the same and YES I can build mine on Windows Server if I wanted to..your point was that yours offered better redundancy becasue my DVR was fallable and that if it stopped working I loose my recordings, but so do you and the NVR and DVR can both be standalone or PC so your argument is pointless.

 

Not only that, but since I can use any high-end hardware I want when I build NVR servers, I can make them much more powerful than most custom built DVR's and leaps and bounds over pre-assembled DVR's.

 

Perhaps...but I can build a PC DVR with the same components as your NVR so where is the difference, I think it is silly for you to argue this point because anything you can build as an NVR I can build as a DVR!

I do agree though about the CPU load but my DVR can use hardware compression as well, so there is no difference ...well that is not correct..but the difference is in my advantage, because I do not have to have IP cams doing the compression that are more expensive!

In short....My CPU load can be the same as yours so I see no advantage!

 

An NVR is already your control room software, redundacy is not needed as all the video is stored in a safe place on a Raid setup. You don't have to be affraid of technology, it is supposed to make your life easier-- and no the camera would not be hurt-- remember the part about IP enabling a pelco ex-site explosion-proof cam?...

 

Your original Point has changed here...the facts are

1/ If we both have an cam on an oil rig, they both get damaged!

2/ We can both stream to a raid system, but my control room software is free.

3/ The advantage I have is if your wireless system stops working I still record on the RIG and you do not!

4/ No matter how you argue, there is nothing a NVR can do in streaming that a DVR can not do as well, the only differnce is I can record at site and also OFFSITE

 

Exactly how is it an issue with most products? Please explain? If you mean some NVR packages only support certain cameras, that's true. Just like some DVR's are proprietary in what they'll control. It all depends on what you buy. All I'm going to say is we use expensive NVR software and expensive cameras, and they work fantastically together.

 

You did not mention the brand you are using?

You can say what you like but the facts are that I can use any camera, you can too but you have to buy a webserver and I do not, every analogue cam works on my DVR and not every IP cam works on yours!

 

My company sells the remote monitoring capability and service that only IP can deliver.

 

INCORRECT!!!!!!!!

[WirelessEye 0]

Then why advertise that it can be done..this is my argument.

 

I hate the statement "With Ip cams you can have unlimeted cameras" and I have heard it too many times!

The systems are *claimed* to be unlimited. Obviously you cannot test unlimited claims because you will never be able to reach unlimited. It is an unobtainable number..... My argument is that a single NVR, whatever it is, can handle a lot more cameras anyway you put it, as it is not limited by how many BNC inputs you have on it. I'm sure you'll come back with a bandwidth argument, but I think you already know that is invalid.

 

 

Correct but DVR's offer this I mentioned Geovisions "Twin Server", you must rmemeber after the video is recorded a DVr can BE a NVR and do the same things over a network!

They may be able to do the same things as an NVR once the footage is recorded, but what can it do live?

 

 

No need for a controller, all Bosch PTZ's can be controlled over the coax and through software and updated through coax as well as ugrades etc, this functionality is called Bilinx!

So all Bosch PTZ's can do this, but it sounds like this is a Bosch Only feature. Since HTTP is an open standard, all IP cameras can be controlled via the same protocol.

 

 

I think you have misunderstood me, what I was saying was that with a hard wired system, the bandwisth is not a concern, becasue it is not ON the network, it can have whatever the DVR can handle becasue it is hard wired cable, with wireless and "network only" IP cams, you have to be concerned with the amount of data transfer, with a hard wired system you do not have to! As for your statement about building a NVR cheaper and with more storage, that is incorrect....My DVR can be a PC and can have the SAME box or storage that you use, so the same limits apply to me as do for you, my DVR can also record at the same frame rates, i can not comment on price, but I DOUBT your solution of NVR and buying software as well as having to use IP cams is cheaper than a DVR using analogue and in the same PC box as yours!

Who is misunderstanding who? I was pointing out that bandwidth is irrelevant if you have to worry about recording space. Perhaps if you would have fully read my post you'd notice that. Since NVR and DVR people usually only record at partial frame rates, bandwidth concerns are null and void. Also, the cost for NVR's and DVR's are about the same. Our IP PTZ's cost ~$200 more than a comparable Analog PTZ. Even if I put 64 cameras on an NVR, it would be about the same price once you take into account you'd need (4) GV-1480-16 combo cards @ $1,100/ea. That would actually cost more than the NVR software.

 

 

this is a pointless argument, your NVR can be standalone, so can mine, yours can be PC so can mine...we are succeptable to the same risks, I was not saying yours was more succeptable to crashing, it wsa you that stated yours was more stable, they are exactly the same and YES I can build mine on Windows Server if I wanted to..your point was that yours offered better redundancy becasue my DVR was fallable and that if it stopped working I loose my recordings, but so do you and the NVR and DVR can both be standalone or PC so your argument is pointless.

Perhaps it was only pointless because of the preceeding argument from you. I was simply making lemonade from lemons. Please read your post on if how you were stating that if x and y happened I'd lose all of my recordings....and get back to me.

 

 

Perhaps...but I can build a PC DVR with the same components as your NVR so where is the difference, I think it is silly for you to argue this point because anything you can build as an NVR I can build as a DVR!

I do agree though about the CPU load but my DVR can use hardware compression as well, so there is no difference ...well that is not correct..but the difference is in my advantage, because I do not have to have IP cams doing the compression that are more expensive!

In short....My CPU load can be the same as yours so I see no advantage!

But I don't have expensive hardware on my end doing the compression, so where was your advantage again? Your CPU load will be higher than mine because you will have to run Geo cards and I don't. It doesn't matter if the Geo's have onboard CPU's or not, your main CPU still has to interface....I wouldn't be surprised if the system CPU was doing most of the work.

 

 

Your original Point has changed here...the facts are

1/ If we both have an cam on an oil rig, they both get damaged!

2/ We can both stream to a raid system, but my control room software is free.

3/ The advantage I have is if your wireless system stops working I still record on the RIG and you do not!

4/ No matter how you argue, there is nothing a NVR can do in streaming that a DVR can not do as well, the only differnce is I can record at site and also OFFSITE

My point only changes to meet your new arguments:

1/ Maybe. They have explosion proof cameras.

2/ But your capture cards were not, and I don't need any.

3/ Not if your DVR gets blown up with the camera.... wouldn't they be on the same rig?

4/ You also have one more piece of equipment to be tampered with/stolen in an uncontrolled environment. I fail to see how additional risk is also a positive to the system.

 

 

You did not mention the brand you are using?

You can say what you like but the facts are that I can use any camera, you can too but you have to buy a webserver and I do not, every analogue cam works on my DVR and not every IP cam works on yours!

And I won't mention the brands either. I can use ANY camera on my system. True some are aided in the use of a video server, but at least I have the option. Ok, so now that we've established I can use any anolog camera and nearly any IP camera (I have yet to find one I can't use)-- now the next question.... what IP camera can you use with your DVR?

 

 

INCORRECT!!!!!!!!

I was unaware that you were in the same type of business I was in. Please explain. And when you explain please tell me: how many remote feeds you monitor, how many of them are located in areas where there's no power, no copper, and a ton of property to protect.

[rory 0]

just a couple points ... as id like clarification on at least the first one.

 

Our IP PTZ's cost ~$200 more than a comparable Analog PTZ. Even if I put 64 cameras on an NVR, it would be about the same price once you take into account you'd need (4) GV-1480-16 combo cards @ $1,100/ea. That would actually cost more than the NVR software.

Dont see how that can be, though I'd like to know otherwise. Milestone is $5,495.00 retail for 36 cameras, thats $10K+ for 64 cameras. Since the speed from the network wont be the same as the combo card, nor need the DSP output to compare, It would be best to compare with the GV650, but either way the Combo card is $1500 retail for 16 cameras, so thats $6,000.00. Ok another $1000 per PC x 3. $9,000 .. near the same cost.

 

Now add the $200 difference per IP Camera ( but the cost of either IP Servers or Cameras are generally much more from what I have seen), thats yet another $12,800.

 

Then lets not forget its own high bandwidth network as it depends on the network to work (CCTV does not), for 64 cameras for certain it wont just use a Linksys router, so that cost just went up even more.

 

Okay, so we need cable for the CCTV gear, well so does the IP network, and even if it is wireless, that wireless gear will no doubt be as much as or more than the CCTV cable, unless ofcourse we are talking about OEM IP and Wireless gear from Hong Kong.

 

3/ Not if your DVR gets blown up with the camera.... wouldn't they be on the same rig?

I didnt get his point either, both would be recording offsite anyway.

 

I can use ANY camera on my system. True some are aided in the use of a video server, but at least I have the option. Ok, so now that we've established I can use any anolog camera and nearly any IP camera (I have yet to find one I can't use)-- now the next question.... what IP camera can you use with your DVR?

Same as you, with the aide of a video decoder, which nearly any IP manufacturer sells, the DVR can use nearly any IP camera also. One thing though, the DVR can use a $50 camera, where I dont think you will ever find an IP camera or a video server for that kind of cost, besides a consumer webcam, which will not come close to matching the quality, even as low as it maybe with those $50 cameras. Not to mention we can use something as cheap in cost as the GV250 and still have the full blown geoVision software ..

 

 

[WirelessEye 0]

Dont see how that can be, though I'd like to know otherwise. Milestone is $5,495.00 retail for 36 cameras, thats $10K+ for 64 cameras. Since the speed from the network wont be the same as the combo card, nor need the DSP output to compare, It would be best to compare with the GV650, but either way the Combo card is $1500 retail for 16 cameras, so thats $6,000.00. Ok another $1000 per PC x 3. $9,000 .. near the same cost.

 

Now add the $200 difference per IP Camera ( but the cost of either IP Servers or Cameras are generally much more from what I have seen), thats yet another $12,800.

 

Then lets not forget its own high bandwidth network as it depends on the network to work (CCTV does not), for 64 cameras for certain it wont just use a Linksys router, so that cost just went up even more.

 

Okay, so we need cable for the CCTV gear, well so does the IP network, and even if it is wireless, that wireless gear will no doubt be as much as or more than the CCTV cable, unless ofcourse we are talking about OEM IP and Wireless gear from Hong Kong.

 

Milestone/ONSSI is very expensive, no doubt about it. But at the same time you could go with D3 Data for $5,500 and put as many cameras on it as you want. So that's $9,000 for DVR based vs. $5,500 for NVR based. Granted, 64 IP cameras x $200 more expensive for each one does add up to $12,800 - $3,500 for the system difference which equals $9,300 more for the IP system.

 

64 cameras cannot be brought into a standard linksys by any means, however since I'm wireless all I need is an 8 port router (gigabit) < $100 to handle my access points.

 

The wireless/cabling debate is completely different monster. Obviously, both have their place and "their place" is whatever is the most cost effective for the situation. If doing a multi building outdoor installation, wireless is by far cheaper than trenching from building to building. If doing a multi camera, single building installation, wired is better- that I can admit. You have to realize, the service that my company provides is *specialized*. Basically we are for people that want temporary surveillance (less than 2 years) or people that have multi-facility needs where cabling isn't feasible.

 

 

Same as you, with the aide of a video decoder, which nearly any IP manufacturer sells, the DVR can use nearly any IP camera also. One thing though, the DVR can use a $50 camera, where I dont think you will ever find an IP camera or a video server for that kind of cost, besides a consumer webcam, which will not come close to matching the quality, even as low as it maybe with those $50 cameras. Not to mention we can use something as cheap in cost as the GV250 and still have the full blown geoVision software ..

 

Video transcoders do exist, but you are at a severe deficit of choices in manufactures from what I see (definately a fraction compared to analog to IP devices). Again, I know there are $50 cameras... but I've never seen one that I would buy, even if I did use DVR's. I don't think I've ever bought a camera under $700 to be quite honest. I did do some checking however, and found the cheapest IP camera that I could find was $249.

 

This reminds me of something. When I was a kid, everyone thought microwave ovens were a fad and overpriced at $500/ea. Now, almost everyone uses them and they are around $70. This is how the IP market is going.

 

 

[rory 0]

here is a $50 color only bullet, the top left ...

the top right is a high res $400 camera ..

 

 

you do notice the diff when it is enlarged compared to a high res camera (this one is 380TVL )

[WirelessEye 0]

What does the $50 cam look like at night and how long does it last?

[rory 0]

Ahh .. now you ask the quesion so many do not ..

it needs alot of light as its just a color camera ..

and no Exview, just basic Superhad

 

Mine lasted me a couple years, but id say figure in about 1 year for cheap cameras like that (out in the field), if you get more, then great .. after 2 years though the image gets worse, at least outdoors .. mine did go through a couple small hurricanes though as well . .

 

Night time ..

[Thomas 0]

They may be able to do the same things as an NVR once the footage is recorded, but what can it do live?

 

Yes. You simply stream out the video as you encode it.

 

 

So all Bosch PTZ's can do this, but it sounds like this is a Bosch Only feature. Since HTTP is an open standard, all IP cameras can be controlled via the same protocol.

 

Pelco does it and I'm fairly sure GE does it as well. But the comment about HTTP isn't anywhere near correct. Unless the cameras share a common manufactor, like Vivotek and D-Link for instance, the cameras will operate in a completely differant manner. Even variations in the firmware can cause issues.

 

What your saying is akin to "All PTZs accept RS-485 so there for any DVR can talk to any PTZ with one protocol." It's not true. Software writen for Axis cameras will not function with Vivotek. Software writen for Vivotek will not fuction with Toshiba's cameras.

 

This is one of the major problems with IP cameras. There is no standard. And yet marketing people pump out "It's all on the network!" as if that means everything will talk to each other.

 

Wireless Eye, I do have to point out that every programatic feature you cite can be done in the analog side. That's the joy of software.

[WirelessEye 0]

Yes. You simply stream out the video as you encode it.

 

I realize that, but you can do much more as far as networking, multiple-sites, virtual matrixing, remote access, etc. on an NVR than with a DVR.

 

Pelco does it and I'm fairly sure GE does it as well. But the comment about HTTP isn't anywhere near correct. Unless the cameras share a common manufactor, like Vivotek and D-Link for instance, the cameras will operate in a completely differant manner. Even variations in the firmware can cause issues.

 

What your saying is akin to "All PTZs accept RS-485 so there for any DVR can talk to any PTZ with one protocol." It's not true. Software writen for Axis cameras will not function with Vivotek. Software writen for Vivotek will not fuction with Toshiba's cameras.

 

This is one of the major problems with IP cameras. There is no standard. And yet marketing people pump out "It's all on the network!" as if that means everything will talk to each other.

 

Wireless Eye, I do have to point out that every programatic feature you cite can be done in the analog side. That's the joy of software.

 

Pelco and GE use Bilinx? I was under the impression they used their own communication protocols. If that is the case, isn't this quite similiar to IP manufacturer A doesn't work with IP manufacturer B? Nonetheless, our NVR already has built in support for all of the manufacturers you mentioned, and a lot more, so they do all work together and on the same network. The fact that they run on different firmware and use seperate API's is completely transparent to us and our end users.

 

So if I understand you correctly, if I point out everything that a single (specific) NVR system can do in a list, you can site a single (specific) DVR system that can match its capabilities in every way? I'm certainly up to the challenge if you are.

[rory 0]

I realize that, but you can do much more as far as networking, multiple-sites, virtual matrixing, remote access, etc. on an NVR than with a DVR.

 

Why can't a DVR do that? Its still Windows ... its all just in the programming for Windows. If i was charging what NVR software developers do, I could easily create a virtual matrix myself for Geo as well as some others, even in VB ... now whether they do or not is another issue .. can is already solved

[rory 0]

So if I understand you correctly, if I point out everything that a single (specific) NVR system can do in a list, you can site a single (specific) DVR system that can match its capabilities in every way? I'm certainly up to the challenge if you are.

 

This would be a good idea ..

someone start the list already ..

 

does it have to be a DVR system that "does" it now, or just whether a DVR system "could" do it .. ?

[Thomas 0]

 

I realize that, but you can do much more as far as networking, multiple-sites, virtual matrixing, remote access, etc. on an NVR than with a DVR.

 

Why? Those are all things we do with our DVR's now.

 

 

Pelco and GE use Bilinx? I was under the impression they used their own communication protocols.

 

No, Pelco calls thier Variation Coaxatron. I don't know what GE calls theirs up the cable method.

 

If that is the case, isn't this quite similiar to IP manufacturer A doesn't work with IP manufacturer B? Nonetheless, our NVR already has built in support for all of the manufacturers you mentioned, and a lot more, so they do all work together and on the same network. The fact that they run on different firmware and use seperate API's is completely transparent to us and our end users.

 

Except it's not transparent to the end user. User upgrades to Rev XXXX of a camera to Rev XXXXX+1. And now thier software no longer works with thier software. Before you dismiss this, I'd like to point out that Toshiba did this earlier this year on a single camera. And supporting Axis's cameras today is no guarrenty that they will continue to work that way in the future.

 

 

So if I understand you correctly, if I point out everything that a single (specific) NVR system can do in a list, you can site a single (specific) DVR system that can match its capabilities in every way? I'm certainly up to the challenge if you are.

 

And I can find features in Analog DVRs that NVR's don't have. But in the end it doesn't matter. Because all of those features are simply software. Any feature we name can be replicated by the other type via code. Because that's all it is.

[carrseom 0]

I am always weary of the "expert" guy that totes his new technology is the latest and greatest. I always ask how many units are in the field and can I call someone who is using your product exclusively.

 

I am not sold easily and always test any new technology extensively before I take it to market. The worst scenario is getting a call that a system is down or improperly functioning the week after it was installed because some "expert" with slick shoes said it was the latest and the greatest.

 

I have seen to many salesman burn people.

[WirelessEye 0]

Carrseom- I never described myself as an expert, nor am I trying to sell anything, nor is anyone else I believe. I do agree that there are "slick shoes" salesmen that do burn you, but that can be said about analog as well.

 

Rory/Thomas- It is true that anything can be done with code, and that both NVR's and DVR's are extensible in that fashion. However- I asked for a specific DVR that can do everything that a specific NVR can do-- not what you can modify them to do after tons of programming. I can almost bet that any DVR that is "turn-key" is not going to be able to compare to a "turn key" NVR. Just for giggles, post the best DVR you can find (I don't care about storage) and post its features.

 

Remember, this is something that does not need to have custom scripting done. I want to see something that is off the shelf-- as the NVR I will post will be off the shelf.

[rory 0]

Well Geo has a ton of features for a DVR, but the thing is most people never use those features, and most people are actually looking for simpler products. Obviously the tech savvy person will want those features and more.

 

Though I dont know how it is in the US, here just about all clients want simple plug and play, they dont even want to touch the PC or DVR .. a mouse? nope, if anything they'd prefer an IR Remote .. and just view live video, and call someone to deal with the evidence sharing if something should occur. Its nice to have a ton of features so you can use them when you need to, but if your clients never use them, let alone barely ever touch the DVR, then they dont need them.

 

Perhaps Geo knows (thinks) they arent dealing with Government or It guys with alot of time on their hands .. and that might be why they dont add every other feature that can be added quite easily.

 

there are however remote features that can easily be added which they did not, yet should be, one reason i made my own remote viewer .. which I could also add a ton more features too, and plan to .. but im a one man team ..

 

PS. i still would like to see a list though, if only for ideas .. not for an argument between DVRs and NVRs . you can PM me them if you dont want to post here .. id like to see which ones are possible to add using the code i currently work with .. Thanks

[CollinR 0]

PS. i still would like to see a list though, if only for ideas .. not for an argument between DVRs and NVRs . you can PM me them if you dont want to post here .. id like to see which ones are possible to add using the code i currently work with .. Thanks

 

 

Ditto.

 

Also ditto on the argument DVR vs. NVR. NVRs aren't going anywhere anytime soon, it's obvious to me analog cameras are going away. I'm sure they have some serious software out there but the prices to play and find out are pretty crazy.

[cctv_down_under 0]

If I get some time tommorow I will read through this whole article again, however I now feel that this post has become far too argumentative to be constructive, however in summaary I would like to point out some very real and very obvious advantages and disadvatages of both systems and perhaps we can leave it at that.

 

Although I love a good argument, I can not see this post as constructive anymore so by listing the advantages and disadvantages (and to be honest I am going to mention a lot of benefits not mentioned by our learned IP colleague) I hope we can put this thing to bed.

 

Advatages of IP:

 

1/ IP systems are actually much more affordable (I did not say cheaper, about the same price really) when considering using many cameras over a new network infrastructure, the advantage of running on one network wire as apposed to having to wire each camera individually mean that on very large (and only very large) installs it can be as cost effective to use IP.

 

2/ IP cameras can do a larger resolution than analogue, although it is rare that on large jobs that you would actually need to do so, nor is it likely that you will be able to use this advantage if you are using an existing network.

 

3/ A DVR is limited in its location once the wiring is done, an IP camera system can be relocated...even offsite if bandwidth allows, this means that relocations and renovations are easier with IP cams.

 

4/ IP cameras generally have the ability to adjust more settings than analogue cameras, and although those settings can usally be almost matched by DVR systems, there are a few settings such as dual streaming etc that can be set up on an IP camera that DVR does not support.

 

5/ Compatability issues, IE mainboards, Northbridge etc is not required with an NVR, therefore upgrades are easier for a NVR compared to a DVR.

 

6/ When considering a business that has one major site and many small ones, IE a head office of an Ice Cream Business that has many sites that only require one or two cameras, can be installed much cheaper as there is no need to worry about a recording device at each site IE if you had a head office with 20 or so cameras and 30 small shops you do not have to buy 30 DVR's you could use 30 IP cameras and one NVR so long as you have the adequate bandwidth.

 

7/ Some good IP camera systems allow for transmition of MPEG4 with settings allowing for adjustments like I Frames etc, allowing you to adjust the streaming parameters of each camera.

 

8/ IP cameras are indeed easier to upgrade than MOST analogue cameras.

 

9/ IP cameras do not have interlace problems, this is because they are not limited in the capture resolution that MOST (and I say MOST very loosely) DVR systems are limited to due to PCI Bus limitations.

 

10/ As video analytics evolves we will need much more processing power at the actual camera, this may depend on advancements in actuall PC devices, but if the development of video analitics continues at the rate is currently growing at then a camera with a CPU onboard (most likely an IP camera) will for a short while be able to handle a lot more than the single processor that is in a singe CPU that the DVR requires.

 

11/ In the world of PTZ cameras, IP has the advantage of transporting protocols over a network in an easier manner than MOST (once again I use the word MOST loosely) analogue systems, this means that there is less of a need for cabling and makes IP PTZ almost as affordable as analogue PTZ but much easier to configure and upgrade.

 

12/ There is no distance limitation that effects quality for IP camera systems, although it is rare that distance is an issue with some analogue cameras (once again..choosing the right analogue camera is imperative, I tend to use Bosch because they support coax up to 3/4 of a Mile which is fairly rare to require such a distance, and most of their devices have the option to switch to network balun increasing this distance, however there is no need to do this with an IP system.

 

13/ With an IP system the conversion from Digital to Analogue only occurs once, with Analogue it is convereted to digital for processing then back to analogue for transportation then back to Digital for recording, this is not necessary for IP systems.

 

14/ Viewing statistics are more readily accesable through an IP sytem than an analuge system.

 

 

Advatages of DVR systems:

 

1/ DVR systems do offer very similar networking ability (good ones do) compared to IP Systems, and although IP systems are more flexible, it is rare....other than on large corporate systems that these benefits would actually be utilized, DVR systems can be a PC so there is little that DVR software can not offer that IP can not.

 

2/ Not every location (Keep in mind we are talking globally, not just Asia and US) has the abiltiy to provide the bandwidth to take advantage of what IP can truly offer, it is important to note that in the majority of the world it would be difficult to stream more than a few cameras in upspeed without exceeding your total upspeed of your connection, therefore the myth of having many cameras without a NVR onsite is not accurate.

 

3/ DVR's provide MORE redundancy than IP, ISP's can go down, Virus's do occur and networks do crash, there is NO redundancy on MOST IP based DVR systems, having a hard wired solution not only allows you the majority of features found in IP streaming, but offers a redundancy that MOST IP systems can not offer.

 

4/ There are no compatability issues with Analogue cameras, there are many with IP cameras, the same limitations with PTZ protocols occur and there is NO need for the additional cost of a web server.

 

5/ All the storage and back up facilities that are offered by NVR's are also available to analogue systems.

 

6/ DVR's are easy to integrate, they also are easy to retrofit, the replacement of a totally anolgue system to DVR offers the majority of benefits that would be associated with having an IP system at a fraction of the cost.

 

7/ DVR systems are CONSIDERABLY, let me say that again.....CONSIDERABLY cheaper than IP systems, this is only because IP is new and this will surely change over time, but to install 32 cameras on IP compared to a DVR with analogue cameras is uncomparable.

 

8/ IP systems are harder to configure than your average DVR system, they do require a network knowledge and they require a systems administrator to support them, this is often not available in many countries

 

9/ The maintenance and support of a analogue DVR system is limted compared to that of a full IP system.

 

10/ There are more failure points in a network system then there are with a DVR syetem and a DVR system is much less likely to be affected by outside elements than an IP system.

 

11/ Analogue HYBRID systems that incorporate the best of both systems are easier to retrofit than a total IP system.

 

12/ It is much easier to mix and match cameras on a DVR system compared to IP systems especially due to the factor that there are simply a wider variety of cameras that work with every Analogue system compared to compatability issues of IP systems.

 

13/ IP cameras require considerably more bandwidth than analogue cameras.

 

14/ Although IP cameras are experiencing massive growth, the lions share of the market is still with DVR this ensures that developments in DVR will match that of IP cameras for the next few years. The value proposition based on the advantages of IP is not yet there and as prices drop for IP systems it will become more prevalant to use IP products but for now the benefits for most situations is not with IP systems as the majority or market share is only in the low to mid end.

 

15/ When using wireless IP cameras you need to consider the BAND of frequencies available to the IP camera 2.4GHz spectrum can make a difference on how your system works. There’s also the “newerâ€

[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.

 

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.

 

 

Sorry for not answering. I only just saw your post. Simple answer is none. But why would I.

 

I run a several system that covers 40-50 km2 comprising of 15 mobile IP trailers. 2.4, 5.8, 5.4 GHz wireless LAN. 2-way radio, gensets, solar panels, battery voltage, hundreds of different sensors on Trucks, Shovels, Drills, Slope radars for monitoring wall movement, Seismic sensors and Cameras All on IP.

 

These all come back to 20 servers in a data room which is monitored from a control room . The cost of the mining operation is $300m per year so we want to know exactly what is happening where. The cameras are not used for security just auditing. The entire system cost $4m and has taken 2 years to setup and tune.

 

I walk into Perth office 1100km away and plug my laptop in and get all the cameras perfectly over the existing link without spending an single sent extra on the pre-existing infrastructure.

 

Why we are not interested in DVR's.

 

We don't want any non standard servers where can be avoided. We can't integrate our active directory into a DVR without substantial security risks. Where as the NVR is stock standard MS SQL so we can integrate active directory and then we don't need to administer any security, We set up groups of cameras, Access Groups, Then give the existing AD user groups access to the Access Groups. Then you just forget it. When a new geologist comes along they are put in the Geology AD group and automatically get access to the Cameras that Geology have Viewing, PTZ or Review rights.

 

Even if a DVR can be administered by AD they are not part of the sever SOE. That means you can't automatically roll out security updates to it. This is a real hassle. Imbedded server software in propriety systems is based on existing server systems and is prone to security flaws just the same. Any decent IT department should stop these serves from interacting with the AD. So you loose the seamless integration into the network.

 

Our long term plan is to locate a master control room in Perth from where we can push out our technology to 10 - 15 mines all over Australia. We are looking at using VMware on massive blade servers so we can load and unload servers as we wish. Tack on Sans and away you go. Hot spare, redundant, scaleable, serviceable, everything. This makes sense because we can use 4 blades to do the job of 200 severs.

 

I go out of my way to standardise everything to maximise flexibility and opportunity. DVR is not standard. NVR can be. Its not about which is the best system for CCTV its about the synergies you can get between all your systems.

 

Rory when you put a DVR in for a customer how many other non CCTV systems are you catering for?

[woodyads 0]

 

15/ When using wireless IP cameras you need to consider the BAND of frequencies available to the IP camera 2.4GHz spectrum can make a difference on how your system works. There’s also the “newerâ€

[WirelessEye 0]

Did I miss something? What does power have to do with throughput? We have 30+ mile links using completely legal FCC power ratings (we are actually under powered). The power of the radio only has to do with signal strength and reliability, and even that is only to a certain extent. Generally if you are looking for the best signal, your money is best spent on the antenna, running more power to get over noise hurdles only amplifies the existing noise, whereas different antennas can "clean up" the signal making the power of your radio exponentially more efficient.

 

FCC Rules: "If an antenna with a directional gain greater than 6 dBi is used and the system is to be used exclusively for fixed point-to-point operation, there shall be no reduction in the maximum power allowed."

 

You can still use up to 1 watt of power at the radio with no limitation in antenna gain when going PTP.... Not like you need to anyhow, 200mw is generally fine for any task...

 

The Motorolla equipment specified is not only astronomically expensive, the only way that you can get 300Mbps is by getting a nearly unobtainable signal quality in a real world scenario (due to the fact it needs to have FOUR great concurrent signals) and is not suitable for use in 95%+ of cctv installations.

 

I would just say stick with standard "low cost" 802.11a with Turbo OFDM and get yourself a 108Mbps link for 1/11th the cost of the Motorolla gear.

 

$0.02