Centralized IP Camera Monitoring

[loop 0]

I'm looking for a solution for around 100 IP Cameras / Video Servers that will be scattered around 100 shops (1 camera for each shop) and could be monitored all together from 1 central location. Recording is not required.

 

The solutions I found so far are:

 

Flexwatch

http://www.flexwatch.com/products/fwmanager.asp

 

WebEye

http://www.webgateinc.com/wg_htdocs/english/products/sw_cam_manager.html

 

Anyone has comments over those two?

Any other solution?

 

TIA

[cctv_down_under 0]

Have you considered using a 1 ch dvr and control room software

[rikky 0]

Have you checked on dallmeier?

They've got nice 1 channel DVR's with a central monitoring station.

[loop 0]

forgot to mention that I need an option for future upgrade (2 cameras per site), so I need a 2 camera server or an IP camera with an input for another standard camera.

Which good product with control room software do you recommend?

[cctv_down_under 0]

Ip servers are hard to get good montioring for, not in the price bracket compared to a small Geo box and then running the contol room software

[AVCONSULTING 0]

http://www.vitekcctv.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductID=178

 

Low cost 2 camera server.

[loop 0]

Do you have a price list for the Vitek?

There's not much information on their site.

 

I know it's in a different league, but what do you think about this low cost miniature 4-port video server:

 

http://www.aviosys.com/p_multimedia%20link9100.htm

 

It supports up to 16 cameras from different locations in a web-based application.

 

There's a demo here:

http://61.59.37.157/

 

The price is just a little more than a 100$.

[AVCONSULTING 0]

Great price. Much lower than the Vitek. I think the Vitek is in the $200 price range.

[Joebo 0]

www.teldat.com

[bobchik 0]

I use PiX-2000 for the server and LuxRiot Enterprise for large scale moniroring/recording.

 

Good luck!

Edited November 5, 2004 by Guest

[joe4 0]

Nice people

 

http://www.ewatchinc.com/home.htm

 

 

Check out the demo.

[IPSecurityPro 0]

I, personally, know that D3Data's software can easily accomplish this.

 

[WirelessEye 0]

D3Data's software is horribly bloated and poorly coded. It is web-based, which is a nice change... but other than that... blah

[IPSecurityPro 0]

I totally disagree with your comment. You are not very well informed. Check this out: http://www.d3data.net:86 and use a username of demo and a password of demo and tell me this is bloated. This is their "new" browser-based interface that is in development.

 

What is bloated or poorly coded. I am not an Engineer, but would like your feedback on what you think is bad?

[WirelessEye 0]

Sigh.

 

I've already demo'd D3Data's product. I even met their people at the ASIS show in Dallas a few months ago, nice people.

 

The web application is very poorly written. I had not seen their new application, but having visited and viewed the code, I see not much has changed. Sure it's prettier, but its code is still deprecated.

 

You see, I haven't been in security my whole life, I spent 10 years in web development, and am still active. I assume you work for or are affiliated with D3Data, and that's fine.

 

Something you should pass on to the "Engineers" is that web apps should be cross-browser compatible. D3Data's web app works only with IE5.5+, it doesn't validate (not even close), it's coded in HTML 4.01 instead of XHTML, it uses inline javascript, etc. Who's not well informed?

 

D3Data's system was the 2nd system my company demo'd, before eventually choosing an alternate vendor. Our current vendor isn't all roses either, but their functionality and programming is better. Although D3Data's product range support is better, and the web interface is spiffier.

 

We're currently writing our own software, (it's about 70% done), developed completely in XHTML, XML, and .Net that is much more on an enterprise level. All open source. The NVR market is on the brink of getting huge, an open source NVR is just what the market needs, don't you think? =)

[rory 0]

So is it still going to use ActiveX or Java??

 

 

Open Source is good, if you already got paid!

[Thomas 0]

Naw, with open source you have to think differantly. It's not about getting the money up front. It's the steady stream of income you get from supporting it. RedHat makes a nice amount of money, so do the MySQL people. It's the same mode of thinking that the monitoring people use.

Edited December 21, 2004 by Guest

[rory 0]

im POE i need moneys now G!

[WirelessEye 0]

I'm in the service business, not the software business. So, I don't need to get paid from the software end. You'll be able to use Java or ActiveX, not much difference in the code.

[Thomas 0]

Which licence are you thinking of? BSD, GPL, MPL?

[IPSecurityPro 0]

WirelessEye -

 

Again - I am just a commoner and not as skilled as you. I just know when something works. Being a layperson and being able to install IP Security software and get multiple IP cameras up and running, recording on motion and recording on a schedule, etc. - tells me that it is good software. Whether - in your professional opinion - it is "...very poorly written..." or not - is of little consequenct if it works and performs well. Anyone starting up a new venture and "...currently writing our own software, (it's about 70% done)..." is apt to have opinions that are skewed. Sigh.

 

The browser is not meant to be cross-browser compatible. They have "light" support for other browsers, but it is intended to work in IE on a Windows platform. That is how it was architected and you will see the issues you encounter trying to support multiple platforms. I can not answer each of your points about what it doesn't do - as, again, I am a simpleton - I just know what WORKS. Each different software vendor out there has certain pluses and minuses to their softare and anyone doing their research will realize this.

 

Sounds like you will make a mint in about 30 more percent with your open source perfect product.

 

Thank you for educating me!

[WirelessEye 0]

It will be GPL. No licensing, no fees, completely redistributable.

 

IPSecurityPro. Chill.

I'm not talking down to you. Just trying to explain, (As you asked me to) why I said what I did.

 

With how easy it is to make web apps cross-browser (if you code to standards), they are simply showing their reluctance to learn standards by only supporting IE5.5+. My "skewed" opinion is based upon trial of their software, and every other application in this arena. If there were something that was a COMPLETE solution, then we would have just bought it and all the licenses we need.

 

Unfortunately this is not the case. It is now our goal to make a modular application that everyone can slightly modify for their own usage. This will not be "perfect", I never said it would be. The great thing about the open source community, is that anyone can take a free application, and tailor it to their needs.

[IPSecurityPro 0]

Again - let me reiterate - your opinions are skewed, as you are developing a competing product. Nothing is wrong with this - that is the beauty of Capitalism. I truly wish you and your company the best of luck!

 

There are inherrent problems with trying to make the application cross-browser compatible that are beyond "coding to standards". Your application will have its' flaws, as well and will go through the processes to work out the "bugs".

 

By the way - I like your website. Good luck!

[rory 0]

There a Manfacturer arent they? If so, then they probably dont have the time a software company would have to go in depth with support for all browsers/OS's, etc, look at GE's crappy web based server app for an example, and they are a huge company!

 

Just for kicks, heres a screen shot of the difference of browsers accessing one of my sites, IE is 1-5, Netscape is 7, etc.

 

Note: I just started using FireFox myself for general browsing, but apart from activeX havent come accross any major differences with web site displays. Validation is overrated, especially when people start putting that little box on their web site, just looks so cheesy ...

 

[Thomas 0]

The arguement being made is doing it right the first time vs doing it the fastest way/cheapest way. I'd rather see something done right the first time rather then having to put up with poor support. But there can be other compelling reasons to not lean on certain features that are limited to one browser.

 

If you depend on a certain feature there is always the potential that tha feature can be changed at whim. Look at SP2. It locks down ActiveX. This is an excellent thing for the web as a whole, but bad for people who's apps depend on it.