Top 10 Open IP Video Management Software

[chanyickwai 0]

When talking about video surveillance software, it comes to my mind the compatibility with the chipset, is there a single or just a few major chipset makers from which major ip camera makers liked Axis, Vivotek, etc. actually rely on?

 

 

Tks, Dove

 

for the open IP s/w, it's all capturing MJPEG streams. some prgrams allow control of the IP camera functions.

 

I don't think the camera chipsets come into play however..wrt the recording sw.

 

 

That confusing me. For example, I find Axis offering MJPEG and MPEG-4 picture, Vivotek offers MPEG-4, etc ... for recording purpose and monitoring only, it seems reasonable to capture only the video stream based on certain industrial format. However, the controlling, e.g. set the frame rate, set password, etc... I do believe they're more platform dependent. Moreover, a software with only viewing function without controlling function seems in-completed.

 

The consideration for me is that while there are software compatible with so many ip cameras from multiple makers, are they actually using similar structure, e.g. chipset? Just it.

 

Just my personal point of view.

[metafizx 0]

When talking about video surveillance software, it comes to my mind the compatibility with the chipset, is there a single or just a few major chipset makers from which major ip camera makers liked Axis, Vivotek, etc. actually rely on?

 

 

Tks, Dove

 

for the open IP s/w, it's all capturing MJPEG streams. some prgrams allow control of the IP camera functions.

 

I don't think the camera chipsets come into play however..wrt the recording sw.

 

 

That confusing me. For example, I find Axis offering MJPEG and MPEG-4 picture, Vivotek offers MPEG-4, etc ... for recording purpose and monitoring only, it seems reasonable to capture only the video stream based on certain industrial format. However, the controlling, e.g. set the frame rate, set password, etc... I do believe they're more platform dependent. Moreover, a software with only viewing function without controlling function seems in-completed.

 

The consideration for me is that while there are software compatible with so many ip cameras from multiple makers, are they actually using similar structure, e.g. chipset? Just it.

 

Just my personal point of view.

 

I don't know of any open ip s/w that can record using MPEG-4 they all are using MJPEG, as far as I know.

[securicorp 0]

New to the market is a multi-hybrid solution from BiKal with NVR solution too. Accepts multiple IP cameras to USB cameras, analogue camera inputs and IPTV media streams. Also features some great video analytics features.

 

It's pretty new but if you Google BiKal IP you can see specification list and download a free trial.

[ipman 0]

Hi, does anybody know what are the top 10 IP surveillance software

 

Apart from already mentioned software

thiere is a top 20 HOME surveillance software list.

 

But it is mostly for home usage

and it looks the main criteria is price/features.

[CollinR 0]

You guys are using the term "open" pretty loosly.

 

 

Thus far none last listed a package that meets my defintition of open.

[Orion 0]

You guys are using the term "open" pretty loosly.

 

 

Thus far none last listed a package that meets my defintition of open.

 

Whats your definition of open in this case?

What I have seen is that IP softwares that support a wide range of third-part

cameras is considered "open".

That is that Axis and Sonys NVR soft are not open because they only support

own brand of cameras.

[CollinR 0]

Open software is open source so Zonemineder is the only open solution I know of. Good bad or whatever, it is very much and truely open.

 

Making your DVR limited to your own cameras is IMHO economic suicide.

 

Making DVR software that works with a variety of cameras and capture devices is the only way they can make any money. Those who choose otherwise better be both good and huge (Sony, Panasonic) with a large consumer base. Still I seriously doubt this will last too long. It's much better for all involved if a new standard were developed for IP cameras much like NTSC and PAL for analog cameras. Just a bare minimum required to be called an IP based surviellence camera. The other problems would die off quickly.

[Orion 0]

Open software is open source.

 

Can't say I agree with you there. A software could be open to a number of things and it's still not open source.

It's just a marking of words of course.

I would be excited if there would be a open source NVR soft that would be

stable and good looking enough to sell, but I think we will wait for that for a long time.

 

It's much better for all involved if a new standard were developed for IP cameras much like NTSC and PAL for analog cameras. Just a bare minimum required to be called an IP based surviellence camera.

The standard for transporting the video over IP is fairly standardized,

MJPEG and MPEG is the only ones I know about. A standardized OS for the

IP cams would be a disaster. That would be an end to inovative new stuff from the camera manufacurers.

[jharrell 0]

The standard for transporting the video over IP is fairly standardized,

MJPEG and MPEG is the only ones I know about. A standardized OS for the

IP cams would be a disaster. That would be an end to inovative new stuff from the camera manufacurers.

 

MJPEG and MPEG are video compression formats, they specify how video is to be encoded into binary form they do not however specify how those bytes go over IP in any way. Which port? What application layer protocol http,rtp,raw udp? See the issue, NTSC pretty much guarantees a working connection over a cable to a recording/viewing device, IP cams have no end to end standard every manufacturer is different but seems to be moving toward H.264 over IP using RTP(maybe).

 

Look at HDTV at least they standardized on ATSC which is MPEG2 encoded over radio using 8PSK modulation, and a cable standard(cablecard) which is mpeg2 over coax using QAM modulation.

 

So I agree with CollinR CCTV needs a full layer 5 standard and it should include compression formats and PTZ as well, look at the PTZ inconsistenices with analog now since NTSC has no concept of PTZ control built in.

 

Justin

[jameslou 0]

NovoSun CyeWeb is new but does very good job on IP surveillance with analystics functions. It also has a free version for simple scenarios.

[rory 0]

Many SDKs are considered "Confidential" from the manufacturers, which would explain a major lack of open source in that regard (well at least for DVRs, not sure about IP cameras though you typically cant just download an API/SDK from most of them)

[Orion 0]

The standard for transporting the video over IP is fairly standardized,

MJPEG and MPEG is the only ones I know about. A standardized OS for the

IP cams would be a disaster. That would be an end to inovative new stuff from the camera manufacurers.

 

MJPEG and MPEG are video compression formats, they specify how video is to be encoded into binary form they do not however specify how those bytes go over IP in any way. Which port? What application layer protocol http,rtp,raw udp? See the issue, NTSC pretty much guarantees a working connection over a cable to a recording/viewing device, IP cams have no end to end standard every manufacturer is different but seems to be moving toward H.264 over IP using RTP(maybe).

 

Look at HDTV at least they standardized on ATSC which is MPEG2 encoded over radio using 8PSK modulation, and a cable standard(cablecard) which is mpeg2 over coax using QAM modulation.

 

So I agree with CollinR CCTV needs a full layer 5 standard and it should include compression formats and PTZ as well, look at the PTZ inconsistenices with analog now since NTSC has no concept of PTZ control built in.

 

Justin

I disagree on that the application layer should be standardized. Some application layer are good for different situations. For example the FTP protocol can be extreamly good to have on stand alone projects without access to internet and a cheap FTP server. I can't see the problem with a camera that supports some of the application protocols and another one supporting some others.

The NVR soft should be capabe of handling them all.

 

On standardized ports, I really don't know. Havn't seen any problem with it yet though.

 

On PTZ, I do agree. The only problem that is a bit scary is when a manufacturer comes up with a brilliant idea that doesn't fit into the standard.

 

I think that the camera manufacturer that have a good product that customers are ready to buy will have the cameras implemented in the major NVR softs like Milestone and so on, regardless of ports, application layer and even compression. So if it works in Milestone, Mirasys or Geovision, I don't really care witch layer they are using.

[Orion 0]

Many SDKs are considered "Confidential" from the manufacturers, which would explain a major lack of open source in that regard (well at least for DVRs, not sure about IP cameras though you typically cant just download an API/SDK from most of them)

 

The SDK I can understand that they want for them selfs, but the API is

a bit strange. I guess that the major NVR soft companies don't even

have to ask for the API

Perhaps the API is reveals to much for the competitors

[Optima 0]

I would take a look at at NUUO.

[Orion 0]

Hi, try BiKal EyeSoft, with no per camera licensing with 4, 8, 16, 32 & up to 64ch

 

Bikal Eyesoft looks identical to Novosun Cyeweb when looking at the screenshots.

Wich is the original?

[metafizx 0]

Hi, try BiKal EyeSoft, with no per camera licensing with 4, 8, 16, 32 & up to 64ch

 

Bikal Eyesoft looks identical to Novosun Cyeweb when looking at the screenshots.

Wich is the original?

 

from looking at the two websites, Bikal looks to be a "solutions" provider, and NovoSun Cyeweb must be the original application, rebranded for Bikal. Just my thought...

[WeAreNotAlone 0]

Hi, try BiKal EyeSoft, with no per camera licensing with 4, 8, 16, 32 & up to 64ch

 

Bikal Eyesoft looks identical to Novosun Cyeweb when looking at the screenshots.

Wich is the original?

 

from looking at the two websites, Bikal looks to be a "solutions" provider, and NovoSun Cyeweb must be the original application, rebranded for Bikal. Just my thought...

 

Comparing the two websites I like the Bikal website better as they have the documentation and some videos on setting up Eyesoft available for download. Seems like Bikal site has more tips /troubleshooting info as well.

 

In addtion Bikal appears to actually be using the product, bundling it with hardware...

 

Cyeweb website is sorely lacking... (unless I missed it)

 

About the only thing the Cyeweb site trumps the Bikal site is the pricing.... Bikal has NO pricing info....

 

 

.