IP Based CCTV

Status
Not open for further replies.
ron

ron

Senior Member
Location
New York, 40.7514,-73.9925
Each project that I design ends up having lots of cameras and recording equipment (data centers). I typically specify analog cameras (fixed or PTZ) with coax cabling.

This next project will have more cameras, and more recording requirements. Has anyone had experience with Ethernet based TCP/IP transmitted video, where the cabling would be fiber or Cat5e, and the digital video recording could be more effective because the DVR wouldn't have to perform the A/D conversion prior to recording.
I'm looking for suggestions on topology or manufacturers that have been used.
My understanding is Sony and Panasonic are the only big CCTV manufacturers in the market so far.
 
Re: IP Based CCTV

Ron, try contacting your nearby ADI dealership for input. I have had a lot of good info provided to me free of charge on projects involving cctv and low voltage work in the past. They will typically assist in tweaking the designs to get you set up with the best equipment needs for the particular installation.
 
Re: IP Based CCTV

I second the sugestion to contact ADI for input. We don't get into security but if TCP/IP video is anything like telecom VOIP (where our experience lies) it has a ways to go.

Regardless of any real advantages (if there are any) I have always felt that this technology is being developed as a way to put these systems in the domain of IT people who don't understand anything but computers and network communication. By doing so it saves companies money since everything can be handled by their in house IT departments instead of bringing in outside vendors like us :mad: . I'm just waiting for the day when someone introduces a computer keyboard with a telephone handset.

Your thoughts about digital video recording are erroneous. Really wouldn't make any difference.

-Hal
 
Re: IP Based CCTV

From my experience with CCTV, running coaxand using an analog signal is almost always the better solution. The problem with any type of IP based network is speed. If you connect 24 cammeras on one network, all uploading an image, 30 times per second to *one* recording device, the trafic adds up quickly and will cause stalls, collisions, and lost data. Either recording will lag, or not get there at all or the picture quality will be worthless.
Even with time lapse recording, it can be a pain. Some of the most advanced CCTV systems in the world, are still using the same old analog coax.
 
Re: IP Based CCTV

Late again but oh well, look at the AXIS line of products. the most easiest and best way to get ip ethernet cctv, axis takes a regular camera signal converts it and broadcast it over a network, you assign the ip based on the networks gateway address's. you end up with a web page style live video feed that can be stored anywhere you want i.e. hard drive or dvr. i personally have installed over 500 of them at 3 different sites and they work great.
 
Re: IP Based CCTV

We have just installed a system of 5 independant ip based dvrs, each of the five systems consisting of four cameras monitoring parking decks in an apartment complex. While it is true that requesting large numbers of real time feeds across a network will cause issues, the idea of the IP based DVR works best when it is only necessary to view the feeds upon request or one feed at a time ie: they don't cause traffic problems unless you view them all at once. I think that it is a good solution for situations that are not monitored by humans at all times. Keep in mind that the DVR is recording motion events without regard to it's being viewed in real-time.

Really though, if you use good practices in wiring your network and have the proper equipment you be able to handle a large number of constant feeds on a 100mb/s network. If you installed a gb network then the cieling is even higher.

Edit: Also, this assumed that the primary purpose of the network of for CCTV, or that you have light network traffic. If you have a heavy traffic network before you add CCTV, then it could be an issue.

I should have clarified that the system we used was a direct wiring of the cameras to the dvr unit with traditional methods (though we often use cat5e with baluns with good result), with the DVR having a connection over ethernet, essentially creating viewing nodes of a cctv system.

[ January 04, 2005, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: jeh ]
 
Re: IP Based CCTV

happy new year to everyone.

i agree that unless analog video from camera to recorder is impractical, that is by far the best and most flexible architecture. use coax or UTP to transmit the analog video to the dvr, then establish network connectivity to the dvrs for video distribution.

live viewing applications especially benefit from analog feeds. in particular pan-tilt-zoom cameras really need analog connections. we get around this on dvr-only sites by using prepositioning to move cameras from one preset position to another. moving them using the dvr's built-in ptz controls over a network is painful. and digital compression used in IP cameras and dvrs really hurts the quality of the video, no question. the difference between the live image from a good camera and the digitized image is painful to observe. readers whose experience with digital video is in the camcorder or 6 megapixel camera world are in for a rude shock when they get a look at surveillance-quality digital video.

suppliers like adi are a good source of info, but no substitute for someone with first-hand real-world experience with surveillance applications, especially on current systems. [i did systems support/tech sales at adi in a previous life.] distributors also have relationships with certain manufacturers [or are owned by them] and their advice is colored accordingly. they can't direct you to a product they don't sell, and are unlikely to know much about it anyway.

the cost of these video installations is significant, and your client needs solid advice from someone that knows what they are talking about. the difference between the right design and almost the right design can be huge. the best advice i can give you is to find someone whose experience and product knowlege you can trust and bring him/her in to help you find the right solution. money well spent. we had to do that on the IT side of things, hiring two full-time IT guys with all the IT alphabet soup after their names [A+, N+, MCSE, etc....] it helps to have someone that speaks the language of the client's IT people who are involved in decision-making.

one final note: your client should be made aware that as in the PC world, digital video products are obselete the day they are installed.

hope that helps.
 
CCTV manufacture

CCTV manufacture

Hello I just made an account and noticed your post.

I work for a CCTV and DVR manufacture in United States and Canada.
You asked about IP cameras, many professional CCTV Installers wont use IP cameras because their image can be tampered and they don’t stand up very well in court and are easier to disable. I recommend you use wired cameras when ever possible, one because they are safer and secure, 2 wired cameras offer better quality, 3,IP cameras use a raw mjpeg image and significantly reduce the recording life of the DVR. MY company sells a wide verity of CCTV and DVR's. The company I work for is Ascendent Technology Group. We offer the most comprehensive PC based DVR on the market. We are a manufacture and sell to dealers and installers only and would be interested in working with you.

(Text deleted)

If you have any questions you can either post them here or call xxx-xxx-xxxx.


Please exchange personal information via PMs.
Text deleted due to forum rules, solicitation. Please contact this member via PM for deleted information.
-George
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bensonelectric said:
From my experience with CCTV, running coaxand using an analog signal is almost always the better solution. The problem with any type of IP based network is speed. If you connect 24 cammeras on one network, all uploading an image, 30 times per second to *one* recording device, the trafic adds up quickly and will cause stalls, collisions, and lost data. Either recording will lag, or not get there at all or the picture quality will be worthless.
Even with time lapse recording, it can be a pain. Some of the most advanced CCTV systems in the world, are still using the same old analog coax.
Click to expand...

The bigger problem I see is that the IP cameras don't have the processing power to maintain high image capture rates, or even high resolution.
 
jeh said:
Really though, if you use good practices in wiring your network and have the proper equipment you be able to handle a large number of constant feeds on a 100mb/s network. If you installed a gb network then the cieling is even higher.
Click to expand...

While it's true that gigabit will raise the ceiling quite a ways, trying to drive 100Mb/s links beyond 5 or 6MB/s continuously can get dicey, and with any type of streaming video you're going to get really close to that point before you know it.

Someone else's comment upthread about poor digital video quality is very relevant, and trying to fix that by increasing the resolution will make you run out of bandwidth very quickly.
 
tallgirl said:
The bigger problem I see is that the IP cameras don't have the processing power to maintain high image capture rates, or even high resolution.
Click to expand...

One of the nice things about at least some digital cameras is NO blurring. They can often be magnified more than a comparable analog picture as well.

I think the issue of putting them on a normal LAN is valid. It is far better to not do that unless you have to. It is a lot of traffic if you use it a lot.
 
petersonra said:
One of the nice things about at least some digital cameras is NO blurring. They can often be magnified more than a comparable analog picture as well.

I think the issue of putting them on a normal LAN is valid. It is far better to not do that unless you have to. It is a lot of traffic if you use it a lot.
Click to expand...

At the sorts of resolution that exceed standard analog cameras, digital gets really big. I think that what makes people believe that digital can be enlarged more is that pixel for pixel, digital is presented much smaller. But an analog camera has 525 "lines" of resolution and that's less than a monitor full, even though people think of "analog" as being an entire monitor. NTSC is 768 x 494, which is better than old-timey VGA resolution that's the maximum resolution on many digital video cameras that aren't camcorders. At 16 bit color resolution that's a 760KB uncompressed image. Thirty times a second.
 
I thought one of the big reasons ip cameras were not as popular were there ability (or lack there of) to see in low light levels. I beleive that analog cameras are better suited for low light conditions.
 
MAK said:
I thought one of the big reasons ip cameras were not as popular were there ability (or lack there of) to see in low light levels. I beleive that analog cameras are better suited for low light conditions.
Click to expand...

Not so much -- there are low-light capable IP cameras. I suspect that digital video cameras can be made with better low-light characteristics because the frame rate isn't dictated by something like NTSC or PAL.

The way CCDs work is they "collect" electrical charges from where photons from hit specific places on the device. In theory, they could be allowed to sit there gathering photons just about forever before being "read" and turned into an image.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top