General Digital Discussion

difference between NVR and DVR

( >> )

James_patageul - 30 Jul 2008, 07:51 am

Hi people,

i which to know what the difference between DVR and NVR

i have found this
softsite32 dotcom slash DVR_VS_NVR dotthtm

but it seem strange because it say:
"Remote video access is accessible thru the actual DVR only."

if NVR is a classic PC i can always take a remote acces no ?

and what is the best choice between NVR and DVR ?

NVR is only for IPcam ?

thx a lot

Sir Flannel - 30 Jul 2008, 08:25 am

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say a DVR is generally a standalone unit for cameras that connect to it locally. Usually analog cameras that plug into video inputs on the back of the unit. All video recording, and compression, and remote access would be done by the DVR.

NVR's are more geared to accept cameras from remote locations, connecting generally over an IP network. It would accept pre-compressed video streams, instead of having to do all that work itself. It may even have more than one physical box that it can share recording duties with

I'm thinking both can be accessed remotely, however, usually with a DVR, the connections to the video can only be made through the DVR. The NVR setups I would think, would let you connect directly to the IP cameras and not force you to go through the NVR

Since I know of DVR's that can perform some of the NVR duties (and vice versa), it's not a PERFECT match, but it's not a bad rule of thumb if I do say so myself. Of course, I reserve the absolute right to be mistaken, and if anybody has a better definition, I'm all ears..

Thomas - 30 Jul 2008, 09:26 am

QUOTE:
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say a DVR is generally a standalone unit for cameras that connect to it locally. Usually analog cameras that plug into video inputs on the back of the unit. All video recording, and compression, and remote access would be done by the DVR.

NVR's are more geared to accept cameras from remote locations, connecting generally over an IP network. It would accept pre-compressed video streams, instead of having to do all that work itself. It may even have more than one physical box that it can share recording duties with

I'm thinking both can be accessed remotely, however, usually with a DVR, the connections to the video can only be made through the DVR. The NVR setups I would think, would let you connect directly to the IP cameras and not force you to go through the NVR

Since I know of DVR's that can perform some of the NVR duties (and vice versa), it's not a PERFECT match, but it's not a bad rule of thumb if I do say so myself. Of course, I reserve the absolute right to be mistaken, and if anybody has a better definition, I'm all ears..

The only difference is the kind of input needed. And getting an IP camera stream from the camera itself and handing it off to remote users is one of the dumbest programing issues on the IP camera side.

First it's a waist of bandwidth, one that gets worse when you start looking at large mega-pixel cameras. Feeding multiple 2200 x 1650 streams to a remote user who can't even see those images on their monitor is dumb. Downscale and make an actual good use of digital zoom.

Second, it's insecure as all fuck. It means your cameras are on the same network. Which means they are vulnerable to exploits. Ask Axis how they feel about cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. It's been an issue for them in the past.

James_patageul - 30 Jul 2008, 10:54 am

thx both for your complet answer :D

Tomas so you counsel me to get a DVR (more secure) just ?[/b]

Thomas - 30 Jul 2008, 01:52 pm

QUOTE:
thx both for your complet answer :D

Tomas so you counsel me to get a DVR (more secure) just ?[/b]

No, it's like any other set of tools. For some jobs a DVR is the correct choice, for other jobs an NVR is the right choice. For instance, how many cameras, what kind of budget, and what kind of infrastructure do you have?

CollinR - 30 Jul 2008, 02:25 pm

Marketing jibberish I say they are all DVRs just like Tivos, and Motorolas for Cable TV. If it records digital video it's a Digital Video Recorder.

doyo - 30 Jul 2008, 07:25 pm

QUOTE:

if NVR is a classic PC i can always take a remote acces no ?

NVR can be remote accessed.

QUOTE:
and what is the best choice between NVR and DVR ?

If you are using IP cameras, NVR is the right choice. If CCTV cameras, DVR.

QUOTE:
NVR is only for IPcam ?

Generally, yes. There are NVRs that works with both IP and CCTV cameras, though.

dnieweg - 12 Aug 2008, 01:21 am

QUOTE:
Marketing jibberish I say they are all DVRs just like Tivos, and Motorolas for Cable TV. If it records digital video it's a Digital Video Recorder

I agree, they are all DVR's because they are all Digital Video Recorders. However, the security market has come to define an analog only recorder as a DVR and IP only recorder (or software) as an NVR short for Network (Camera) Video Recorder.

However, both connect to the network/internet for remote viewing so they are really both "Networkable" Video Recorders as well! ha

But let's talk about the middle ground and that is the Hybrid Recorder. No one has come up with a nifty acronym yet for that one that I know of. How about the HVR? he he Now we can confuse the market even more.

By the way, an HVR (<--- new official term according to me) can record both analog and IP cameras and therefore can provide flexibility for those who have or want to use analog cameras along side IP cameras.

I guess I should point out that most IP recording and management solutions allow you to convert an analog camera to an IP camera by using what is called a video server. However, I would also like to point out that if you want to use a lot of analog cameras (which is sometimes a good choice) this is way too expensive and all those little boxes are quite a clutter in the back room.

A hybrid recorder basically has the Analog to IP converter built-in (at least that's a good way to think about it) which makes it cost effective and clean .. when mixing analog and IP in the same system.

While we are on the subject of confusing misnomers should we talk about the fact that we call linux-based systems embedded systems when in fact it is not an embedded system? ha ha I think I'll save that for another time.

Cheers.

Dave
3xLogic, Inc,

Thomas - 12 Aug 2008, 06:52 am

[quote:3f6aceacf6="dnieweg"]

QUOTE:
Marketing jibberish I say they are all DVRs just like Tivos, and Motorolas for Cable TV. If it records digital video it's a Digital Video Recorder.

There are versions of linux intended to run on embedded platforms. And while there are some units calling themselves embeded when they are just PC's, using linux as an OS doesn't make something not embedded.

dnieweg - 12 Aug 2008, 02:55 pm

QUOTE:

There are versions of linux intended to run on embedded platforms. And while there are some units calling themselves embeded when they are just PC's, using linux as an OS doesn't make something not embedded.

I have to disagree with you because yes, using linux as an OS does make something NOT an embedded at least traditionally.

But, before you think I am offending you, please understand that I was an embedded system programmer many years ago. Before all these readily available OS's that offer services like UI, drivers and communications.

We used microprocessors like the 8051 and others for which there was no operating system, and we programmed applications that would go inside of appliances like VCR's, telephone systems, cars, stereos, answering machines, modems and hundreds of other computerized gadgets.

These were embedded systems and we had no OS because our User Interface (UI) was typically a set of buttons, networks were non-existent, and we didn't interface with a bunch of other stuff.

The reason embedded systems were so secure is that it was all proprietary code and it was unto itself. "Embedded", meaning internalized.

I do understand that common usage can change the meaning of a term, and we in the security industry have done just that meaning that embedded is now often used to define a system in which the "shell" or the interface to the Operating System itself (like explorer in windows) has been for the most part successfully repressed meaning the user cannot directly access other programs that might be in the system.

So I can accept that, but I personally cringe every time I hear someone say they want the security of an embedded system, because "embedded" systems today almost always have an accessible OS running in the background and this offers no more security other than the user doesn't have a direct option to access the OS in the primary User Interface.

My personal opinion, is that today's "embedded" systems can present additional challenges to security simply because they are standard OS with some of the functionality stripped out of them making it nearly impossible to apply any type of patch or update that may have been release to deal with a discovered security flaw.

Dave