should I use IP cameras?

[ak357 0]

to answer some of your questions:

hmm dont u compare number of pixels on CCD ?

 

yes but what are you comparing a sony ccd with a megapixel ccd?

 

if you take standard Ip camera ( non megapixel ) they have the same ccd as an analog camera. Ask your buddy Rory. He is very honest.

[/b]

 

hold it

 

u sad "Open an Axis camera and please tell me what you see? I bet my ass you see a standard CCD from sony"

 

How u can compare reg cam with at the most 420K pix

with megapixel CCD or Cmos ?

[thewireguys 3]

With NVRs it is very easy to add a more powerful processor, more memory, and/or more harddrives.

 

You are correct. But adding a 16ch DVR will run you the same in most cases to adding 4 more IP cameras.

 

What happens if you have a 16 channel DVR that is full and you want to add one more camera? This is something that is very easy and much cheaper with a NVR.

 

The money you spent on the IP cameras would be enough to cover an extra DVR for more cameras.

 

 

Everybody talks about bandwith issues but if you design your network properly and use managed switches you will not have issues.

 

See thats the key. Design your network. Why should you have to spend all that extra money on your network when a DVR can handle the same capability with this need. You would rather revamp and add to exsisting network to accomplish what really? Seriously think about it. Im not arguing. I would like to see the reasoning

 

Why spend the money for analog cctv cable when you can only use it for analog cameras. Me and my customers would rather put that money into a better network that will be more useful.

[thewireguys 3]

to answer some of your questions:

hmm dont u compare number of pixels on CCD ?

 

yes but what are you comparing a sony ccd with a megapixel ccd?

 

if you take standard Ip camera ( non megapixel ) they have the same ccd as an analog camera. Ask your buddy Rory. He is very honest.

[/b]

 

hold it

 

u sad "Open an Axis camera and please tell me what you see? I bet my ass you see a standard CCD from sony"

 

How u can compare reg cam with at the most 420K pix

with megapixel CCD or Cmos ?

 

Dont forget about progressive scan.

[ak357 0]

to answer some of your questions:

hmm dont u compare number of pixels on CCD ?

 

yes but what are you comparing a sony ccd with a megapixel ccd?

 

if you take standard Ip camera ( non megapixel ) they have the same ccd as an analog camera. Ask your buddy Rory. He is very honest.

[/b]

 

hold it

 

u sad "Open an Axis camera and please tell me what you see? I bet my ass you see a standard CCD from sony"

 

How u can compare reg cam with at the most 420K pix

with megapixel CCD or Cmos ?

 

Dont forget about progressive scan.

 

I never forget this, "They do"

the same can be sad about Kell factor

which everybody forget or dont know about

[cocacola 0]

No dear!!!

It's not site specific... & not just my own problem.........

 

it's overall problem !!!

 

I hate BNC connectors....

 

rather like working with other products in Access , Fire .etc...

 

I like the cheap analog systems, but i hate BNC too!

[cocacola 0]

What are you people smoking?

 

I am from the Netherlands,..we smoke burned ccd!

[securitysys 0]

What are you people smoking? Analog and digital. How are you going to tell me that an Axis cameras is digital and that a standard ccd camera is analog. WOW. Really? Open an Axis camera and please tell me what you see? I bet my ass you see a standard CCD from sony, like the sony ssllx or maybe a sony HQ1 ( analog ) camera just like any other camera in the world. What makes the Axis camera digital? That fact that you are converting it at the camera and not the DVR? People talk about things without any knowledge or sense. Its amazing. When a so called " analog " camera goes into the dvr it also becomes digital and is streamed digital. Same as an IP camera. Whats the diffrence? Where its being done? As far as the AXIS being a better picture quality. Please. If you believe that i have some ocean front property for you in Vegas i would like you to buy. Hello, Mcfly, its the same ccd as that found in Pelco, Samsung, Panasonic and even Cop cameras. The picture is the same. You tell me. If you compress all your cameras at the dvr and have one video stream for all 16 cameras is this not better than having 16 diffrent streams from 16 diffrent IP cameras? Of course you will say no. Your recoding platform is also on a PC based system with 4 gigs of windows OS to help you run a DVR program thats ment to run as an add on to an OS unlike an RTOS stand alone with full processing and dedicated OS for the DVR only. But of course the PC is better right?

 

An if you compare a megapixel camera to standard HQ1 540 lines of course the megapixel camera is going to look better. BUT, try sending 16 cameras at even 1 megapixel over a network at 30fps and see what happens. I know what your answer will be. Just drop the frame rate and res on the cameras right? Well then whats the point of having megapixel if you cant transmit at megapixel and store at megapixel? Try storing a megapixel picture at full frames in an NVR and let me know how many terrabytes you will need for couple of days of recording. I give IP cameras credit for one thing and one thing only. They have been able to sucker everyone with there terminology and marketing. Everyone says they have digital cameras as opposed to analog and the truth is they believe it. For this i give them credit. But i would really study things prior to speaking about them and look at things from a practical point of view and not a closed one.

 

You just keep installing analog cameras I will take all of the IP camera installs.

 

I think your getting ahead of your self buddy. I've installed and still install both.

 

Provide a solution for a narrow jewelery store that needs to cover each show case, say the store is 500 feet long by 40 feet wide. Jewelery cases run down the side of the store.

 

Analog solution is 30 cameras, with a camera positioned over each show case. Here, it doesn't matter the resolution because each camera is covering such a small area and there's no way to eliminate any of those cameras.

 

If you go with a IP solution, 1.3 MP at 30 FPS the bandwidth consumption will be crazy and so will the storage. Will 3 to 4 times the amount of the analog installation.

 

Now, there are many times when IP is useful, but to say analog is dead is not very smart. If analog was dead then why is Axis still making video servers?

[Thomas 0]

With NVRs it is very easy to add a more powerful processor, more memory, and/or more harddrives.

 

You are correct. But adding a 16ch DVR will run you the same in most cases to adding 4 more IP cameras.

 

What happens if you have a 16 channel DVR that is full and you want to add one more camera? This is something that is very easy and much cheaper with a NVR.

 

The money you spent on the IP cameras would be enough to cover an extra DVR for more cameras.

 

 

Everybody talks about bandwith issues but if you design your network properly and use managed switches you will not have issues.

 

See thats the key. Design your network. Why should you have to spend all that extra money on your network when a DVR can handle the same capability with this need. You would rather revamp and add to exsisting network to accomplish what really? Seriously think about it. Im not arguing. I would like to see the reasoning

 

Why spend the money for analog cctv cable when you can only use it for analog cameras. Me and my customers would rather put that money into a better network that will be more useful.

 

Are you subnetting the cameras at least or are you seriously putting them on the same network as normal traffic?

[Thomas 0]

 

You do realize that IP cameras run into limitations on the NVR side when it comes to scaling? There are limits to processing power and bandwith. And at the same time you can design Analog systems to scale fairly well with the network.

 

With NVRs it is very easy to add a more powerful processor, more memory, and/or more harddrives.

 

What happens if you have a 16 channel DVR that is full and you want to add one more camera? This is something that is very easy and much cheaper with a NVR.

 

Everybody talks about bandwith issues but if you design your network properly and use managed switches you will not have issues.

 

And most PC based dvr cards allow for expansion via another board or daughter card. And most of the time a card that allows for 8 or 16 channel growth is going to be cheaper then a single license of the of IP camera software.

 

And the bandwidth issue is still an issue when you start talking about enterprise level installations. I can and have done the network design for 500 camera IP camera installs and you still have to be careful to watch for choke points and a cluster of NVRs can be your choke point there.

[thewireguys 3]

What are you people smoking? Analog and digital. How are you going to tell me that an Axis cameras is digital and that a standard ccd camera is analog. WOW. Really? Open an Axis camera and please tell me what you see? I bet my ass you see a standard CCD from sony, like the sony ssllx or maybe a sony HQ1 ( analog ) camera just like any other camera in the world. What makes the Axis camera digital? That fact that you are converting it at the camera and not the DVR? People talk about things without any knowledge or sense. Its amazing. When a so called " analog " camera goes into the dvr it also becomes digital and is streamed digital. Same as an IP camera. Whats the diffrence? Where its being done? As far as the AXIS being a better picture quality. Please. If you believe that i have some ocean front property for you in Vegas i would like you to buy. Hello, Mcfly, its the same ccd as that found in Pelco, Samsung, Panasonic and even Cop cameras. The picture is the same. You tell me. If you compress all your cameras at the dvr and have one video stream for all 16 cameras is this not better than having 16 diffrent streams from 16 diffrent IP cameras? Of course you will say no. Your recoding platform is also on a PC based system with 4 gigs of windows OS to help you run a DVR program thats ment to run as an add on to an OS unlike an RTOS stand alone with full processing and dedicated OS for the DVR only. But of course the PC is better right?

 

An if you compare a megapixel camera to standard HQ1 540 lines of course the megapixel camera is going to look better. BUT, try sending 16 cameras at even 1 megapixel over a network at 30fps and see what happens. I know what your answer will be. Just drop the frame rate and res on the cameras right? Well then whats the point of having megapixel if you cant transmit at megapixel and store at megapixel? Try storing a megapixel picture at full frames in an NVR and let me know how many terrabytes you will need for couple of days of recording. I give IP cameras credit for one thing and one thing only. They have been able to sucker everyone with there terminology and marketing. Everyone says they have digital cameras as opposed to analog and the truth is they believe it. For this i give them credit. But i would really study things prior to speaking about them and look at things from a practical point of view and not a closed one.

 

You just keep installing analog cameras I will take all of the IP camera installs.

 

I think your getting ahead of your self buddy. I've installed and still install both.

 

Provide a solution for a narrow jewelery store that needs to cover each show case, say the store is 500 feet long by 40 feet wide. Jewelery cases run down the side of the store.

 

Analog solution is 30 cameras, with a camera positioned over each show case. Here, it doesn't matter the resolution because each camera is covering such a small area and there's no way to eliminate any of those cameras.

 

If you go with a IP solution, 1.3 MP at 30 FPS the bandwidth consumption will be crazy and so will the storage. Will 3 to 4 times the amount of the analog installation.

 

Now, there are many times when IP is useful, but to say analog is dead is not very smart. If analog was dead then why is Axis still making video servers?

 

I never said I only install IP cameras. There is no one camera for every situation. But I don't agree what telespy is saying, he makes IP cameras sound like they are garbage and this simply is not true.

[destro_23 0]

Doesn't it all come down to a "money" shot for the particular business? i have only installed 3 DVR systems at this point, 12 camera being the largest, for some small stores... and yes i agree that the quality can/should be better. But for my last install there are only 2 ways in/out.. barring going through a brick wall.. so i put 2 high quality cameras at the doors.. and regular vari-focal domes inside along with IR bullet cameras..

 

What i explained to client was that since it's a bar and entrance is very well lit we need to put high quality cam there and zoom in on the door so we can get a clear face shot. The rest of the time as long as we can follow the person around after the fact we are fine.. we only need ONE good shot of a face the rest can be kinda "fuzzy" and the same for the back door(to make sure food/liquor doesn't walk out). Also camera by register and watching bartenders is important. I'm still working on getting POS (point of sale computer/register) outputted to the screen but i will have it done shortly.

 

For a lot of small business you have to evaluate and pitch the correct solution. For most small business a nice DVR is more then enough.. and the fact that they can watch from home AMAZES 95% of the people i talk to.

 

I would seriously say that if i pitched a very expensive system to a small business they would tell me to leave. When i could sell "more reasonable" systems and have many small business actually consider it. Times are hard and alot of businesses are pinching pennies.

 

 

I'd love to have you sell DVR/NVR systems for me ANYTIME!! the fact that you got a person to pay you $4k more then closest bid means you did a great job at selling him what he "needs" and you didn't even have to install it!! I'm sure the system looks great to!

[linuxmugen 0]

Interesting argument. I've been building a network since it was running on a coax cable. No RJ45, No Hub, No Switches, No Router, and so on. This argument between analog and ip camera really interesting. IMO, Analog could be more reliable and secure, but in lack of quality compared to IP, the same to the old networking system running on coax. On the other hand, IP or network based system are can also be very reliable, secure, and way better quality, with one big BUT. That BUT is, everything will be tied up to a switch or a hub (I don't think anyone uses HUB anymore these days). Therefore, IP or network based system all very dependent on the switch (under circumstances where power outage is taken out from the variable), while Analog is tied up directly to the DVR. So, my suggestion, if you go with IP / Network based, do invest more money on the switch and secure it (of course secure the camera also). If you decide on the Analog, do install more cameras for better coverage.

 

Also, if some manufacturer will decide to make NVR with built-in 4 to 8 to 16 to 32 1Gigabit port. That will eliminate the bottleneck on the switch, so there won't be any network overload for High Megapixels IP Camera. The storage factor won't be an issue since Hard Drive capacity are getting bigger and cheaper, and most NVR are expandable via NAS these days.

[Thomas 0]

Interesting argument. I've been building a network since it was running on a coax cable. No RJ45, No Hub, No Switches, No Router, and so on. This argument between analog and ip camera really interesting. IMO, Analog could be more reliable and secure, but in lack of quality compared to IP, the same to the old networking system running on coax. On the other hand, IP or network based system are can also be very reliable, secure, and way better quality, with one big BUT. That BUT is, everything will be tied up to a switch or a hub (I don't think anyone uses HUB anymore these days). Therefore, IP or network based system all very dependent on the switch (under circumstances where power outage is taken out from the variable), while Analog is tied up directly to the DVR. So, my suggestion, if you go with IP / Network based, do invest more money on the switch and secure it (of course secure the camera also). If you decide on the Analog, do install more cameras for better coverage.

 

Also, if some manufacturer will decide to make NVR with built-in 4 to 8 to 16 to 32 1Gigabit port. That will eliminate the bottleneck on the switch, so there won't be any network overload for High Megapixels IP Camera. The storage factor won't be an issue since Hard Drive capacity are getting bigger and cheaper, and most NVR are expandable via NAS these days.

 

The problem isn't just a matter of securing the switch. The cameras themselves pose a security risk. Axis had a rather nice cross-site scripting issue that allowed root control of the camera itself. And given that at the same time it was reported that Axis was sending usernames and passwords as plain text.

 

The major issue on the IP side that people don't want to talk about is that there are a lot more design issues in play. Cameras need to not be exposed to users. And a large number of software designers encourage the opposite because it lets them say "We can handle 80 cameras" because they are too lazy to transcode. There is no damn reason to be handing off multiple mega pixel streams in a multiplexed set up users who can't display all of that at max resolution anyway.

 

I'm not saying IP isn't what we'll use in the future, or that IP is bad, but I am saying there are a lot of damn elephants in the room that people aren't talking about.

[jhonovich 0]

Cameras need to not be exposed to users. And a large number of software designers encourage the opposite because it lets them say "We can handle 80 cameras" because they are too lazy to transcode.

 

Thomas, when you say expose, do you mean letting users connect directly to the cameras rather than through the NVR/IP Video surveillance software?

[Thomas 0]

Cameras need to not be exposed to users. And a large number of software designers encourage the opposite because it lets them say "We can handle 80 cameras" because they are too lazy to transcode.

 

Thomas, when you say expose, do you mean letting users connect directly to the cameras rather than through the NVR/IP Video surveillance software?

 

Correct. Allowing the users to be able to directly access the cameras allows for all kinds of potential chaos.

[CollinR 0]

Welcome back Thomas! You and I are on the exact same page.

[thewireguys 3]

Cameras need to not be exposed to users. And a large number of software designers encourage the opposite because it lets them say "We can handle 80 cameras" because they are too lazy to transcode.

 

Thomas, when you say expose, do you mean letting users connect directly to the cameras rather than through the NVR/IP Video surveillance software?

 

Correct. Allowing the users to be able to directly access the cameras allows for all kinds of potential chaos.

 

You don't have to allow direct access to the cameras. Most of the time I just set up a access for the NVR software unless the customer requests it.

[jhonovich 0]

With regards to connecting directly to cameras, I find it especially strange that manufacturers talk this up as if it is a virtue. I agree that letting users connect directly exposing all sorts of unnecessary problems. Such access only makes sense when you have 1 or 2 cameras total and it is for personal/small business use.

[Thomas 0]

Cameras need to not be exposed to users. And a large number of software designers encourage the opposite because it lets them say "We can handle 80 cameras" because they are too lazy to transcode.

 

Thomas, when you say expose, do you mean letting users connect directly to the cameras rather than through the NVR/IP Video surveillance software?

 

Correct. Allowing the users to be able to directly access the cameras allows for all kinds of potential chaos.

 

You don't have to allow direct access to the cameras. Most of the time I just set up a access for the NVR software unless the customer requests it.

 

Except that a there are a number of enterprise level programs that open a direct stream from the client to the camera. Which means that subnetting or using the NVR as a bridge just doesn't work. So you end up with cameras that are on the same network as the users.

 

And this is talked up as a feature with claims that it reduces CPU load on the NVR. Never mind the potential security flaws it creates. The worst thing I can do to an analog camera simply take it out of viewing. With IP based cameras you can end up with a device that can compromise your network. My favorite nightmare scenario is the compromised OEM. If we have an incident in which some factory in China begins spewing out rooted cameras, you could end up with thousands of compromised networks.

 

Even assuming that your statement means that you subnet or place the cameras on an entirely different network, that's not how the majority of the manufacturers or software houses are assuming they will be set up. So while you may doing it correctly, do not assume that what you do applies to the industry as a whole.

[CollinR 0]

Don't forget an IP camera on the outside of a building is basically just like having a network jack on the outside of your building. How often do you see that?

 

Also if PoE is present it wouldn't be too hard to trade the cam for a WAP and plug the cam into that. Now you can be hacked internally from miles away. (google Mikrotik).

[thewireguys 3]

Don't forget an IP camera on the outside of a building is basically just like having a network jack on the outside of your building. How often do you see that?

 

Also if PoE is present it wouldn't be too hard to trade the cam for a WAP and plug the cam into that. Now you can be hacked internally from miles away. (google Mikrotik).

 

Not if you setup your security properly on your switch. Per-port MAC filtering, 802.1x, vlans.

 

Also Zyxel has a really cool feature called Intrusion Lock on there switches for security. Once you plug in all off your devices you can turn on a setting that if a device gets unplugged the switch disables the port. There is no way of hooking anything up to that network wire until you log into the switch thought the Local console port on the switch. Making your install very secure.

[ak357 0]

[quote

 

Also Zyxel has a really cool feature called Intrusion Lock on there switches for security. Once you plug in all off your devices you can turn on a setting that if a device gets unplugged the switch disables the port. There is no way of hooking anything up to that network wire until you log into the switch thought the Local console port on the switch. Making your install very secure.

 

Thx for sharing about Zyxel it is very cool

will be offering to my customers

[Thomas 0]

Don't forget an IP camera on the outside of a building is basically just like having a network jack on the outside of your building. How often do you see that?

 

Also if PoE is present it wouldn't be too hard to trade the cam for a WAP and plug the cam into that. Now you can be hacked internally from miles away. (google Mikrotik).

 

Not if you setup your security properly on your switch. Per-port MAC filtering, 802.1x, vlans.

 

Also Zyxel has a really cool feature called Intrusion Lock on there switches for security. Once you plug in all off your devices you can turn on a setting that if a device gets unplugged the switch disables the port. There is no way of hooking anything up to that network wire until you log into the switch thought the Local console port on the switch. Making your install very secure.

 

And yet you still haven't addressed how you prevent compromised cameras. That prevents a simple disconnection or adding hardware for a variation of a man in the middle attack.

 

But keep ignoring that Vivotek has an open vulnerability with it's activeX control that was identified in Feb and still not fixed. Or the reports of D-link cameras being affected by the same vulnerability and actively being exploited in the wild.

[thewireguys 3]

Don't forget an IP camera on the outside of a building is basically just like having a network jack on the outside of your building. How often do you see that?

 

Also if PoE is present it wouldn't be too hard to trade the cam for a WAP and plug the cam into that. Now you can be hacked internally from miles away. (google Mikrotik).

 

Not if you setup your security properly on your switch. Per-port MAC filtering, 802.1x, vlans.

 

Also Zyxel has a really cool feature called Intrusion Lock on there switches for security. Once you plug in all off your devices you can turn on a setting that if a device gets unplugged the switch disables the port. There is no way of hooking anything up to that network wire until you log into the switch thought the Local console port on the switch. Making your install very secure.

 

And yet you still haven't addressed how you prevent compromised cameras. That prevents a simple disconnection or adding hardware for a variation of a man in the middle attack.

 

But keep ignoring that Vivotek has an open vulnerability with it's activeX control that was identified in Feb and still not fixed. Or the reports of D-link cameras being affected by the same vulnerability and actively being exploited in the wild.

 

Well I would never recommend Vivotek or D-link for anything important.

 

And I would not allow direct access to the cameras. Setup mac address filtering so only the NVR can access the cameras.

[Thomas 0]

Don't forget an IP camera on the outside of a building is basically just like having a network jack on the outside of your building. How often do you see that?

 

Also if PoE is present it wouldn't be too hard to trade the cam for a WAP and plug the cam into that. Now you can be hacked internally from miles away. (google Mikrotik).

 

Not if you setup your security properly on your switch. Per-port MAC filtering, 802.1x, vlans.

 

Also Zyxel has a really cool feature called Intrusion Lock on there switches for security. Once you plug in all off your devices you can turn on a setting that if a device gets unplugged the switch disables the port. There is no way of hooking anything up to that network wire until you log into the switch thought the Local console port on the switch. Making your install very secure.

 

And yet you still haven't addressed how you prevent compromised cameras. That prevents a simple disconnection or adding hardware for a variation of a man in the middle attack.

 

But keep ignoring that Vivotek has an open vulnerability with it's activeX control that was identified in Feb and still not fixed. Or the reports of D-link cameras being affected by the same vulnerability and actively being exploited in the wild.

 

Well I would never recommend Vivotek or D-link for anything important.

 

And I would not allow direct access to the cameras. Setup mac address filtering so only the NVR can access the cameras.

 

And what about Axis? Did you miss the wonderful admin password bypass they had a few years ago which would allow root telenet access? Or the Mobotix cross-site scripting issue this year?

 

And too many companies design their software to require the clients to have direct access to the cameras to see a live stream. Lensec does that with their software. So do a number of other companies.

 

So you can pretend that proper network setup is all that needs to happen, but too many camera manufacturers and software developers are working against you on it. The IP side of the industry is spending way too much time working on features and not enough working on fundamentals.