HDCCTV is the new standard

[rory 0]

Neither is a standard just yet, they both have to come down in price first. The standard is still a simple cheap cctv camera with a cheap DVR, everything else is a luxury.

[thewireguys 3]

I'm not argueing that right now hdcctv is more expensive then IP..all I'm saying is when china gets there hands on it which they are and it starts getting massed produce you will see the prices get lower..also ofcourse the technology will get better if the hdcctv alliance is the standard...I also want to point out a very respectfull poster that has been on here forever said that there is no way high def video will go over coax that if u wanted high deff u needed ip cameras....hmm he was wrong...it is the start of a great new technology and personly I think all you IP lovers are scared of it because if IP did take over allot of your compatition would go away..=) ...o yah by the way I'm net + cert..IP cameras don't scare me they are very nice but I see it as more manufactures get into it the price will lower and the camera sales will go up because there are way more cctv installers afraid of IP cameras and how easy is it to just plug in cameras vs IP...

 

I am not scared at HDcctv at all and I think it could be a great tool. I have a HUGE problem with how the HD cctv alliance rams false information about everything down people's throats. They have done nothing but turn people off with their tactics and lies.

 

Companies that not embrace IP will be left if the dust. EVERY Device is coming with an Ethernet port or Wifi including HDcctv DVRs.

 

HDcctv will not compete till it is the same price and Qsee and other crap you can by at SAMS club.

 

Also I have many jobs going on right now (small and large 175+ camera jobs) and NONE of them are a good fit for HDcctv.

 

Last time I talked with HDcctv alliance members they say HDcctv designed for the 16 channels and under market.

 

I think HDcctv is not a step forward its just anther tool we can use if we need zero latency system for live viewing but it is a long way to go and IP is getting better and cheaper every day with many years of a head start.

 

Also I have talked to a manufacture the designs and manufactures IP and HDcctv He clams HDcctv will never be cheaper to produce.

[Soundy 1]

The difference in latency is just one aspect of the HDip vs HDcctv comparison.

Yes, but it's an often-overstated one.

 

Are you saying that latency then is a contrived and irrelevant term?

No... just over-used and over-emphasized.

 

That a ping of 400ms vs 1000ms for instance is insignificant and has no impact on performance when it comes to video transmission?

What impact would it have on the performance of the system? The NVR doesn't care if the event happened .4s or 1s earlier; all it has to do is accept the data and write it to disk. It makes no difference to the *processing* of analytics, either. It might matter to the response time, say, if you're using an autotracking PTZ, but how many other situations is a .6s difference actually going to affect the outcome of something?

 

Is latency only of significance to the IT guys when they transmit data?

Depends on the data, doesn't it?

 

Is latency unimportant when synchronizing video and audio, or synchronizing other aspects of video security?

As with everything else, "it depends". Are you suggesting that it's ALWAYS important? My assertion is that WHETHER IT'S IMPORTANT FOR A SPECIFIC INSTALLATION NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. All too often, pie-in-the-sky specs are just thrown in as "requirements" whether or not they're actually relevant to that specific design.

 

I can't really provide a definitive answer around the latency issue --- so it does reduce the variables a little if someone comes along and says - "nah latency is insignificant in the broader scheme of things"

I'm not saying it's ALWAYS insignificant. I'm saying in the vast majority of cases, it PROBABLY is.

 

If you're a conscientious integrator, it's your duty to determine what requirements are actually important for a specific install, so you're not wasting your client's money on features that won't actually make a difference to the job. If they want to spend extra for it anyway, then fine, it's their money, but if you're not giving them alternatives, and explaining WHY you're suggesting those alternatives, then you're not serving them very well.

 

Should we just then remove latency as a comparative factor and focus on the rest of the issues?

As far as HDcctv goes, yes, I think we should.

 

I have had situations where controlling a PTZ camera has been extremely frustrating over a network, on which the numbers where not even 100 or so ms perhaps that has shaped my perception. Perhaps that kind of lag is just part of the process , but doesn't really cause any harm other than annoyance?

That may be fine in an IP-vs-analog discussion... I'm not aware of any HDcctv PTZs being available yet, so again, latency isn't really relevant in that part of the discussion.

[Soundy 1]

I gather that what you guys are saying is "Yes there is a difference but it is insignificant?" is that what you are saying?

 

I would be surprised if that's what you are saying .....because The Issue of latency is regarded as significant enough by numerous standards generating bodies and network engineers , in fact so significant that numerous techniques have been developed to try and manage it.

 

Okay, I think I see where the confusion is here: I think you're confusing two different uses of the term. When HDcctv boosters go on about "zero latency", they're not talking about network latency (mainly because there's no network involved anyway). When we talk about latency in CCTV systems (and IP cameras in particular), we're referring to the delay between when something happens and when you see it happen, which is introduced *BY THE IN-CAMERA PROCESSING OF THE VIDEO*. It has nothing to do with network or data latency.

[Soundy 1]

I'm not argueing that right now hdcctv is more expensive then IP..all I'm saying is when china gets there hands on it which they are and it starts getting massed produce you will see the prices get lower..

 

Yeah, the thing is, that same thinking works for IP systems as well...

 

The following is a quote from a discussion on another forum, *BY A MANUFACTURER OF BOTH IP AND SDI SYSTEMS*:

 

Being a manufacture, SDI camera is not going to be cheaper than network based. We do both IP and SDI..

 

...

 

SDI HD cameras are not going to be cheaper than network based in terms of BOM cost (Bill of Materials Cost). Being a manufacture, we do both SDI and network based HD cameras.

 

The key components of SDI camera are

 

1. HD Sensor

2. SDI IC

3. ISP (Image Signal Processor)

 

 

The key components of HD Network based camera are

 

1. HD Sensor

2. DSP (SoC chip; we use Faraday 8126)

 

 

SDI IC + ISP costs are slightly higher than one DSP used in HD network camera. Sensors are the same cost in both SDI or Network based solution. So, the cost for making SDI HD cameas and network based HD cameras are the same.

 

...

 

To be fair, SDI based is ideal for proejcts which really need real time and best live view video... However, if for budget concerns, network based is the best choice..

 

And remember, this is coming from someone who builds *both types of systems*, which makes him uniquely qualified to comment on the subject. His admission that SDI costs the same as IP flies directly in the face of the Alliance spokesman's claims that it will be cheaper than IP... and his admitting to the problems that SDI systems have (there are many other posts speaking about the limitations of the technology) is ever bolder given the fact that he's potentially hurting his own sales (he's stated in other posts that they've not yet sold a single HDcctv DVR, mainly due to the high cost).

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

I gather that what you guys are saying is "Yes there is a difference but it is insignificant?" is that what you are saying?

 

I would be surprised if that's what you are saying .....because The Issue of latency is regarded as significant enough by numerous standards generating bodies and network engineers , in fact so significant that numerous techniques have been developed to try and manage it.

 

Okay, I think I see where the confusion is here: I think you're confusing two different uses of the term. When HDcctv boosters go on about "zero latency", they're not talking about network latency (mainly because there's no network involved anyway). When we talk about latency in CCTV systems (and IP cameras in particular), we're referring to the delay between when something happens and when you see it happen, which is introduced *BY THE IN-CAMERA PROCESSING OF THE VIDEO*. It has nothing to do with network or data latency.

 

I don't see any confusion there:

 

On a HDcctv system when you move the PTZ joystick, the camera moves. Do the same on an IP system and anytime you have more than a 250ms delay (Latency) it becomes very difficult to use.

 

Restricting an examination of the comparison of latency in HDcctv and HDip to a PTZ scenario alone is of little value.

 

Secondly , In order to view a decent image on a HDcctv system, I don't need to apply all the specialist network engineering concepts I would need to apply to get the same quality image on an IP system and I don't even have to start thinking about how much tolerance the corporate LAN offers. All those extra checks and balances on an IP system are necessary, because of latency. There are no such requirements or concerns on an HDcctv system.

 

Of course - as soon as I connect the HDcctv recorder to the LAN, then I need to apply all those concepts any way!

 

Network Latency is indeed an integral part of this comparison:

 

(1) PTZ function on an analog system vs an IP system is a tangible effect of latency vs low latency,

(2) The engineering concepts that have to be applied to the challenges of sending video over ip, as a result of network latency, are largely not issues in an analog system.

 

So I don't think I am confusing the terms. Network Latency has tangible effects, that impact a comparison of Hdcctv vs HDip - both directly in terms of upthewire hardware coms, and indirectly in terms of the added complexity it necessitates to ensure video transmission over IP.

[Soundy 1]

I think what everyone is saying if you need zero latency HDcctv is the best choice otherwise IP is a better option. IP has better system scalability, design flexibly, and system options which I think is more important to almost all customers over latency.

Can you expand on how IP has better system scalability than HDcctv? is that assuming that a LAN already exists? is that assuming that the existing lan has sufficient capacity?

 

Likewise --- with design flexibility?

I believe I already spoke to those several posts back (or might have been in another thread, I dunno).

 

And can we expand on the better system options HDip offers over HDcctv?

Given the aforementioned HDcctv manufacturer claims HDcctv DVRs can currently do little beyond record and playback (including, no advanced search functionality)... I'd say the list is too long get into.

 

Zero Latency aside ---- it takes a lot of expertise to ensure effective video over ip, a lot of variables that are just not required in a Hdcctv system - unless we interface it with a LAN.

 

I suspect that most IP installs haven't even begun to address those issues, and are just connected and operated on a prayer~

I think you're still living in 1992... network systems have improved a bit in the last 20 years...

[Soundy 1]

So I don't think I am confusing the terms. Network Latency has tangible effects, that impact a comparison of Hdcctv vs HDip - both directly in terms of upthewire hardware coms, and indirectly in terms of the added complexity it necessitates to ensure video transmission over IP.

Network latency is almost zero in IP cameras compared to processing latency. 95% of the lag you're seeing is because of the time the camera takes compressing the video, and the time the VMS takes decompressing it for viewing. The two "latencies" are NOT related, despite the same term being used for both.

 

Actually, using "latency" for this issue is probably a misuse of the term anyway, and obviously leads to some confusion - "lag" is much more suitable.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

So I don't think I am confusing the terms. Network Latency has tangible effects, that impact a comparison of Hdcctv vs HDip - both directly in terms of upthewire hardware coms, and indirectly in terms of the added complexity it necessitates to ensure video transmission over IP.

Network latency is almost zero in IP cameras compared to processing latency. 95% of the lag you're seeing is because of the time the camera takes compressing the video, and the time the VMS takes decompressing it for viewing. The two "latencies" are NOT related, despite the same term being used for both.

 

Actually, using "latency" for this issue is probably a misuse of the term anyway, and obviously leads to some confusion - "lag" is much more suitable.

 

We could continue arguing around PTZ cameras, and this and that for ages.

 

The major point is:

 

The nature of IP is such, that Latency as a result of data congestion, is a very real challenge in video ip systems. Congestion on a network will very quickly create latency variations far higher than 250ms, to the extent that not only are PTZ operations affected, but also the integrity of video reconstruction, once too many packets start arriving after the deadline -issues such as synchronization of text and audio with video will also start to suffer adversely.

 

Any and Every Video Network install, if it's professional grade, must address the effective managment, of the potential effect Latency will have on the integrity of video security transmission.

 

Managing latency to ensure video transmission is a complex process.

 

and so the point is:

 

HDcctv requires far less complexity and expertise in this domain- as the need

to manage and control latency, resulting from congestion is far reduced.

 

I would be a bit wary of an IP installer that suggests to me that Latency within the context of Video over IP, is an overstated and overused principle!

 

I would like to see the network which suffers almost zero latency - That would mean a high speed network backbone, with such capacity that there is very little risk of video data experiencing queuing delays.

 

In an ideal world yes , the majority of networks could be like that --- my observation in the real world though has been that 90% of networks to which the new breed of IP Installers is plugging IP cameras - are not like that!

[tomcctv 187]

In an ideal world yes , the majority of networks could be like that --- my observation in the real world though has been that 90% of networks to which the new breed of IP Installers is plugging IP cameras - are not like that!

 

 

 

90% is high. a cctv network should be dedicated all brand new and not used in connection with anything else.

along with good switchers. that way latency is so low its not worth talking about

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

In an ideal world yes , the majority of networks could be like that --- my observation in the real world though has been that 90% of networks to which the new breed of IP Installers is plugging IP cameras - are not like that!

 

 

 

90% is high. a cctv network should be dedicated all brand new and not used in connection with anything else.

along with good switchers. that way latency is so low its not worth talking about

 

In the scenario you describe , yes 100% ---- in addition, that means it remains a security system with limited access!

[thewireguys 3]

In an ideal world yes , the majority of networks could be like that --- my observation in the real world though has been that 90% of networks to which the new breed of IP Installers is plugging IP cameras - are not like that!

 

 

 

90% is high. a cctv network should be dedicated all brand new and not used in connection with anything else.

along with good switchers. that way latency is so low its not worth talking about

 

In the scenario you describe , yes 100% ---- in addition, that means it remains a security system with limited access!

 

Build a dedicated network for your IP security system..... same thing as a dedicated rg-59 network for analog cameras just a lot more valuable and useful for the end user.

 

Question tesc_cctvpro Do you think most of the latency comes from the network equipment?

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

Question tesc_cctvpro Do you think most of the latency comes from the network equipment?

 

 

The ability of connected network hardware to process data packets received by it certainly is a large factor. But no -- the majority of latency i imagine comes from data queues - if the data packets sent to a single piece of hardware result in unreasonable delay (Queues) that cause network congestion beyond an acceptable tolerance - it's not the hardware that caused it --- rather the incorrect application of the hardware and poor network design.

 

But fundamentally when a piece of hardware receives a packet, it wont forward the packet until the whole packet has been received, so it's apparent, the path of the packet across the hardware is not without delay. Add hundreds of pieces of hardware together and that delay could begin to become significant - the issue of Queuing of course adds additional delay to that fundamental reality of packet switching.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Guest

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

 

Build a dedicated network for your IP security system..... same thing as a dedicated rg-59 network for analog cameras just a lot more valuable and useful for the end user.

 

Could you expand a little on how a closed dedicated network system for CCTV is a lot more valuable and useful to the end user than a closed dedicated RG59 network for CCTV?

[thewireguys 3]

 

Build a dedicated network for your IP security system..... same thing as a dedicated rg-59 network for analog cameras just a lot more valuable and useful for the end user.

 

Could you expand a little on how a closed dedicated network system for CCTV is a lot more valuable and useful to the end user than a closed dedicated RG59 network for CCTV?

 

I shouldn't have to

 

I feel like your probing us for information.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Guest

[thewireguys 3]

 

The ability of connected network hardware to process data packets received by it certainly is a large factor. But no -- the majority of latency i imagine comes from data queues - if the data packets sent to a single piece of hardware result in unreasonable delay (Queues) that cause network congestion beyond an acceptable tolerance - it's not the hardware that caused it --- rather the incorrect application of the hardware and poor network design.

 

So you don't think that your choice of Codec has more to do with latency then the network itself?

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

 

The ability of connected network hardware to process data packets received by it certainly is a large factor. But no -- the majority of latency i imagine comes from data queues - if the data packets sent to a single piece of hardware result in unreasonable delay (Queues) that cause network congestion beyond an acceptable tolerance - it's not the hardware that caused it --- rather the incorrect application of the hardware and poor network design.

 

So you don't think that your choice of Codec has more to do with latency then the network itself?

 

 

I think your choice of codec may produce "processing latency" but - that occurrs prior to or after entering or exiting the network pathway. Network latency would also account for time taking by the hardware to process the data. So on top of network latency, you also have processing latency, which is not only affected by your choice of codec, but can be compounded by your choice of operating system as well.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

 

The ability of connected network hardware to process data packets received by it certainly is a large factor. But no -- the majority of latency i imagine comes from data queues - if the data packets sent to a single piece of hardware result in unreasonable delay (Queues) that cause network congestion beyond an acceptable tolerance - it's not the hardware that caused it --- rather the incorrect application of the hardware and poor network design.

 

So you don't think that your choice of Codec has more to do with latency then the network itself?

 

 

I think your choice of codec may produce "processing latency" but - that occurrs prior to or after entering or exiting the network pathway. Network latency would also account for time taking by the hardware to process the data. So on top of network latency, you also have processing latency, which is not only affected by your choice of codec, but can be compounded by your choice of operating system as well.

 

I am particularly trying to avoid being led down the intended path, which your choice of words such as most, or more implies.

 

Trying to measure whether most latency is generated by hardware , or codec or operating system is an impossible paradigm in the absence of a specific reference network and hardware design, surely we cannot assume all topologies, hardwares and codecs to be equal.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

 

Build a dedicated network for your IP security system..... same thing as a dedicated rg-59 network for analog cameras just a lot more valuable and useful for the end user.

 

Could you expand a little on how a closed dedicated network system for CCTV is a lot more valuable and useful to the end user than a closed dedicated RG59 network for CCTV?

 

I shouldn't have to

 

I feel like your probing us for information.

 

if you wish not to -----> I thought I could learn something

[tomcctv 187]

tesc_cctvpro . what equipment and software do you use in your ip systems

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

tesc_cctvpro . what equipment and software do you use in your ip systems

 

Whatever best meets the criteria of the Operational Requirements Document.

 

We do not believe in loyalty to any brand or technology, we believe that the ORD will ultimately define the criteria for each project, and that equipment, software, etc will be selected based on those criteria.

 

A major annoying feature of cctv installers is when they latch onto some technology and then try to force fit everything to that solution ---- they adopt a religious attitude and start to spew out ill principled logic in defence of their chosen solution. You could keep spinning them for days --- because the only right answer is that the Needs of the project will dictate the technology or solution that should be used.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

By the way ---- I don't install. We are a security logistics company , that is more involved in product sourcing, and logistics.

 

I would have vastly preferred that the discussion stay on track ---- I think the issue of latency has been exhausted, so how about some discussion on the other aspects of HDcctv vs HDip.

 

Like the SMPTE standards , etc........I am really interested in in-depth understanding of people's views around emerging technologies.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Guest

[tomcctv 187]

We do not believe in loyalty to any brand or technology, we believe that the ORD will ultimately define the criteria for each project, and that equipment, software, etc will be selected based on those criteria.

 

 

 

sorry but that just does not make sence. ok what have you used in the past and how did you find it.

 

its good having someone that uses a wide range of VMS software. which one would you say was the overall best and did you use a wide range of cameras

[tomcctv 187]

I would have vastly preferred that the discussion stay on track

 

 

it is staying on track. if your seeing network problems. then if you let people know what cameras of VMS you are using then we can compaire

 

 

but you do install you have a blog and advert saying so.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

We do not believe in loyalty to any brand or technology, we believe that the ORD will ultimately define the criteria for each project, and that equipment, software, etc will be selected based on those criteria.

 

 

 

sorry but that just does not make sence. ok what have you used in the past and how did you find it.

 

 

 

What doesn't make sense --- that some applications call for analytics, which some providers are better at than others, that some providers offer state of the art products at high prices, that some emerging manufacturers offer better pricing, that milestone has unique features that would make deploying something else just plain wrong --- and that you have to marry these issues to what is being defined in the ORD --- , that a plain CIF dvr may make the grade in some instances, that HDcctv might offer benefits in one case, while HDip may do so in another -----that doesn't make sense?

 

The main stay of my low-mid end installs are built around Fibridge in China. Number 1 Chinese network brand, with advanced network and video transmission hardware, now expanded into surveillance products.

 

If I had to go higher, I am not wasting my time ----we select Axis. But we have deployed Milestone applications in some instances , we have used some other providers too..........

 

I don't get into the this is better than that debate - thats for sales people and brand representatives. But yeah, Mostly I am using Fibridge, or we will use Axis.. How did I find it -----it worked!

 

Of course it could take me a whole lot of time to answer that question exhaustively for you!