HDCCTV is the new standard

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

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.

 

The topic is about HDcctv setting the new standard. And If i tell you that I don't install and you tell me that I do ---- then i really think you are better off just answering those questions on my behalf!

[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.

 

The topic is about HDcctv setting the new standard. And If i tell you that I don't install and you tell me that I do ---- then i really think you are better off just answering those questions on my behalf!

 

 

tesc_cctvpro i asked a simple question. on what products you used if your seeing so much latency (your quote 90% of installs) it would have been good putting it into prospective . so it is part of the thread.

And If i tell you that I don't install and you tell me that I do

 

you asked me to look at your website yesterday. your writing not mine.

 

largest business ... Specializing in Surveillance System design and installation ... CCTV Video Surveillance, IP Technology & Solutions

 

 

and before you have a go at me like you did yesterday. my questions were good but you dont seam to give a plain answer back. you go all around the the answer.

 

you seem to be active on alot of forums. and what has come to light is you are doing alot of copy and pasting. so i can now see why you cant answer.

 

 

 

another post were YOU say you install.

 

Hi Guys, nice to join the group - off the bat, I want to start offering VAAS to my customers, where I only need to install IP cams on the premises. I don't know anything about it ---- so where do i go from here

 

 

 

ill leave your posts alone now as it does not seam to be going anywere and when you ask people to look at your sit ( like me ) and you make a comment you dont install. and you have a go just because it says you do on your site does not make sence.

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?

 

 

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.

 

So then you understand why HDcctv doesn't have latency issues.

[thewireguys 3]

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.

 

Well that's it HDcctv has an advantage with latency.

[thewireguys 3]

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.

.

 

Sounds like a service nightmare. How can you be great at anything if you do everything?

[Campbell 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.

.

 

Sounds like a service nightmare. How can you be great at anything if you do everything?

 

Speak for yourself I can be great at everything because I'm amazing... dunno about you ;P

[Soundy 1]

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.

.

 

Sounds like a service nightmare. How can you be great at anything if you do everything?

 

Speak for yourself I can be great at everything because I'm amazing... dunno about you ;P

What a coincidence - me too!

[thewireguys 3]

[rory 0]

What a coincidence - me too!

me tree!

 

even when i call the cesspit pumping company, im oh so good at that .. at calling them

[survtech 0]

I just have to butt in on the latency issue. As a casino end user, I can say that we do use PTZs and they are manned 24/7.

 

In our industry, there are many applications where PTZ latency (or whatever you choose to call it) would be a factor; often seriously affecting our ability to perform our jobs efficiently. 250ms would present severe control problems and 1000ms is definitely out of the question.

 

For instance, in 250ms a vehicle traveling at 25mph would go 9.2 feet; a person running at 15mph would travel 5.5 feet. Obviously, obtaining license plate info or identifying a face would be quite difficult. With 1000ms of total latency, the figures above would be quadrupled. Just following the vehicle or running person that is not traveling in a straight line becomes difficult with 250ms and virtually impossible at 1000ms.

 

I, and many others in the casino industry, have set our sights on the magic number of 100ms. Whether that is even do-able with IP is questionable; despite some manufacturers' claims, and getting the total latency (bi-directional, because an IP system introduces latency in both directions) reliably down to that level appears to be impossible at this point in time. Perhaps when encoder/decoder designs become more robust and with proper (read expensive) network designs...?

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

tesc_cctvpro i asked a simple question. on what products you used if your seeing so much latency (your quote 90% of installs) it would have been good putting it into prospective . so it is part of the thread.

And If i tell you that I don't install and you tell me that I do

 

you asked me to look at your website yesterday. your writing not mine.

 

largest business ... Specializing in Surveillance System design and installation ... CCTV Video Surveillance, IP Technology & Solutions

 

 

and before you have a go at me like you did yesterday. my questions were good but you dont seam to give a plain answer back. you go all around the the answer.

 

you seem to be active on alot of forums. and what has come to light is you are doing alot of copy and pasting. so i can now see why you cant answer.

 

 

 

another post were YOU say you install.

 

Hi Guys, nice to join the group - off the bat, I want to start offering VAAS to my customers, where I only need to install IP cams on the premises. I don't know anything about it ---- so where do i go from here

 

 

 

ill leave your posts alone now as it does not seam to be going anywere and when you ask people to look at your sit ( like me ) and you make a comment you dont install. and you have a go just because it says you do on your site does not make sence.

 

I am not going to spend a lot of time replying:

 

My company is a logistics solution which supplies a closed network of integrators.

 

Yes we do specialize in surveillance system installation and design - we have to , because our customers are installers - but we don't install ourselves

 

Again - we are looking at setting up a VAAS infrastructure and offering it to our customers, who are installers and will in turn offer the option to their customers.

 

The tack you have taken in responding to my threads says enough i think. It is easy to read into anything - what we want to when we are pre dis-positioned.

 

I won't engage you further as i think this type of contribution is not beneficial to the topic at hand.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

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.

 

Well that's it HDcctv has an advantage with latency.

 

Great, can we focus on some of the other things that the HDcctv alliance claims as advantages on their site. I think another exhaustive debate will give me a pretty good idea of what the truth is!

 

HDcctv has an advantage with latency, but are we willing to pay 10x the price for a recorder ?

[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.

.

 

Sounds like a service nightmare. How can you be great at anything if you do everything?

 

LOL ---- Claiming that one product or one manufacturer meets all criteria, sounds like a service nightmare to me!

 

I don't install -- but my customers are a diverse range of integrators. Some focus entirely on mining, some have specialized in gated community security, others are focussed on POS, and others on chain store, some do mid end analog, some need HD IP.

 

We are actively engaged in every project with each of them from the design stage to completion, because ours is the logistics end - sourcing the proper equipment, and delivering it at the appropriate time.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

I just have to butt in on the latency issue. As a casino end user, I can say that we do use PTZs and they are manned 24/7.

 

In our industry, there are many applications where PTZ latency (or whatever you choose to call it) would be a factor; often seriously affecting our ability to perform our jobs efficiently. 250ms would present severe control problems and 1000ms is definitely out of the question.

 

For instance, in 250ms a vehicle traveling at 25mph would go 9.2 feet; a person running at 15mph would travel 5.5 feet. Obviously, obtaining license plate info or identifying a face would be quite difficult. With 1000ms of total latency, the figures above would be quadrupled. Just following the vehicle or running person that is not traveling in a straight line becomes difficult with 250ms and virtually impossible at 1000ms.

 

I, and many others in the casino industry, have set our sights on the magic number of 100ms. Whether that is even do-able with IP is questionable; despite some manufacturers' claims, and getting the total latency (bi-directional, because an IP system introduces latency in both directions) reliably down to that level appears to be impossible at this point in time. Perhaps when encoder/decoder designs become more robust and with proper (read expensive) network designs...?

 

Nothing is ever more meaningful than real case studies , situations on the ground. Thanks for that input!

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

So now the HDcctv alliance claims that because they subscribe to the SMPTE standards, this will translate into a higher standard of picture fidelity, and motion picture type dedication to frame rates.

 

Whats the comments on this issue versus ip image fidelity and frame rates.

[NotoriousBRK 0]

So now the HDcctv alliance claims that because they subscribe to the SMPTE standards, this will translate into a higher standard of picture fidelity, and motion picture type dedication to frame rates.

 

Whats the comments on this issue versus ip image fidelity and frame rates.

 

I'm always a little surprised that anyone falls for any part of the hdcctv gambit, but this is one that is especially puzzling.

 

Look at your "average" cctv deployment, and what the typical customer is really willing to spend money on. Almost none of these will budget enough pixels-per-foot to capture all the details they want in all the camera views.

 

So, you can take a 720p or 1080p camera and cover a 100ft wide area. You'll get a much better picture than would have with an SD camera, but in most of that view you're not going to have enough pixels per foot to get *really* good detail. Carrying the image over IP or SDI or via Carrier Pigeon doesn't materially affect the outcome of a system that has placed 400 pixels *total* on a license plate at the far end of the FOV.

 

In the end, I don't see hdcctv offering any real benefits in terms of cost, picture quality or system usability. It's sweet spot is the limited markets that value lower latency images, and DIY systems where people don't want to pay an installer, or only want the most basic system.

[SEANHAWG 1]

I dont have ADD but after reading this thread, I think I just have been diagnosed with it.

[Soundy 1]

So now the HDcctv alliance claims that because they subscribe to the SMPTE standards, this will translate into a higher standard of picture fidelity, and motion picture type dedication to frame rates.

 

Whats the comments on this issue versus ip image fidelity and frame rates.

 

I'm always a little surprised that anyone falls for any part of the hdcctv gambit, but this is one that is especially puzzling.

 

Look at your "average" cctv deployment, and what the typical customer is really willing to spend money on. Almost none of these will budget enough pixels-per-foot to capture all the details they want in all the camera views.

 

So, you can take a 720p or 1080p camera and cover a 100ft wide area. You'll get a much better picture than would have with an SD camera, but in most of that view you're not going to have enough pixels per foot to get *really* good detail. Carrying the image over IP or SDI or via Carrier Pigeon doesn't materially affect the outcome of a system that has placed 400 pixels *total* on a license plate at the far end of the FOV.

 

HDcctv does (or should) produce very pretty, sharp, clean, impressive live pictures, since it's transmitting uncompressed HD video at up to 3Gb/s.

 

However, STORING video at 3Gb/s is far beyond impractical and verges on impossible. This means that the video still needs to be compressed - so you're back to compressing it in the DVR. And you're using the same codecs as IP cameras would use - MJPEG, MPEG-4, H.264 - you're just changing where it's done. In the end, there's no inherent reason PLAYBACK of HDcctv will be any different than playback of IP megapixel - you still have to make the same tradeoffs of framerate, frame size, and compression level vs. storage requirements and storage costs. All settings being equal, one minute of H.264-compressed 1920x1080 (2MP) video is going to take the same space and playback with the same quality whether you process it in-camera, or in the DVR.

 

BTW, don't forget that 2MP is the *maximum* you'll get with current HDcctv spec (has anyone actually brought out a 1080p camera yet, or are they all still 720p?). 2MP cameras were high-end in IP three years ago... today 3MP and 5MP cameras are common, 10MP are readily available, and if you're really ballin', there are 16MP models out there. If you're all about the resolution, there's no contest.

 

In the end, I don't see hdcctv offering any real benefits in terms of cost, picture quality or system usability. It's sweet spot is the limited markets that value lower latency images, and DIY systems where people don't want to pay an installer, or only want the most basic system.

This. And given the cost, I don't see it being all that attractive to most DIYers, either.

[rory 0]

Do 16 channel HD DVRs exist yet?

not hybrid, all channels HD.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

You can get a full HD 16 Channel DVR with 8 Hard Drives from Comart - Korea, but get this ----- must be around $11000 for the recorder.

[rory 0]

Yeah cause if they want it to become a standard they need to provide access to 16-ch DVRs for under $1000 and Cameras for under $200.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

So now the HDcctv alliance claims that because they subscribe to the SMPTE standards, this will translate into a higher standard of picture fidelity, and motion picture type dedication to frame rates.

 

Whats the comments on this issue versus ip image fidelity and frame rates.

 

I'm always a little surprised that anyone falls for any part of the hdcctv gambit, but this is one that is especially puzzling.

 

 

My objective has been to approach this with a totally blank sheet.

 

I will not form an opinion until i have assessed the claims objectively, in tandem with soliciting objective views from professionals. Hence my interest in this thread.

 

It seems that the HDcctv alliance correctly claims an advantage in terms of latency.

 

I was interested in the Picture Fidelity issue - but I note that is no longer listed as a claimed benefit on the HDcctv alliance website- it now seems to merely address the facts of the standards.

 

So, looking at the next item on the list. (The recording is immune to IP LAN failure)

 

My initial impression is "yeah sure it would be , because it's not connected to the LAN" but I wanted to try and establish what part of an HDcctv systems correlates to the LAN in an IP system.

 

Would it be correct to say that the cable between the camera and recorder would fit the bill?

 

So the question arises: is HDcctv recording as susceptible to a cable failure between camera and recorder, as an IP systems recording would be to a LAN failure?

 

What is the probability of complete recording failure on all cameras on an HDcctv system, compared to complete recording failure on all cameras within an IP system?

 

How do redundancy measures intended to prevent total recording failure on an HDcctv system stack up against similar redundancy measures in an IP system.

 

Of course I would also be interested in any other objective observations relating to this claim of the HDcctv alliance that HDcctv recording is immune to LAN failure?

[survtech 0]

Brandon,

 

HDcctv should be no more prone to cable failure than analog or IP; all things being equal. Cables typically don't fail, but connectors do.

 

That said, my understanding is that HDcctv cable requirements are more stringent than analog, or even IP. That may be a source of more issues than anyone is willing to admit. According to a manufacturer on LinkedIn, standard RG59 is unable to carry HDcctv signals reliably. They are recommending Belden 1694A or equivalent; which is an RG6-type that costs 3x as much as copper/copper RG59.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

Brandon,

 

HDcctv should be no more prone to cable failure than analog or IP; all things being equal. Cables typically don't fail, but connectors do.

 

That said, my understanding is that HDcctv cable requirements are more stringent than analog, or even IP. That may be a source of more issues than anyone is willing to admit. According to a manufacturer on LinkedIn, standard RG59 is unable to carry HDcctv signals reliably. They are recommending Belden 1694A or equivalent; which is an RG6-type that costs 3x as much as copper/copper RG59.

 

Thanks for the input ---?

 

Is it fair to say then that interrupted recording on all cameras from a LAN failure on an IP system is far more likely than interrupted recording on all cameras on an HDcctv system?

 

I have added your insights on the cable to my list, and will be doing some research and questioning of our manufacturers about it, thanks for that!

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

The cable issue I am assuming would relate to SMPTE 424M (1080p)

 

Regarding the connectors - the standard requires better than -15dB Return Loss between 5Mhz and 1.485Ghz, better than -10dB between 1.485Ghz and 3Ghz. (HDcctv in the region of 3Ghz and higher)

 

Apparently -15dB is marginal, and it seems that the best BNC design currently rates around -30dB.

 

I see some manufacturers are coming out with enhanced BNC designs in an effort to meet the requirement of SMPTE 424M for HDcctv transmission over coaxial cable.

 

The standard allows for bit-rates of 2.970 Gbit/s and 2.970/1.001 Gbit/s over a single-link coaxial cable. These bit-rates are sufficient for 1080p video at 50 or 60 frames per second according to this latest SMPTE standard.

 

So I imagine when looking at 1080p video in the 3Ghz + range, that even standard RG6 with standard connectors

is going to be marginal. With RG59 certified to work above 2Ghz, problems are likely to arise with 1080p HD cctv signals, and compound with a non compliant connector. RG6 certified to work at 3Ghz, would likely also present problems as this is right at the upper margin, and would be compounded with a non-compliant connector.

 

Very interesting stuff! That has to be hugely significant in the case made for upgrading existing analog systems.

 

What percentage of those systems are running on RG6, I suspect a large volume are running on RG59 with apparently inappropriate connectors

[survtech 0]

Well, there's always RG11 and if that doesn't work, hard line.