HDCCTV is the new standard

[NotoriousBRK 0]

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 wouldn't call that a "fair" statement.

 

Both camera types will generally have a dedicated cable running from the camera, back dozens or hundreds of feet to a centralized device.

 

In either scenario, a cable failure of any kind will render that camera inoperable.

 

In both systems you have a centralized recorder. A DVR for hdcctv, an NVR for IP cameras. There are a number of factors that could cause either of those centralized recorders to not function. The central recorder is the weak point of BOTH systems.

 

The LAN itself is generally no prone to failure. Network switches have become commodities, and last for many years of constant duty and don't frequently fail except in cases of things like a power failure, or someone spilling something in the switch (uncommon).

 

Central recorders with moving parts (hard drives) constantly chugging video from multiple cameras are the most common cause of video loss.

[dustmop 0]

Central recorders with moving parts (hard drives) constantly chugging video from multiple cameras are the most common cause of video loss.

 

 

^^^This right here.

 

I have a rather large system in a casino, and the single largest cause of video loss is the recorders having issues. Be it a RAID array that is just about to drop a drive from a SMART failure, or a nasty memory leak, this is, IMHO, the single weakest point.

 

To be fair, however, the amount of video loss I suffer is amazingly low when you consider just how many cameras and recorders there are.

[rory 0]

The LAN itself is generally no prone to failure. Network switches have become commodities, and last for many years of constant duty and don't frequently fail except in cases of things like a power failure, or someone spilling something in the switch (uncommon).

Ive done alot of PC repair work for homes over the years and Ive had to replace many routers.

I myself have gone through 3 routers in the past 3 years or so alone.

Most dont have switches though.

Then again Ive had some routers last 10 years without a major glitch.

But it IS an additional point of failure.

[NotoriousBRK 0]

The LAN itself is generally no prone to failure. Network switches have become commodities, and last for many years of constant duty and don't frequently fail except in cases of things like a power failure, or someone spilling something in the switch (uncommon).

Ive done alot of PC repair work for homes over the years and Ive had to replace many routers.

I myself have gone through 3 routers in the past 3 years or so alone.

Most dont have switches though.

Then again Ive had some routers last 10 years without a major glitch.

But it IS an additional point of failure.

 

In the common IP network, the *router* is rarely in the packet path between the cameras and the NVR.

 

Of course, if you're trying to build a quality surveillance system, you might not want to use some little $40 plastic-encased thing from Wal Mart (which is probably a $90 plastic thing in the Islands ) You don't need super high-end gear, but spend an extra $100 for a decent switch and it'll last as long as the cameras in most cases.

 

Many of the larger analog systems I've seen have more potential failure points in the signal path: amplifiers/ Disti Amps, physical layer converter devices, etc.

[Soundy 1]

The LAN itself is generally no prone to failure. Network switches have become commodities, and last for many years of constant duty and don't frequently fail except in cases of things like a power failure, or someone spilling something in the switch (uncommon).

Ive done alot of PC repair work for homes over the years and Ive had to replace many routers.

I myself have gone through 3 routers in the past 3 years or so alone.

Most dont have switches though.

Then again Ive had some routers last 10 years without a major glitch.

But it IS an additional point of failure.

 

In the common IP network, the *router* is rarely in the packet path between the cameras and the NVR.

 

Of course, if you're trying to build a quality surveillance system, you might not want to use some little $40 plastic-encased thing from Wal Mart (which is probably a $90 plastic thing in the Islands ) You don't need super high-end gear, but spend an extra $100 for a decent switch and it'll last as long as the cameras in most cases.

Agreed with this.

 

I've had all of three switches fail in IP installations... only two failed spontaneously, and those were $40 10/100 units running two or three cameras. A third was killed by a lightning strike that also did substantial damage to other equipment on the site (that wasn't my install, BTW, I just got the call to service it).

 

I reality, "total network failure" SHOULD NOT be a concern - as others have noted, there are far more other things that can go wrong that should be a higher priority concern; the recorder failure issue is something that affects IP, SDI, *and analog* systems equally.

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 wouldn't call this a fair statement either. Did you not read survtech's words? HDcctv is far more sensitive to issues with quality of cabling and termination than IP. Meaning you'd best make damn sure your terminations are clean and solid.

 

The only way a cable failure will give you a total loss of recording with an IP system is if you lose the link between the NVR and the switch, and that's easy to compensate for by adding a redundant link, by way of a second NIC or a dual-NIC motherboard.

 

BTW, IP gives you another benefit: it's really easy to set up a second NVR as a backup recorder - just plug it into the network and configure the cameras, and if your main NVR goes offline, you're covered. Doing that with analog can get pricey (active video splitters) and messy (coax bundles everywhere)... I don't even know if it's possible with SDI (if there are SDI signal splitters, guarantee you they'll cost a bundle).

[rory 0]

In the common IP network, the *router* is rarely in the packet path between the cameras and the NVR.

 

Of course, if you're trying to build a quality surveillance system, you might not want to use some little $40 plastic-encased thing from Wal Mart (which is probably a $90 plastic thing in the Islands ) You don't need super high-end gear, but spend an extra $100 for a decent switch and it'll last as long as the cameras in most cases.

 

Many of the larger analog systems I've seen have more potential failure points in the signal path: amplifiers/ Disti Amps, physical layer converter devices, etc.

 

Yeah I would say HDD is the most common failure, along with Power Supplies/fuses.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

But it IS an additional point of failure.

 

Thats a point which makes sense to me: NVR vs DVR are as susceptible to failure as the other. But LAN Hardware introduces "additional points of failure" - and let's not imagine network hardware, rarely fails!

 

I can understand that one cable failure on a HDcctv system could lead to loss of video/recording on one camera - what does it take for all the cables on a HDcctv system to fail simultaneously?

 

A dead switch, or other piece of hardware failure can be accommodated, depending on the topology you employ, i suppose.

 

wouldn't call this a fair statement either. Did you not read survtech's words?

 

Yes i did read Carl's words. In fact those words moved me to further research which I sited - so a bit obvious that I did read his words.

 

Is it a given that someone who doesn't terminate properly on an HDcctv system, is apt to do so on a LAN system?

 

Cable problems account for the majority of issues in any cctv system.

 

Not only does it seem that HDcctv is sensitive to cable issues - but apparently common coaxial cable and BNC connectors are not going to suffice for anything over 2MP and everything would have to be optimal to even handle 2MP

 

The additional benefit of IP in providing a second NVR would seem a somewhat mute point in this area of the discussion ---- LAN Failure, wouldn't it?

 

At this point in the discussion i am getting the idea that yes " LAN introduces additional points of failure that would not be present in an HDcctv system"

 

Cable and cable failure is common to both systems.

The effect of cable failure on an HDcctv system is likely to be less than on a LAN system

HDD/Storage failure is common to both systems

Network Hardware creates additional points of failure and the more complex the network, the higher the factor of

failure.

 

The cable issue still seems significant, take away the ability to upgrade an existing analog system to HDcctv and then we have to start comparing both systems from the perspective of new installs!

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

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

 

 

Thanks again - I had a discussion with our techs.

 

Rg6 average return loss -10dB at 2250 Mhz

Rg11 average return loss - -8dB at 2250 Mhz

 

Rg11 Structural return loss of unterminated cable >30dB / 100m @ 1000-3000Mhz + Return Loss from standard

BNC connectors.

 

Given that 2MP HD cameras operate optimally from a base frequency of 3Ghz +

[thewireguys 3]

 

Thats a point which makes sense to me: NVR vs DVR are as susceptible to failure as the other. But LAN Hardware introduces "additional points of failure" - and let's not imagine network hardware, rarely fails!

 

I can understand that one cable failure on a HDcctv system could lead to loss of video/recording on one camera - what does it take for all the cables on a HDcctv system to fail simultaneously?

 

A dead switch, or other piece of hardware failure can be accommodated, depending on the topology you employ, i suppose.

 

Power supply and fuses..... If your power supply fails for your HDcctv cameras you lose everything. With IP you can have redundant switches and redundant power supplies for those switches.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

 

Thats a point which makes sense to me: NVR vs DVR are as susceptible to failure as the other. But LAN Hardware introduces "additional points of failure" - and let's not imagine network hardware, rarely fails!

 

I can understand that one cable failure on a HDcctv system could lead to loss of video/recording on one camera - what does it take for all the cables on a HDcctv system to fail simultaneously?

 

A dead switch, or other piece of hardware failure can be accommodated, depending on the topology you employ, i suppose.

 

Power supply and fuses..... If your power supply fails for your HDcctv cameras you lose everything. With IP you can have redundant switches and redundant power supplies for those switches.

 

aren't There are a lot of points along a network that are vulnerable to power supply failure --- even with redundant switches and power supplies for those switches.

 

Why can't you design an HDcctv system with redundant power supply --- ?

[SEANHAWG 1]

I havent seen a whole lot of offerings from the Chinese for a cheap MP IP camera (just a handful) and IP has been around for a little bit. If they arent fully embracing IP, then I doubt that they will embrace HDCCTV. I think most of the Chinese companies that make the cheap "no name" security equipment look at what they can sell a ton of at the cheapest price possible. I think these Chinese companies are going to look at the market for HDCCTV equipment and notice that they will not be able to sell a ton of it so they arent going to make it. This stuff will never take off until they get the price down considerably. If the price was lower than IP then I think you could rock the market with it. You can try to convince all the advantages of it that you want but lets face it, the only thing that is holding this back is the price. If it were me developing this stuff, I would have found a way to where I could sell it cheaper before I introduced it to the market. They introduced this stuff to the market with $10,000 recorders and you have analog DVR's that consistently under $1000, even for some 16 channels. And then you have NVR's that cost well under $10,000 too. The makers/sellers/alliance of this stuff do not have the buyer in mind, that is why this stuff is so slow to take off. Buyers are not dumb, especially in this economy. Hopefully the alliance or whoever is in charge of pricing this stuff hears this and wises up.

 

Bottom line, this is a great idea, but its being marketed horribly.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

I havent seen a whole lot of offerings from the Chinese for a cheap MP IP camera (just a handful) and IP has been around for a little bit. If they arent fully embracing IP, then I doubt that they will embrace HDCCTV. I think most of the Chinese companies that make the cheap "no name" security equipment look at what they can sell a ton of at the cheapest price possible. I think these Chinese companies are going to look at the market for HDCCTV equipment and notice that they will not be able to sell a ton of it so they arent going to make it. This stuff will never take off until they get the price down considerably. If the price was lower than IP then I think you could rock the market with it. You can try to convince all the advantages of it that you want but lets face it, the only thing that is holding this back is the price. If it were me developing this stuff, I would have found a way to where I could sell it cheaper before I introduced it to the market. They introduced this stuff to the market with $10,000 recorders and you have analog DVR's that consistently under $1000, even for some 16 channels. And then you have NVR's that cost well under $10,000 too. The makers/sellers/alliance of this stuff do not have the buyer in mind, that is why this stuff is so slow to take off. Buyers are not dumb, especially in this economy. Hopefully the alliance or whoever is in charge of pricing this stuff hears this and wises up.

 

Bottom line, this is a great idea, but its being marketed horribly.

 

Cannot but agree ----->

 

However I tend to also agree with Carl ----- The Frequency limitations of Coaxial Cable with just a 2MP camera is likely to prove far more significant than is being made out.

[survtech 0]

Cable problems account for the majority of issues in any cctv system.

I wouldn't agree with that statement. In my experience, I would estimate the following order of system problems in ascending order; least-to-most likely:

 

10. Cameras

 

9. Network Hardware

 

8. Analog Signal Distribution products (Distribution Amps, etc.)

 

7. Baluns

 

6. RAID Controllers

 

5. Equipment Power Supplies (not camera power)

 

4. Hard Disks

 

3. Recorder Operating System (Windows, in particular)

 

2. Connectors

 

And, the number one cause of CCTV failures (drum roll, please):

 

1. Act-of-God issues (weather, etc.)

 

Camera power supplies: 12VDC, or other DC-output supplies would probably make the above list; 24VAC camera power supplies are basically bullet-proof!

 

Cable (not including connectors) doesn't even make the list!

[Soundy 1]

I would agree about 90% with Carl's list... 100% on the items, maybe a little different in the order... but not much different!

 

And BTW, that's based not just on 8 years working professionally in CCTV, but over 15 years actually working in IT, over 20 working (intermittently) in live and studio audio engineering, and many more dabbling in various other aspects of similar technology (including some time in car audio and alarms, too).

 

The exact equipment may differ, but the same principles apply, and the points of failure tend to break down about the same in all of them.

[Soundy 1]

Oh yeah, and along with acts-of-God at 1, I'd put acts-of-human-stupidity at 1a. Not intentional tampering, mind you, but just idiotic things, like... spilling drinks into equipment... piling stuff up against air vents leading to failure from overheating... kicking power cords loose... all things you can try to guard against, all things that people still find a way to f*** up.

 

Remember: make something idiot-proof, and the universe will just devise a better idiot.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

Ok sorry I meant to say ----- cable including connectors , or maybe even just "termination"

 

Standard first step for us with any image quality problem - run tests on the cable --- IRE measures!

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

Given that the debate has run dry - is it safe to assume that the first two claims made on the HDcctv alliance website about the benefits of HDcctv vs IP are indeed valid.

 

Would it be safe to safe that the further claims too will prove to be valid?

 

I must say though that my appetite for HDcctv has been dampened somewhat by cable constraints, and pricing. But i do need to have a valid understanding of the technology and it's benefits - when it's raised by somebody on the 'Facility Technology Committe" during future projects that we engage in.......not exactly a forum to go getting all emotional and excited in ----- usually anythin other than fact will quickly be disreputed by somebody on the team.

[thewireguys 3]

Given that the debate has run dry - is it safe to assume that the first two claims made on the HDcctv alliance website about the benefits of HDcctv vs IP are indeed valid.

 

Would it be safe to safe that the further claims too will prove to be valid?

 

I must say though that my appetite for HDcctv has been dampened somewhat by cable constraints, and pricing. But i do need to have a valid understanding of the technology and it's benefits - when it's raised by somebody on the 'Facility Technology Committe" during future projects that we engage in.......not exactly a forum to go getting all emotional and excited in ----- usually anythin other than fact will quickly be disreputed by somebody on the team.

 

You have move your energy here. The president of the HDcctv alliance started this post. http://tiny.cc/aysyl

[Soundy 1]

Given that the debate has run dry - is it safe to assume that the first two claims made on the HDcctv alliance website about the benefits of HDcctv vs IP are indeed valid.

 

You mean this? "HDcctv is the world's only electrical interface standard for HD surveillance video, providing 100% digital transmission of uncompressed HDTV signals over existing coax."

 

I'd say that's about the extent of it. Most of the rest is either marketing hyperbole, outright falsehoods, or just plain FUD.

 

Some of the stuff on their little comparison chart boils to the equivalent of listing "front driver's seat" as a feature on a new car.

 

thewireguys is right, you should look into some of the LinkedIn discussions, where some of the actual manufacturers are now chiming in... get a much clearer picture than the Alliance is presenting.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

Given that the debate has run dry - is it safe to assume that the first two claims made on the HDcctv alliance website about the benefits of HDcctv vs IP are indeed valid.

 

You mean this? "HDcctv is the world's only electrical interface standard for HD surveillance video, providing 100% digital transmission of uncompressed HDTV signals over existing coax."

 

I'd say that's about the extent of it. Most of the rest is either marketing hyperbole, outright falsehoods, or just plain FUD.

 

Some of the stuff on their little comparison chart boils to the equivalent of listing "front driver's seat" as a feature on a new car.

 

thewireguys is right, you should look into some of the LinkedIn discussions, where some of the actual manufacturers are now chiming in... get a much clearer picture than the Alliance is presenting.

 

Yes --- I have been to that link, and will continue following those discussions.

 

Thank you for directing me in that direction.

[survtech 0]

 

A laugh-a-minute!

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

 

A laugh-a-minute!

 

 

Hmmm --- theres that issue, which keeps sticking out like a sore thumb now!

 

Works with existing Co-ax????

[Soundy 1]

From all reports, "Commissioned cost per video channel" should be "Highest"...

 

The ">2MP video" line is just silly - "Planned" is meaningless; "Compressed" for IP is misleading, as the proper answer is, "Yes, a long time ago."

 

"Comprehensive global interface standard" is ridiculously vague - IP cameras have a comprehensive global interface standard: TCP/IP. Ethernet. IEEE 802.x. Or if you're talking about physical interface: RJ-45.

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

From all reports, "Commissioned cost per video channel" should be "Highest"...

 

The ">2MP video" line is just silly - "Planned" is meaningless; "Compressed" for IP is misleading, as the proper answer is, "Yes, a long time ago."

 

"Comprehensive global interface standard" is ridiculously vague - IP cameras have a comprehensive global interface standard: TCP/IP. Ethernet. IEEE 802.x. Or if you're talking about physical interface: RJ-45.

 

At last the thread takes on a meaningful direction - actual views and opinions about the actual claims being made!

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

From all reports, "Commissioned cost per video channel" should be "Highest"...

 

The ">2MP video" line is just silly - "Planned" is meaningless; "Compressed" for IP is misleading, as the proper answer is, "Yes, a long time ago."

 

"Comprehensive global interface standard" is ridiculously vague - IP cameras have a comprehensive global interface standard: TCP/IP. Ethernet. IEEE 802.x. Or if you're talking about physical interface: RJ-45.

 

At last the thread takes on a meaningful direction - actual views and opinions about the actual claims being made! - to be honest my interest in HDcctv had always been centered around the "upgrade an existing analog install scenario" . The potential for those who had already significantly invested in analog, to get a degree of HD without completely dumping their investment. A kind of transitory condition.

 

I had rarely considered it from a perspective of a new install, as I am quite happy with the direction and application of the current HD/MP ip cameras that we are using - within a closed dedicated lan scenario.

 

In South Africa, one would be hard pressed to find any co-axial installation that isn't based on RG59. In those instances where RG6 has been used - upgrades are likely to move to ip.

 

That all kind of leaves my interest in the HDcctv scenario in the dust, and the price of the recorders has compounded my recent shift away from those ideals.

 

But I would still like to understand the nature of the claims being made, and to verify or debunk them objectively!