NAS Recommendation as a surveillance platform

[matusiam 0]

Hi everyone,

 

 

I've been recently looking for a nas that could be a base for my ip surveillance system. I've got one of the synology ds110j as it seemed like a great product (and quite cheap : £110 including postage). I've got it today. Unfortunate the system is that bad that if you want a second camera you need to buy a license... Which is kinda of a trick as no one ever mentioned about any licences on the website. The license for one additional camera is around £50, and if you want to get a license for 4 additional cameras than you need to pay about £165 (license bundle). I think its a bit crazy to charge the customer after sales for using the software he already paid for... Well, that is why I'm asking if there are any other good nas systems that could accommodate at least 16 camera without the need of buying some superb expensive licenses just to use it.

Lets stay in a price range up to £200. Are there any one that you could recommend ?? Or maybe you have a suggestion to use some really good software for ip surveillance that could fit the bill and could work on some kind of headless machine. Please help on this as the license stuff is annoying and a bit unfair to be honest.

 

Thank You in advance.

 

With Kind Regards

[Soundy 1]

Unfortunately, you'll find almost all NVR/NAS solutions sell licenses on a per-camera basis.

 

Figure they charge $150 per camera (fairly common)... nice as it would be to get a 16-camera setup for $800 (for only $50 per camera), would you want to pay the same $800 if you were just using a single camera?

 

Per-camera licensing is really the most equitable scheme in most cases.

 

Your other option is to build your own NVR and use the free software that many camera manufacturers provide (only for use with their own cameras, of course).

[mike_va 0]

One other option is Axis cameras that can record to NAS now on some models.

[MaxIcon 0]

A bit outside your request, but the Digimedia NV5000 hybrid capture card doesn't charge a license fee for IP cams, and it has a pretty big list of supported brands. You can connect up to 4 ip cams per card and 2 cards per box, though it lists a 5MP max per card.

 

I've got one running 2 Vivotek IP8134 (1MP ea) and 1 Arecont AV5100M (5MP) right now, and it's a bit slow due to the low power P4 3GHz PC it's in, but it's reading and recording all the cams fine. They're mostly running lower frame rates, though (to help manage the CPU load), and the card's PCI only. They have PCI-E cards, but I'm not familiar with them.

[matusiam 0]

Thank you for your reply gentleman :

 

@Soundy :

 

I understand the idea of licensing the possibility of using the ip camera. But I don't understand the crazy prices they are asking for. As an end customer I feel ripped off big style. If they would go and say : to get support up to 16 camera you need to pay £49 for that license. Maybe a different price for 24 and 32 cameras. But not £50 per camera - that is just insane ! Also I was thinking - what would happen if you would use the same let say 4 camera license key on two different Synology boxes... Still, I send my unit back with a request for a refund as on the amazon website it did not state anything about the need of purchasing extra licenses in order to use the device. I've always thought that ip cctv systems are only limited to your network bandwidth - but it seems that I was wrong big style. Now I'm looking into linuxmce - apparently it has some support for ip cameras

 

@mike_va :

 

Could you please elaborate on your statement - as I'm not sure what are you trying to say.

 

@MaxIcon :

 

I've had a look at the card you have mentioned. Seems its more of a analogue system (the inputs seem like BNC connectors) hence I don't quite get the idea how it would connect to the network. Unless it utilizes the network connection of the computer in order to get the feeds from the cameras - still that would have to be done via some kind of software that they provide - am I right ?

[Soundy 1]

Thank you for your reply gentleman :

 

@Soundy :

 

I understand the idea of licensing the possibility of using the ip camera. But I don't understand the crazy prices they are asking for. As an end customer I feel ripped off big style. If they would go and say : to get support up to 16 camera you need to pay £49 for that license. Maybe a different price for 24 and 32 cameras. But not £50 per camera - that is just insane !

 

Actually, that's pretty middle-of-the-road (around CDN$79). One hDVR/NVR I work with, they list MSRP$150/camera unless it's their own branded cameras, bought from them, for which they list $50/camera.

 

Some others charge per block of cameras - $X for up to 4 cameras, $Y for up to 8, and so on. GeoVision will let you use as many of their own branded cameras as you want for no extra charge, but charge per-camera for other brands (if memory serves, it starts at $100/camera and gets cheaper if you buy in bulk).

 

If these companies simply charged £49 for anything up to 16 cameras, they'd never make any money - the bulk of NVRs are already 16 channels or less. If there's no money coming in... there's no more software development.

 

Still, I send my unit back with a request for a refund as on the amazon website it did not state anything about the need of purchasing extra licenses in order to use the device. I've always thought that ip cctv systems are only limited to your network bandwidth - but it seems that I was wrong big style. Now I'm looking into linuxmce - apparently it has some support for ip cameras

Well, you can go to a DIY Linux-based system... be prepared to spend a lot more time futzing with it, tweaking and coercing, to make things work properly, or at all... maybe you'll come to understand some of the amount of work it takes to create a ready-to-use software package and realize why they charge so much for the software.

 

@mike_va :

 

Could you please elaborate on your statement - as I'm not sure what are you trying to say.

He's saying some cameras - such as certain Axis models - have the ability to write directly to a network share, and thus don't need an NVR or the associated licensing.

 

Of course, that will just give you files on a disk... it doesn't necessarily give you a software front-end for searching and exporting video.

[MaxIcon 0]

Thank you for your reply gentleman :

@MaxIcon :

 

I've had a look at the card you have mentioned. Seems its more of a analogue system (the inputs seem like BNC connectors) hence I don't quite get the idea how it would connect to the network. Unless it utilizes the network connection of the computer in order to get the feeds from the cameras - still that would have to be done via some kind of software that they provide - am I right ?

 

It's a hybrid card. The basic version supports 4 cameras, any mix of analog and IP, through the PC and their free software. You can leave the analog input connected and switch back and forth between them if you want. There's a pretty big list of supported cams, though they don't support my Y-cam, an inexpensive network camera. My 1 MP Vivoteks run in both Onvif and native, and it handles my 5 MP Arecont pretty well so far. No license fees, which I'm pretty happy with. I haven't tried the iphone app for it yet, but will in the next few days.

 

The software seems pretty powerful and stable, but I haven't used a lot of non-dedicated systems yet to compare it to - I've always been a dedicated DVR user. The remote console works well for me, and is also stable. I don't know if any of the other software systems support it or not. I've been pleased with mine, but I already had the PC, so the cost was low for the capability. It could use a higher horsepower CPU, though.

 

There are a few downsides - you need a PC (dedicated is best), the cards can be finicky about what they run on, and like anything PC, you can spend a lot of time fiddling with it. It's limited to 5 MP per card (though it hasn't complained at my 7 MP so far), and it's PCI, which is a bit outdated. The PCI-e versions may be more powerful - I don't know much about them. In general, most PC systems will be less stable than a dedicated system, but are more flexible, especially about where you save to.

 

I'm really liking IP, POE, and the ability to see the cameras from anywhere on the network or internet.

[rory 0]

and the ability to see the cameras from anywhere on the network or internet.

That ability is found in almost any CCTV system today.

[bike_rider 0]

One of the few products that does not require per camera licensing is Blue Iris. Their software is about $60. Download the demo.

 

Synology's camera software isn't bad, but I agree that their per camera price is out of line with the limited function they offer. It is probably more than you want to spend, but for a similar per camera price you can get Milestone, which is a much better video management system.

[ssmith10pn 0]

I'm not a big fan of it's UI but Geovision + Geovision IP Camera = No License, No card no nothing.

Non Geovision Camera = 100.00 MSRP per camera. The License comes on a USB dongle.

[matusiam 0]

 

There are a few downsides - you need a PC (dedicated is best), the cards can be finicky about what they run on, and like anything PC, you can spend a lot of time fiddling with it. It's limited to 5 MP per card (though it hasn't complained at my 7 MP so far), and it's PCI, which is a bit outdated. The PCI-e versions may be more powerful - I don't know much about them. In general, most PC systems will be less stable than a dedicated system, but are more flexible, especially about where you save to.

 

I'm really liking IP, POE, and the ability to see the cameras from anywhere on the network or internet.

 

Thank you very much for your input. I'm trying to find a good way how to switch from analogue to ip cameras - hence the reason for this post and the "problem" that I came across with the synology nas. (btw lease post your iphone app experience if you can). Regarding the pc issue. Most of the DVR now are like a pc - running a linux os most of the time. The software you have mentioned is probably good (I will check it out later) but I would love to have something that runs on linux. Then I could set a dedicated PC with debian and make sure it will be capable of working 300 without a restart with no problems. The only software for linux that is capable of any similar surveillance is zoneminder (which I've been playing around now for a day...). Like you , I'm also liking the ip camera thing - and for a start I was thinking that there is true freedom there and that I can add as many cameras as my hardware can take - unfortunate the license thing blew my dream away.

 

Actually, that's pretty middle-of-the-road (around CDN$79). One hDVR/NVR I work with, they list MSRP$150/camera unless it's their own branded cameras, bought from them, for which they list $50/camera.

 

Some others charge per block of cameras - $X for up to 4 cameras, $Y for up to 8, and so on. GeoVision will let you use as many of their own branded cameras as you want for no extra charge, but charge per-camera for other brands (if memory serves, it starts at $100/camera and gets cheaper if you buy in bulk).

 

If these companies simply charged £49 for anything up to 16 cameras, they'd never make any money - the bulk of NVRs are already 16 channels or less. If there's no money coming in... there's no more software development.

 

Ok, what your saying does make some sense after all. Its just the problem that I'm having when building a quite cheap IP system. So it seems that its kind of impossible. As when you add things up - you need to buy a license for the cameras (which is not cheap) and next you need to buy ip cameras (which are not cheap either). This ip system thing will work perfectly if its deployed in a middle sized business with quite a bit of $$$ spend on the system. I do appreciate the input you have given - very useful !

 

Well, you can go to a DIY Linux-based system... be prepared to spend a lot more time futzing with it, tweaking and coercing, to make things work properly, or at all... maybe you'll come to understand some of the amount of work it takes to create a ready-to-use software package and realize why they charge so much for the software.

 

I'm actually working on getting a debian linux to be a small IP CCTV server. I've managed to get everything installed (using zoneminder obviously) and configured. The system works fine with my tenvis ip camera (experimental buy from ebay). The user interface is not the prettiest ones, but it does the job so far. But I've got no idea how stable the system will be after a week, two weeks , month etc etc I'm also working on my own rfid system- I've got the networking bit sorted and the server with a database up and running. Does all the authentications, but there is no user interface written for it yet

 

 

He's saying some cameras - such as certain Axis models - have the ability to write directly to a network share, and thus don't need an NVR or the associated licensing.

 

Of course, that will just give you files on a disk... it doesn't necessarily give you a software front-end for searching and exporting video.

 

Ahhh... I did that - using my tenvis camera I was able to set it up to send a picture every second to my ftp server. It is a solution of a kind , but as you said an average user will have problems with finding the pictures where something actually happened (genuine alert, intrusion etc). Maybe some sort of a python script with a simple user interface with some timeline search would do the trick... Maybe that is worth spending some time on. Thank you very much again for all of your input !!

[rory 0]

Regarding the pc issue. Most of the DVR now are like a pc

Nope not even close.

the hardware is totally different in most cases.

its one reason we use the small stand alone dvr over PC now, they can take the heat where PCs cant.

[matusiam 0]

Nope not even close.

the hardware is totally different in most cases.

 

Ok, that is actually right - I did reassemble a DVR before. Sorry - my mistake.

 

 

its one reason we use the small stand alone dvr over PC now, they can take the heat where PCs cant.

 

So is there a point of using a pc for a IP CCTV Surveillance System ? Even if I use a server grade components, would that still not do the trick ?

[Soundy 1]

Ok, what your saying does make some sense after all. Its just the problem that I'm having when building a quite cheap IP system. So it seems that its kind of impossible. As when you add things up - you need to buy a license for the cameras (which is not cheap) and next you need to buy ip cameras (which are not cheap either).

 

Look at it this way: you're going to pay more for an 8-channel capture card (or standalone DVR, for that matter) than you will for a four-channel unit... and you'll pay more for a 16-channel card/DVR than for an 8-channel. So whichever way you go, the more cameras you want to record, the more it's going to cost.

 

The benefit of a per-camera license structure is that you only pay for exactly how many cameras you use. For the sake of easy math, assume both IP or analog will cost you the same per channel: $100. A four-channel card will be $400; four IP licenses will be $400.

 

But now what if you want to go to 5 cameras? With the IP solution, you pay another $100 and add the fifth camera... with the analog solution, you either pay $400 for a second four-channel card, or you pay $800 for an 8-channel card to replace your now-useless $400 four-channel card. Or in the case of a standalone DVR, you pay $800 for the eight-channel machine and the four-channel box becomes a doorstop.

 

Yes, I realize that actual pricing for analog devices doesn't work that way (cue Rory with his $300 Dahua toys) - as I said, the numbers were used just to make the math easier. Point is, with analog units, at some point you end up paying for inputs you're not going to use, driving up your average per-camera cost... with most IP license schemes, you only pay for as many cameras as you need.

 

Yes, IP cameras cost more... BUT, part of that extra expense is the cost of the video-to-digital-stream encoding hardware. With analog cameras, that would be the capture card. So if you factor four VGA (640x480) IP cameras, vs. a four-channel D1 (704x480) DVR + four analog cameras, you'll find the costs aren't that different - it's the same process, you've just changed the location of part of the hardware.

 

The other thing you pay more for is resolution... and this is also true of analog. A DVR that does D1 on all channels will cost more than one that does only CIF on all channels. Likewise, if you want to go even higher in resolution, that will cost more as well. Except, well, analog is limited to D1. Period.

 

D1 vs. 1.3MP (click for full size):

 

 

[Soundy 1]

its one reason we use the small stand alone dvr over PC now, they can take the heat where PCs cant.

 

So is there a point of using a pc for a IP CCTV Surveillance System ? Even if I use a server grade components, would that still not do the trick ?

You have to remember that Rory lives in the tropics - the heat his systems have to deal with year-round isn't relevant in most of the developed world.

 

PC systems offer some major benefits, not the least of which is how expandable they are. Not a lot of standalones will let you extend your storage with USB, Firewire, eSATA, or network drives, or using RAID storage arrays. Not many support offsite storage, something that can be easily configured on most PC-based systems. Usually, the DVR software doesn't even have to support it; as long as you can give additional storage a drive letter, most software can use it for writing video.

 

Of course, if you are using IP cameras, a PC-based system will allow you to install the necessary manufacturers' configuration utilities, something you can't do with a standalone. You can also install and run backup software, time-sync utilities (if, say, an NTP server isn't an option), mail-relay utilities, etc. You can directly access the file system to extract or backup video files, something almost no standalones will let you do. For that matter, you can remove the drives from a dead system and usually extract video from them or even plug them into a working system and still read the data, something that can be a sketchy proposition on a standalone (some will immediately format any new drive you insert).

[ssmith10pn 0]

Nice Cleavage shot! " title="Applause" />

[ssmith10pn 0]

Another point about stand alone boxes. Can you have redundant power supplies, redundant drives, redundant servers, and management software to give you realtime status of the systems?

 

Probably not important in a home environment but in mission critical environment it is.

Imagine if a robbery, or a school shooting wasn't recorded because the box was down and nobody knew it.

 

Or a psych patient says they were assaulted by a staff member?

 

Or here's a good one. A patient dies while being transported from one facility to another. The hospital is facing a multi million dollar law suit and the video just so happens to spot one of the Ambulance techs knocked the o2 line off on the way out the door.

That system just paid for itself.

[rory 0]

Not a lot of standalones will let you extend your storage with USB, Firewire, eSATA, or network drives, or using RAID storage arrays. Not many support offsite storage, something that can be easily configured on most PC-based systems.

Dahua does.

[rory 0]

Another point about stand alone boxes. Can you have redundant power supplies, redundant drives, redundant servers, and management software to give you realtime status of the systems?

Yes if you use the right product.

[SEANHAWG 1]

Perhaps I am just biased but I cant see any reason why anyone would buy a PC based system for Analog cameras anymore. Most of the commercial grade Standalone DVR's will do every single thing that was noted above that a PC based system can do. And after you consider the costs of the PC, the DVR Card, and the time it takes to get the thing setup properly, you usually come out way ahead if you just go with a nice commercial grade standalone.

 

I think for IP cameras, it still makes more sense to go the PC route though.

[Soundy 1]

Perhaps I am just biased but I cant see any reason why anyone would buy a PC based system for Analog cameras anymore.

Depends on the PC systems you're comparing to. I have yet to see a standalone that comes anywhere close to Vigil's interface and feature integration. And yes, I *like* having access to the desktop and underlying system to make tweaks/customizations/repairs/etc. The ability to take a drive from a dead system and access it directly on another. The ability to add a massive iSCSI storage array. The ability to add other support software. The ability to actually FULLY access the system remotely, rather than just the few options the remote client gives me.

 

I may start with a standalone system for all-analog, but what if I want to add IP cameras later? Do I toss it out to replace it with a hybrid? If I'd started with a PC-based machine, I can just add the NVR software or module later.

[SEANHAWG 1]

I may start with a standalone system for all-analog, but what if I want to add IP cameras later? Do I toss it out to replace it with a hybrid?

 

No, just get a computer to run your IP camera software and network the DVR to that same computer using the remote management software. A good remote client should give you all options as if you were using it right at the console.

 

Now you may ask "What if I want to use the same management software to run the Analog cameras and IP cameras?" Well you would have the same predicament as before: Would you just throw the DVR card in the trash and replace it with a Hybrid DVR card?

 

The only way this would make sense is if you bought a Hybrid DVR card in the first place.

 

But when you take everything into consideration and compare Apples to Apples, in my opinion, a Standalone DVR beats out a PC based analog DVR Card/Computer everytime.

[Soundy 1]

Now you may ask "What if I want to use the same management software to run the Analog cameras and IP cameras?" Well you would have the same predicament as before: Would you just throw the DVR card in the trash and replace it with a Hybrid DVR card?

 

The only way this would make sense is if you bought a Hybrid DVR card in the first place.

What is a "hybrid DVR card"? One with BNCs and a network port?

 

With a Vigil DVR, if I want to go hybrid, I just enter the IP license keys and plug the machine into the network. Many (most?) other PC-based hybrids work this way as well. No need to change hardware or even software; no need to learn a different interface; no need to make two pieces of software get along.

 

But when you take everything into consideration and compare Apples to Apples, in my opinion, a Standalone DVR beats out a PC based analog DVR Card/Computer everytime.

Apples to apples, sure... except a lot of PC-based DVRs are a complete fruit basket. Like I said, you just haven't been comparing the right systems.

[hardwired 0]

I've been building PC based systems since the Windows 98 OS, and the ones I build have native hybrid capability, and have had that capability for a number of years now.

 

Now, I can approach my existing customers with megapixel camera options for little more than the cost of the cameras and a minor licensing charge, and they get to use their existing system, that they are already used to (and which has a very nice, user friendly GUI).

[SEANHAWG 1]

What is a "hybrid DVR card"? One with BNCs and a network port?

One that has BNC connections for Analog cameras with the ability to add IP cameras to the same system so you dont have to use 2 different management softwares to control

 

Sure you can start of using IP software and use encoders to transfer your analog over to IP but you have to figure the costs of the encoders plus the licenses to add each encoder to your IP software. My lands thats some crazy money for a guy just wanting to get an analog system going at first.

 

Many (most?) other PC-based hybrids work this way as well.

Do all PC's with an installed Geovision DVR card do this? Or do you have to run a seperate software for the Geovision card and a seperate software for the IP cameras? I am not saying they dont, just asking.

 

Another thing is you have to worry about the proprietary nature of IP cameras as well. Even if you did have a DVR card which allowed you to add IP cameras later, You have to make sure that that particular software will run this brand, that brand, blah blah blah. And if you dont use their brand, you have to pay money for licenses. And it may run the IP camera but you wont have full functionality, etc etc etc. Then it comes around again to running 2 seperate softwares, one for your Analog cameras and another for your IP cameras.

 

Apples to apples, sure... except a lot of PC-based DVRs are a complete fruit basket. Like I said, you just haven't been comparing the right systems.

 

I aint sayin they bad, just when all costs are considered...........