NAS Recommendation as a surveillance platform

[MaxIcon 0]

I'll throw in another $.02 worth in on this. I'm just a simple home user and engineer on a budget, without the expertise all the pros here have (thanks to all for the education!), but here's my outlook.

 

Long post... sorry!

 

I've run midrange standalone analog DVRs for years, and I like them a lot. Plug and play, ignorable, always there when you need them, as long as your HD doesn't die. I spend too much time fiddling with technology as it is, so this has always worked well.

 

However, the vendors usually quit updating them after not too long, so you get limited firmware updates once they move on to newer models. In my price range, the video quality has always been decent but not great, even at max quality and resolution. Exporting video can be a pain, the software and file systems tend to be proprietary, and you're stuck with their search capabilities, good or bad. They definitely don't have the flexibility of PC based systems, and all mine have quirky network access, being some years old at this point (newer ones are much better, I'm sure).

 

I wanted to go to more cameras with better resolution while keeping my existing analog setups, and started shopping hybrid DVRs, so this forum is always the first stop to find out what's going on there. I like the sound of the Nano hybrid, but it seems a little limited in its IP cam support. You never find the warts in a system until you've taken it for a spin around the block, and a good hybrid 8 channel DVR can be a bit pricey, as are the more powerful cards.

 

So, more resolution - IP cams make a ton of sense, despite their drawbacks. I stumbled on some good deals on used Vivoteks (I know, the pros hate them, but they really shine next to my old analog cams, some of which are very good) and on a NV5000 card, and happened to have a PC that works with it.

 

I got a video extender card, for 8 channels total (0-4 IP and the remaining analog), though with lower frame rate and software compression only, which lets me split my cameras from my current system to the NV5000. I can add a second card for a little over $200 that will give me back my frame rates and more IP cams, though I'd probably need a faster PC then, and the price advantage goes out the door.

 

The Digi NV software is really pretty durn good, so far, especially compared to a standalone's capability. Free with the card, no license fees, pretty good support, semi-regular updates, and inexpensive for the capabilities (since the PC was a sunk cost).

 

I can see all the IP cams using their native browser support (Quicktime based for the Vivos, rather than ActiveX), connect to them through the web via IP Cam Viewer, connect to the NV5000 software on other PCs either through the browser support (on IE) or their remote console, most of which has run for days on end with no problems, and maybe use 3rd party software as well. I haven't tried their iPhone software yet, but it should be pretty straightforward. The multitude of connection options is pretty compelling, and even if the NV5000 PC goes down, I can still view my IP cams (which are recording on internal SD cards as well).

 

In fact, that's one of the downsides of the PC/IP based systems - too many choices! I'll be months figuring out all the capabilities and limitations of the software and hardware at the rate I'm going. Luckily, they've got really extensive documentation.

 

The biggie, though, is that my standalone Samsung SVR440, like the Sony before it, runs for years with no intervention, and I can't believe any PC system will ever do that.

 

For now, I'm viewing and recording a bunch of cameras, analog and IP, and can switch configurations and layouts without going into the garage and messing with BNCs or network jacks.

 

Maybe old hat to the pros with the high-end gear, but for me, it's like a wondrous buffet of stuff. It's a budget system, mostly used - not everybody's bag, I'm sure, but it's been a very good set of upgrades for me.

 

I'm looking for an affordable hybrid DVR as an alternative, but that's another thread...

Edited December 19, 2011 by Guest

[rory 0]

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 used GeoVision for a few years and since I moved to Dahua .. never looked back. The DVR is literally plug and play out of the box. Now I have more time to spend on other work.

 

There are only a couple features Geo has that the Stand alone doesnt which I kind of want but it is not imperative, that being able to set the start up multiview and better remote playback. Other than that it does everything most clients would ever need and then some. Its not like the stand alones of years gone by .. they know they have lots of competition now so they need to keep up. Sure with PC based you tend to have some more search and playback features, but its not that they CANT do that in the stand alone, they just havent yet .. after all its linux, not some limited MAC OS. And previous stand alones were using a much more restricted RTOS and that DID limit them in many ways (Eg. Nucleus RTOS on GE/Kalatel).

 

But to each their own, if I ran a PC store then that would be a whole different thing, if PC parts for a DVR were easy to come by, not as much these days, especially down here. However stand alone DVRs would still have their place, small compact units with 25watt current draw and basically no heat apart from the HDD, and even then you can run it without a HDD and just record over the network/internet to a central location using their free software. When you are dealing with Compter illiterate clients, it also makes sense to use something other than a PC. For the advanced users sure they could do alot, write scripts and custom schedules and stuff for the PC DVR .. but unlikely the DVR clients are paying for all that labour. Anyway it is what it is .. and like I said, we can still use a PC to record the video from the stand alone DVR

[tomcctv 188]

Digi NV5000 is the avermedia which is the budget side of hybrid still 1 cannel at 5mp and 3 at 1.3mp

 

the problem with the NV or SA 3000-5000-6000 if you are not shown the feature you dont know it has them (not listed in manual. such as face finder. left objects or sene change

[MaxIcon 0]

Current NV5000 specs show all 4 channels at 5 MP each. This is for the NV5000T card, and I don't know how that's different from the plain NV5000, if at all.

 

I've been running a 5MP Arecont AV5000 on channel 4, and it seems to handle it fine, but I'm keeping the frame rate down to under 8 fps.

 

I've found most of the features by browsing the setup options, and just go to the manual for more detailed explanations. Some online help on these things would be a nice touch.

[tomcctv 188]

sorry MaxIcon yes if your talking of the new t cards. its 5 mp each

 

have a go at these settings (not in manual) go system then alarms ........ you will see alrms on right hand side of page and options on the left

 

 

if you creat an alarm first ... just call it test the in the options on the left instead of left mouse click ... right mouse click and you will see the hidden options in one it will let you take a screen shot from one of your cameras and it gives you more recording options like sene change (ideal for finding shoplifters) people counting (in and out)

[Soundy 1]

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,

THE CARD IS IRRELEVANT TO IP CAMERAS. IP cameras connect through the network; they have nothing to do with the capture card.

 

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.

Few hybrids I've seen work this way (only VideoInsight comes immediately to mind. Adding support for new IP cameras, with a PC-based system, is usually as simple as a software update. I can take a six-year-old Vigil 3.x system with NO IP camera support and update to the latest version without changing out the hardware.

[SEANHAWG 1]

THE CARD IS IRRELEVANT TO IP CAMERAS. IP cameras connect through the network; they have nothing to do with the capture card.

 

I know but the point is using the same software that the Analog DVR card uses to also manage the IP cameras as well. Otherwise you have to run 2 seperate softwares (one for the Analog DVR Card)(One for the IP cameras). But as you said, you can sometimes get software updates that will allow you to add the IP cameras to the same software (just an updated version) But that goes back to my original point:

 

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.

[thewireguys 3]

.

 

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.

 

Ill give you 5 minutes with a Avigilon encoder system and you would never use a DVR again.

[SEANHAWG 1]

Ill give you 5 minutes with a Avigilon system with encoders and you would never use a DVR again.

 

It sounds like the Avigilon software lives up to its name for sure. I have not heard a bad report of the software yet. Too bad I cant sell them.

 

Its still a little costly compared to a good standalone but if the person had the budget for it with the explicit purpose of expanding to IP then I could see it being a good solution

[cglaeser 0]

Its still a little costly compared to a good standalone but if the person had the budget for it with the explicit purpose of expanding to IP then I could see it being a good solution

 

Avigilon is a bit pricey, but features, speed, and ease of use are far ahead of the competitors. I have two Avigilon 4 port encoders, a 2MP and a 5MP for a total of 10 cameras running on a $135 Intel Atom (plus memory and drive). The speed with which I can scroll the timeline across the internet is stunning. If you don't have the budget for Avigilon, then don't make the mistake of testing it, because you will wish you were using Avigilon over any other the other solutions.

 

Best,

Christopher

[MaxIcon 0]

sorry MaxIcon yes if your talking of the new t cards. its 5 mp each

 

have a go at these settings (not in manual) go system then alarms ........ you will see alrms on right hand side of page and options on the left

 

 

if you creat an alarm first ... just call it test the in the options on the left instead of left mouse click ... right mouse click and you will see the hidden options in one it will let you take a screen shot from one of your cameras and it gives you more recording options like sene change (ideal for finding shoplifters) people counting (in and out)

 

Thanks, I'll check that out. I'm still just denting the surface on this.

 

I don't know the differences in the T and non-T cards. Aver doesn't have anything I've found, and the spec sheets are different enough that it's hard to compare them. I should try their support and see what they say.

 

I know but the point is using the same software that the Analog DVR card uses to also manage the IP cameras as well.

 

This is the thing that's got me sticking with the NV5000, for all its limitations - being able to remotely manage both analog and IP, as well as viewing the recordings, all in one place. I also like the ability to VNC in to the pc to do the stuff the phone apps won't support.

 

If I had the cash, I'd switch to all IP and not look back. It's getting cheaper and more powerful every year, though.

[Soundy 1]

I know but the point is using the same software that the Analog DVR card uses to also manage the IP cameras as well.

 

This is the thing that's got me sticking with the NV5000, for all its limitations - being able to remotely manage both analog and IP, as well as viewing the recordings, all in one place. I also like the ability to VNC in to the pc to do the stuff the phone apps won't support.

 

If I had the cash, I'd switch to all IP and not look back. It's getting cheaper and more powerful every year, though.

This is the beauty of the Vigil system: DVR, hybrid and NVR, all use the same software. You don't need the card at all if you're running an all-IP setup. I don't know why this seems to be such a difficult concept to grasp.

[thewireguys 3]

This is the beauty of the Vigil system: DVR, hybrid and NVR, all use the same software. You don't need the card at all if you're running an all-IP setup. I don't know why this seems to be such a difficult concept to grasp.

 

 

Agreed

[MaxIcon 0]

Please post your iphone app experience if you can

 

OK, I've tried a few apps for iPhone remote control and view of my setup (dedicated PC with NV5000, 5 IP cams (3 on the NV5000), Samsung standalone 4ch DVR, 4 analog cams (one twinned to the NV5000), and here's how it looks to me:

 

Aver apps: AverViewer i-Viewer, DSS iViewer - AverViewer appears to be the newer of the two; both have similar functionality, interface, and setup, but AverViewer has some UI improvements like being able to touch a quad window and switch to the single window. Both crashed a lot.

 

Plus: Free, faster frame rate than others, simple, easy to set up, can view recordings from DVR

Minus: Not too stable, no flexibility in camera setup and grouping/viewing, no zoom, recordings stream very slowly (maybe due to my mediocre phone net), no local recording capability (just snapshots), mediocre image quality, can't view cams the NV5000 doesn't support.

 

 

IP Cam Viewer Pro: A very nice little IP cam app

 

Plus: Inexpensive (free version available), stable, nice user interface, very flexible in camera views and groupings, lots of camera setup options, supports many cams, PTZ support, records locally, good image quality

Minus: IP cams only, slower frame rate, no access to cam's onboard recordings

 

 

VNC: Remote control and view for the host PC

 

Plus: Can be inexpensive, lots of versions available, can be very stable, very flexible, allows direct control of PC for access to all setup and control options, recordings, export, file copy, you name it, excellent image quality, lets me view my Samsung DVR remote console that's running on the PC as well

Minus: Can be tricky to learn to use, can be more expensive, no local snapshot (except screen grab) or recording.

 

 

For casual viewing, I'm mostly using IP Cam Viewer. Works great, easy to use, shows what's going on. If I want to see recordings (not too often), the Aver app does OK, except when it crashes, and viewing recordings is slooow. For overall control and quality (especially from a remote PC on a LAN instead of a phone), a VNC setup is hard to beat, since it lets me run everything.

[tomcctv 188]

I don't know why this seems to be such a difficult concept to grasp.

 

 

aver is the same ...... others like geo dont want to so long as people keep paying for the licence for none geo they will not change.

 

 

monday i had a new price list from geo everything has gone up none geo ip for 16 cameras $1000 32 $1900. so we will not be using them again.

[SEANHAWG 1]

Soundy wrote:

This is the beauty of the Vigil system: DVR, hybrid and NVR, all use the same software. You don't need the card at all if you're running an all-IP setup. I don't know why this seems to be such a difficult concept to grasp.

 

 

 

Agreed

 

 

So you agree that the best thing to do if a guy had a 16 channel geovision card for years running analog cameras, and he decides to get 4 avigilon 5 megapixel cameras, that he should simply update the Geovision software to support those 4 Avigilon cameras instead of using Avigilons IP software on the same computer?

[Soundy 1]

Soundy wrote:

This is the beauty of the Vigil system: DVR, hybrid and NVR, all use the same software. You don't need the card at all if you're running an all-IP setup. I don't know why this seems to be such a difficult concept to grasp.

 

 

 

Agreed

 

 

So you agree that the best thing to do if a guy had a 16 channel geovision card for years running analog cameras, and he decides to get 4 avigilon 5 megapixel cameras, that he should simply update the Geovision software to support those 4 Avigilon cameras instead of using Avigilons IP software on the same computer?

Does Geo even support Avigilon cameras?

[thewireguys 3]

Soundy wrote:

This is the beauty of the Vigil system: DVR, hybrid and NVR, all use the same software. You don't need the card at all if you're running an all-IP setup. I don't know why this seems to be such a difficult concept to grasp.

 

 

 

Agreed

 

 

So you agree that the best thing to do if a guy had a 16 channel geovision card for years running analog cameras, and he decides to get 4 avigilon 5 megapixel cameras, that he should simply update the Geovision software to support those 4 Avigilon cameras instead of using Avigilons IP software on the same computer?

Does Geo even support Avigilon cameras?

 

Maybe the h.264 cameras... but not the JPEG2000 cameras.. I don't think that is what he is asking though.

[Soundy 1]

So you agree that the best thing to do if a guy had a 16 channel geovision card for years running analog cameras, and he decides to get 4 avigilon 5 megapixel cameras, that he should simply update the Geovision software to support those 4 Avigilon cameras instead of using Avigilons IP software on the same computer?

Does Geo even support Avigilon cameras?

 

Maybe the h.264 cameras... but not the JPEG2000 cameras.. I don't think that is what he is asking though.

 

Well, if it doesn't, then his question, as it is, is pointless - the user would HAVE to use the Avigilon software.

 

Granted, by all accounts, it's far nicer software anyway, so why WOULDN'T one want to?

 

But as a more generic question... what one SHOULD do would really depend on the individual and how the software compares - one certainly COULD simply add the proper updates and licensing to the GV software and add IP cameras alongside the analog ones, could one not? Or simply replace the analog cameras entirely and remove the card? I haven't used GV's NVR/hybrid capability, so I don't know if it combines everything in the same interface. Beyond that, it's a question of personal preference.

 

He's dragged this so far off track, I don't even remember what the question was...

[SEANHAWG 1]

My original point was:

 

I cant see any reason why anyone would buy a PC based system for Analog cameras anymore.

 

You then followed up by saying "you cant do this, you cant do that" on Standalone DVR's, which on most good commercial grade standalone DVR's you can all relelevent things that you would need in a surveillance scenario. Sure you cant run Microsoft word on a standalone but.......:

 

I have yet to see a standalone that comes anywhere close to Vigil's interface and feature integration

Thats just because you use it all the time and you have grown accustomed to it

 

The ability to actually FULLY access the system remotely, rather than just the few options the remote client gives me.

What standalone were you using that doesnt offer this? This seems to be a pretty basic feature.

 

You then asked:

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.

 

I followed up by:

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.

 

Thats my I am saying, if you are going all analog, it makes more sense economically to get a standalone. Chances are, you will be running seperate software on the computer anyways. Why would you spend 3-5k on a PC based DVR now when you can get a much more economical standalone now and just get a nice desktop computer in a few years to run your IP cameras. Chances are, that same PC you just bought a few years back will be so outdated anyways so just get the computer whenever you are ready to install IP cameras with the newest processors and OS. This also brought me to my next point:

 

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.

 

I dont think you initially understood the point I was trying to make but you just confirmed thepoint I want was making by the following statements:

 

Does Geo even support Avigilon cameras?

Exactly

 

Maybe the h.264 cameras... but not the JPEG2000 cameras.

See what I mean: too many if's, and's, or butts

 

Granted, by all accounts, it's far nicer software anyway, so why WOULDN'T one want to?

Now you got it. " title="Applause" />

 

Which again brings me back to my point, why would you get a PC based DVR running a particular software when you dont even know if that particular software will not run your IP camera properly. It's not economical to pay the premium that a PC based DVR has compared to an embedded DVR system. Essentially, they are the same thing, just the standalones usually cost less and are alot easier to setup. Just run the Standalone's remote management software on the same PC that is running your new IP cameras.

[thewireguys 3]

Sean so your recommendation is for the customer to have to operate two systems? One for analog and the other for megapixel? Does anyone ever think about system usability and how much time the customer has to spend to search and export video? That is the biggest complaint from from our new customers about their old systems.

[rory 0]

Sean so your recommendation is for the customer to have to operate two systems? One for analog and the other for megapixel? Does anyone ever think about system usability and how much time the customer has to spend to search and export video? That is the biggest complaint from from our new customers about their old systems.

takes me 2 seconds to search and export video.

[rory 0]

regarding geo vision, you could go ahead and download 8.5 and install it as an NVR only and then can get an idea of what cameras it supports. it will come up with an IP camera search, just let it do its thing then leave that open so the geo main system opens. When that opens you can select a brand and camera from the drop down. But I dont see any Avilon listed. It also has a protocol section, for example could add RTSP to a camera or DVR - but need a USB dongle for any device that is not geo vision.

 

download 8.5 here..

http://www.bahamassecurity.com/downloads/geovision-latest-version.asp

[Soundy 1]

Which again brings me back to my point, why would you get a PC based DVR running a particular software when you dont even know if that particular software will not run your IP camera properly.

I wouldn't - I'd use a PC-based hybrid DVR that I know has support for dozens if not hundreds of IP cameras, and facility to add customized camera support. Then I know it stands less chance of becoming obsolete.

 

Otherwise, unless I'm replacing all my analog cameras with IP cameras, I either end up with two separate systems for analog and IP (which are highly unlikely to share a VMS), or I end up turning the standalone into a boat anchor and replacing it with a hybrid DVR, or an NVR and a buttload of encoders (NOT particularly cost-effective!).

 

It's not economical to pay the premium that a PC based DVR has compared to an embedded DVR system.

Really? NEVER? What standalones are you comparing to what PC systems? What feature sets are you looking at? What if I'm going to need to add a crapload of external storage?

 

Essentially, they are the same thing, just the standalones usually cost less and are alot easier to setup.

Ahhh, there's your key word: "usually". I'll put a Vigil's ease-of-use up against any standalone, any day.

 

Just run the Standalone's remote management software on the same PC that is running your new IP cameras.

That still won't allow me to do something like this:

 

 

Simultaneous synchronized playback of a mix of IP and analog cameras.

 

(Yeah, the fog on the top-right camera is some bright upward-facing lighting that was added below the camera, AFTER the camera was in place... and they wouldn't let us move the camera because it would leave little tiny screw holes behind )

[tomcctv 188]

I wouldn't - I'd use a PC-based hybrid DVR that I know has support for dozens if not hundreds of IP cameras, and facility to add customized camera support. Then I know it stands less chance of becoming obsolete

 

 

hi. none pc based will also support hundreds and add.

 

Otherwise, unless I'm replacing all my analog cameras with IP cameras, I either end up with two separate systems for analog and IP (which are highly unlikely to share a VMS), or I end up turning the standalone into a boat anchor and replacing it with a hybrid DVR, or an NVR and a buttload of encoders (NOT particularly cost-effective!).

 

 

this all depends on what system you are using ... if it uses the same software for its analog / hybrid / nvr or vms then everything can be pulled to 1 screen 1 software.

 

it just all depends how much development makers put into there systems to talk to each platform