Questions concerning bandwidth and file sizes w/ IP cams

[groovyman 0]

I've been educating myself on IP camera technology over the past couple of months and was wondering if I could get some feedback to see if my thoughts concerning file sizes and Internet bandwidth are in the ballpark. I know there are no precise answers as file sizes and bandwidth speeds will vary, so everything is approximate.

 

From what I see (using storage calculators) video recorded @ 7fps with a 1.3MP camera results in roughly 3X larger file sizes than the same recording @ D1 with an analog camera.

 

I typically see around 3.5MB per minute of video @ D1/7fps. On a DSL connection with 350K-500K upload speed, a 5 minute video clip (approx 17.5MB) can take from 5-8 minutes to download. So, am I correct in thinking that the same 5 minute video clip recorded with a 1.3MP camera will be approx 52.5MB and will take from 15-24 minutes to download?

Do you see anything wrong with my math and, in your experience, are the real approximate file sizes close to what I've stated?

 

Additionally, what will remote live viewing of a 1.3MP camera be like? I'm thinking it will utilize all available upload bandwidth & image refresh on the remote device will be very slow. I can limit bandwidth usage either on the DVR or router (or both for that matter), but I don't know how that will affect live, remote viewing either.

 

Thanks for any insight that can be provided.

[benf 0]

I still have much to learn myself but can speak a bit to your last paragraph. I have an 850k upload DSL connection and remote live viewing is pretty good but you definitely have to dial down the resolution and/or FPS, or throttle bandwidth usage, or it will easily max out your upload bandwidth. Currently have a single Vivotek IP8332 cam (soon to be 3), and 5 analog cams, hooked to an Aver EH6108 hybrid DVR

 

The one thing I've noticed, or more like my wife has noticed, is when remote viewing it really slows down the internet at the house if she's surfing the net or something. Totally understand why but is a side effect I hadn't considered when going with network cams. My old analog based DVR, though a much lower resolution, consumed very little bandwidth.

 

I've throttled the network bandwidth usage to 128K overall at the DVR, which seems to be about as low as I can go and get what I consider acceptable live viewing, but still slows down the internet at the house. Not sure if I'm doing something else wrong or not configured correctly, but is semi-frustrating with me being a computer/tech person. I can't seem to find a sweet spot on video performance for the IP cam, at least when compared to my analogs, that doesn't kill my internet bandwidth.

 

Anyway, I know that's all very generalized information. Essentially I'm just confirming what you already know... there's a lots of trial and error/tweaking in your future.

[shockwave199 0]

Then what's the point of MP cameras for the average joe who wants to install a system on the house? Everything has to be dialed back so much that what- you're viewing lower res analogish remote views? This is an area I've been keeping admittedly loose tabs on here- maybe too loose. I view remotely almost exclusively and my home network always has one or two people on surfing as well. With analog no one surfing feels any pain and I can have everything set high for remote viewing. I think you can remote view a lower res stream but record a full res stream or something with this IP MP stuff? Me relying on remote viewing so heavily, I'd hate to cripple the res just to make everyone happy. What's the point of MP then?

[ak357 0]

Then what's the point of MP cameras for the average joe who wants to install a system on the house? Everything has to be dialed back so much that what- you're viewing lower res analogish remote views? This is an area I've been keeping admittedly loose tabs on here- maybe too loose. I view remotely almost exclusively and my home network always has one or two people on surfing as well. With analog no one surfing feels any pain and I can have everything set high for remote viewing. I think you can remote view a lower res stream but record a full res stream or something with this IP MP stuff? Me relying on remote viewing so heavily, I'd hate to cripple the res just to make everyone happy. What's the point of MP then?

 

You have to ask yourself simple ?

What is more important for you

excellent recording quality or remote view ?

I think we all buy camera to do only one thing to record

otherwise get web-cam and be happy

by the way Avigilon has so called HDSM

u should read about in your spare time

[shockwave199 0]

excellent recording quality or remote view ?

I think we all buy camera to do only one thing to record

For me it's actually both. I seriously monitor my cameras all night long remotely and I like the quality of what I'm seeing. And I like the quality of what I'm recording. I don't need high res views of parking lots to drill into, or fabulous overviews of my property for hanging on the wall in a frame. I see great pictures from these MP cameras, for sure. But at what cost to my network and the users in my home? My close up cameras do great and my overviews are just that. All the expense in gear and effort only to be badgered that I'm eating up bandwidth, marching all the high res gear down to low res viewing? I have high speed cable at the house but still- I'm sure there would be sacrifices. Eh.

[thewireguys 3]

Different VMS hand remote viewing differently but mostly your going to see that some drop frames, others transcode video, finally they will use multiple streams. My favorite is multi streaming where the VMS takes advantage of different streams at different resolutions based on your available bandwidth and/or monitor resolution. Again some VMS are better then others at this and what I mean by that is some do this all automatically (HDSM) where others set this up when you first connect cameras to the system. You will also need cameras that support multiple streams for this to work and VMS that supports them.

 

shockwave199 no need to worry about HD cameras eating up your network. Basically any new switch you would purchase would have at least gigabit uplinks or all gigabit ports and very soon we will start to see more and more 10G switches You need about 4-6Mbps for 1080p cameras so even with a older 100Mbps switch have more then enough bandwidth available for 5-6 cameras and your normal network traffic. There is also many different ways to setup networks to handle hundreds of cameras without any issues.

[shockwave199 0]

Huh- cool.

[ssmith10pn 0]

 

[groovyman 0]

Thanks for the replys, much appreciated.

[benf 0]

shockwave199 no need to worry about HD cameras eating up your network. Basically any new switch you would purchase would have at least gigabit uplinks or all gigabit ports and very soon we will start to see more and more 10G switches You need about 4-6Mbps for 1080p cameras so even with a older 100Mbps switch have more then enough bandwidth available for 5-6 cameras and your normal network traffic. There is also many different ways to setup networks to handle hundreds of cameras without any issues.

 

For "internal" networks that's definitely true and not an issue I've run into. My problem is with the lousy internet upload speed at my location and the network cams eating up *that* bandwidth when I remote view. I'm in a semi-remote residential area and doubt I'll be seeing faster speeds offered anytime soon, so in the meantime have to dial back the bandwidth usage on my cams and deal with blocky/jumpy video, and worry about bandwidth I'm using while someone at the house might be surfing the net. Viewing at the house though the IP cams are gorgeous, no complaints at all about that quality.

 

I would certainly be running all analog cams if I had a choice given my basic surveillance needs but had to go IP in a few spots due to long cable runs and interference.

[ak357 0]

For "internal" networks that's definitely true and not an issue I've run into. My problem is with the lousy internet upload speed at my location and the network cams eating up *that* bandwidth when I remote view. I'm in a semi-remote residential area and doubt I'll be seeing faster speeds offered anytime soon, so in the meantime have to dial back the bandwidth usage on my cams and deal with blocky/jumpy video, and worry about bandwidth I'm using while someone at the house might be surfing the net. Viewing at the house though the IP cams are gorgeous, no complaints at all about that quality.

 

Just to do thing properly

I would put IP cam

system on separate subnet

[benf 0]

Just to do thing properly

I would put IP cam

system on separate subnet

 

Good idea, hadn't considered that. I don't think though that will do anything to improve the impact it's having on the overall internet bandwidth though, it's more about just doing it the right way. Is that correct?

[ak357 0]

Just to do thing properly

I would put IP cam

system on separate subnet

 

Good idea, hadn't considered that. I don't think though that will do anything to improve the impact it's having on the overall internet bandwidth though, it's more about just doing it the right way. Is that correct?

Yes

[thewireguys 3]

*Edit my statement about cameras needing 4-6Mbps for 1080p resolution was when the cameras is set at 30FPS. As you can see from Smiths posts when you reduce frame rates band with goes down.

[groovyman 0]

My problem is with the lousy internet upload speed at my location and the network cams eating up *that* bandwidth when I remote view. I'm in a semi-remote residential area and doubt I'll be seeing faster speeds offered anytime soon, so in the meantime have to dial back the bandwidth usage on my cams and deal with blocky/jumpy video, and worry about bandwidth I'm using while someone at the house might be surfing the net. Viewing at the house though the IP cams are gorgeous, no complaints at all about that quality.

That's exactly one of my concerns.

 

One of my corporate clients has many retail stores and we created a wall of monitors in their office that display real time video from each store, typically 2-4 channels from each location. At any given time they can be pulling in 72+ camera feeds via the Internet.

 

The issue is upload bandwidth at the retail locations. As mentioned before, many have DSL with 350K-500K upload. I was thinking that remote viewing a MP camera would consume all of the bandwidth, or with bandwidth management the framerate from that camera will not be acceptable. Then if someone else connects with their phone, ipad or another computer the impact will be too great and hinder the stores ability to use the Internet. It was a little challenge to manage the bandwidth and get everything working properly with analog.

[MaxIcon 0]

Here's something IP cam vendors should be adding to their viewing software as a standard item - realtime FPS and bandwidth. The orphaned Rainbow IPM14 I'm testing does this, and it's very handy.

 

You can call up a window from the web viewer and get the realtime FPS and BW, which makes comparing setting changes quick and easy.

[mike_va 0]

Some cameras you can get multiple streams, and depending on the VMS does not have to be viewed at full res. In addition to what has been mentioned, I know that Axis ACS allows you to define based on the number of cameras the different frame rates image size etc that is in live view. Also bandwidth will depend on the type of encoding, for example on live view you could do mjpeg or mpeg4 etc. This is independent of the stream being recorded.

[MaxIcon 0]

Yes, and I'd like to have that data available for all the streams, real-time. Frame rates and data rates are basic aspects of IP cam performance and can help with lots of things, like setting key frames, trading off compression vs CPU loading, troubleshooting network problems, NVR bottlenecks, etc. There should be a simple and straightforward way to measure them, independent of NVR software.

 

Any OEMs reading this?

[mike_va 0]

Avigilon gets this, also provides a histogram. Axis you can add to the header displayed, as attached (except that should be a small "B").

[ak357 0]

Yes, and I'd like to have that data available for all the streams, real-time. Frame rates and data rates are basic aspects of IP cam performance and can help with lots of things, like setting key frames, trading off compression vs CPU loading, troubleshooting network problems, NVR bottlenecks, etc. There should be a simple and straightforward way to measure them, independent of NVR software.

 

Any OEMs reading this?

 

Ton's of apps available free and not free to do what you want

I do usually install few for my customers

if u need it sent me PM

[cctvpro69 0]

Just to do thing properly

I would put IP cam

system on separate subnet

 

Excuse me, dear sir could you please repeat that for us?

Thank you.

[ak357 0]

Excuse me, dear sir could you please repeat that for us?

Thank you.

 

 

sent me PM with your ph number

[HiroPro 0]

My problem is with the lousy internet upload speed at my location and the network cams eating up *that* bandwidth when I remote view. I'm in a semi-remote residential area and doubt I'll be seeing faster speeds offered anytime soon, so in the meantime have to dial back the bandwidth usage on my cams and deal with blocky/jumpy video, and worry about bandwidth I'm using while someone at the house might be surfing the net. Viewing at the house though the IP cams are gorgeous, no complaints at all about that quality.

That's exactly one of my concerns.

 

One of my corporate clients has many retail stores and we created a wall of monitors in their office that display real time video from each store, typically 2-4 channels from each location. At any given time they can be pulling in 72+ camera feeds via the Internet.

 

The issue is upload bandwidth at the retail locations. As mentioned before, many have DSL with 350K-500K upload. I was thinking that remote viewing a MP camera would consume all of the bandwidth, or with bandwidth management the framerate from that camera will not be acceptable. Then if someone else connects with their phone, ipad or another computer the impact will be too great and hinder the stores ability to use the Internet. It was a little challenge to manage the bandwidth and get everything working properly with analog.

 

I would see if it's possible for them to switch to a cable internet connection. Generally you get at least DOUBLE the upload speed than you do with DSL.

 

I'd also get them a decent router if they don't have one. An Asus RT-N16 with Tomato or DD-WRT is a MUST IMHO or you would purchase an Enterprise class router for what... five times the price!

 

I can't believe you're installing corporate stuff and appear to not even be able to calculate bps and calculate per minute in your OP.

 

UGG

 

No offense but two months of research and you don't even have a handle on bit rates and bandwidth yet!

 

 

My tone with you groovyman is somewhat motivated with your suggestions I'm ripping off my friend by dumping those UBNT cameras.

 

PS framerate is a good way to control bandwidth usage and the Avigilon HDSM also look great for this type of problem

Edited May 13, 2012 by Guest

[HiroPro 0]

Avigilon gets this, also provides a histogram. Axis you can add to the header displayed, as attached (except that should be a small "B").

 

 

I'm starting to now understand why so many integrators are using Avigilon!

[thewireguys 3]

 

I can't believe you're installing corporate stuff and appear to not even be able to calculate bps and calculate per minute in your OP.

 

UGG

 

No offense but two months of research and you don't even have a handle on bit rates and bandwidth yet!

 

This coming from a guy who thinks he can sell Genetec and Axis to home owners and small business users ROFL pull putting Axis M10 cameras in elevators with UBNT wireless links....WOW " title="Applause" />