TechSec IP Conference

[normicgander 0]

Dear Members:

 

I attended the TechSec IP conference and I was wondering if I should post the names/links for some of newer or interesting hardware/software companies which were there?

 

The conference seemed more political (IT vs. Security folks) than technical, so I was disappointed in that regard. Meeting the exhibitors was much more productive. Several new software companies geeting started. Most will be at ISC West.

 

Big debates on IP (IPVS was their buzz word) vs CCTV (analog). They ripped analog hard....I guess I'm in the dark ages with my DVRs, but my customers seem happy.

[rory 0]

Tell them you deal with CCTV and you are in the Security Industry, let them go play with their web cams ...

 

Basically though, IP has its place, but CCTV isnt going anywhere.

Also, IP has a long way to go as far as the technology and the IP Video software.

[normicgander 0]

Rory, I agree. I went with an open mind because I see all devices as tools to get the job done in a cost-effective manner. While I understand the differences, the end result or goal is the same. Also, there was not one WDR IP camera that I could find, especially in a minidome version.

 

Except the megapixel camera systems, the IP video quality of most exhibitors didn't impress me...

[Securitymaster 0]

That's the same thing for me, the video quality of these cameras, when compared to what they actually cost, it's not worth to even look at.

 

And another thing is that cost of the Video software, I stil have to see a pieve of IP software that works like a regular DVR works in terms of storage and features.

[Thomas 0]

It's all about application. There are certain situations where an IP camera may be a better option but with most applications analog is going to be cheaper/better then IP.

 

The IP section of the industry needs some time to mature but I suspect if we ask Cooperman about getting dome cameras in the Vicon tube days he might note getting a dome then wasn't an option.

 

Some of this comes from how IT is growing. It's switch more from Computer infrastructure to general technology infrasturcture. IT got used to large budgets in the 90's and many departments are trying to justify those budgets now. So the PBX's get taken in, then the DVR's, and the access control....it's all tech and in thier domain. That doesn't mean they are good at it but the IT industry has been very seat of the pants since Compaq cloned the PC.

 

The intresting part of that is how this is going to interact with CCTV. The IT world is very much into disruptive techs, things that leap forward. The CCTV world is very much evolutionary. This year it's 420 lines, next year 440, the year after 460....so that means the Pelco's of the world will have to fight against the IQeyes. So analog cameras will either die to the CSI tech cameras or move forward. How about bullets in HD? Box cameras with progressive scan. How about more intellgent cameras? You start seeing some of the tricks that Covi does with Analog and it starts looking impressive.

[Cooperman 0]

Pity my sizzling ear lobes Thomas ... I think you've hit the nail on the head!

 

Unfortunately, the subject of IP surveillance just isn't as straightforward as we'd like it to be.

 

I can't specifically comment in relation to what goes on stateside, but the move, er, on second thoughts make that aggressive push, towards converting analog systems to IP technology in my neck of the woods, is gathering momentum, although not necessarily for all the right reasons.

 

Nobody is going to argue that in many situations and given the budget, you can do some seriously impressive things with 'Digital', that just wouldn't happen with analogue. But we also know that for the majority of everyday applications, particularly in the small to medium size system sector, the bottom line costs just don't compare.

 

That said, in the ongoing battle for 'Digital Solutions' supremacy, most knowledgable insiders in the UK tend to agree that the next few years are going to be seriously messy.

 

Cost aside, the IP camp would have us believe that "seamless integration" is almost a foregone conclusion, and yet the old dogs have a slightly more jaundiced, and dare I say instinctive view of the probable outcome.

 

In general, IT departments are staffed by IT experts ( ) who may well know there self healing rings from their fibre backbones, but unfortunately they often know squat diddly about the subject of applying CCTV. Plugging in a camera and getting a picture, really isn't rocket science.

 

The old guard that have almost been weaned on Vidicon tubes and Genlock, can generally put togethor a seriously effective surveillance package, but they often don't have the knowledge and experience to leverage all the benefits out of applying IP technology in everyday situations.

 

Over here, the conversion to IP is promoted as the best thing since John Logie Baird, and yet despite all the growing (and often misguided) end user demand for Digital, and the industry's grateful push for a ready source of additional profit, there is one glaringly obvious problem.

 

We had a very good trade show here in January called IIPSEC, which is basically all about IP technology. The overriding impression that struck me as I drove home from the event (or sat stuck in a jam to be accurate), is that the analogue old guard, and the digital bright young things, actually speak completely different languages; and the thoroughly depressing part is, they don't even realise it.

 

Analogue will certainly still be in use ten years from now, and IP will have probably gobbled up perhaps 80% of the market, but the crucial time will be between perhaps 2008 and 2012, when the Video Surveillance industry will have to get smart to keep growing.

 

Industry growth is assured as long as "CCTV" is flavour of the month, but not everyone appreciates living under saturation surveillance, and there are some signs that unlike the U.K., many folks in the U.S. just aren't that enamoured with surrendering familier aspects of their privacy, for a less than assured payback.

 

If you ever consider a change of career Thomas, then you could well have a very bright future as an industry analyst. Or maybe we should all just set up a global CCTV brand, and then show the big boys how it should be done

 

Oh and I nearly forgot, crappy domes didn't put in an appearance until some time during the mid '80's (if my memory serves me correctly), and we did manage quite well without them

[Thomas 0]

My major problem with the "seamless" intergration is that most of the time they just want to sell analog converters to go at the camera end. That's not really intergration. That's selling more parts. The line that bothers me is when they throw out "no recorder needed!" about NVRs. All an NVR is a DVR for IP cameras.

 

Here there is a lot of hype about the cameras but not alot to support them. That doesn't mean they don't have some ideas that can't be learned. One of my favorites is what Toshiba does with some of it's cameras. They put an SD slot on the camera itself and give it limited (and not very bright) DVR ability at the camera level. Now you're only talking a days worth of resolution but it does allow for much more redunancy in the camera system.

 

The really intresting part of this will be when companies like Pelco and Gantz start really pouring money into IP cameras rather then the toe dipping they do now. When you start looking at the realistic potential for IP (Not 500 cameras on a 10/100 network) combined with a company that understands the reality of how security works....well that is going to be very intresting indeed.

 

The amount of money entering the industry combined with the potential conflict between the IP and analog world and the backlash from groups like the CCC (Chaos Computer Club)....well the old chinese curse "May you live in intresting times" is starting to apply.

 

In the intrest of being honest, I do have to point out that the company I work for does Hybrid systems and it may have an effect on my viewpoint.

[Cooperman 0]

Can't argue with that Thomas.

 

Seamless integration is too often a polite way of suggesting crease free confusion!

 

Too many in the industry are so in love with the technology, that they don't really appreciate what it is they are trying to do with it.

 

Interesting times indeed, but whilst it's becoming consistantly more difficult for experienced CCTV pro's to cut through the BS, the end users who are increasingly buying in to whatever is offered, are often being sold a hollow promise, rather than a sustainable solution.

[normicgander 0]

Interesting comments. During one session the panel spoke about the flexibility and ability of IP systems to access and process video via the network. I thought gee, thats the capability that I've been providing my customers for at least the last 3-4 years with IP ready DVRs. They also said that we (CCTV folks) needed to get (more) educated in the IP field. I agree, but many of us have been learning and reading books on the subject and this is certainly evident by the postings on this site. Who doesn't leverage the capability which remote Ethernet viewing povides our customers? I have sold many system on that alone....

 

Cheers

[Thomas 0]

To be honest, both sides need education. There are alot of network types that can't do what many dealers can do here. And vice versa.

 

The problem Cooperman is marketing rather then the IT world per se. I can point out examples from certain distrubtors of specs that make me wonder about what illegal substances they might be smoking or ingesting. (150' for an IR Bullet? 28 Leds with a retail of $200?)

 

Some of this comes from a flood of people entering the market, both in the low end of manufacturing and in resale. All they see is .01 lux but no understanding of what kind of lighting that is. Or what 500 lines of resolution look like on a testing chart. And add to this the online sites that convince people that any monkey can hang a camera. Combined with a dash of the IT arrogence and you have problems. At the same time you have some dealers who dismiss the IP world all together.

[normicgander 0]

I absolutely agree- however it could also be a question of ethics. To expand your CCTV example, OEMs use different methods of measuring camera senstivity or "minimum illumination." They're all over the map! You would think there should a standard measurement specification so we can compare one camera to another.

 

Yes, we all must continue to educate and train ourselves relative to new technology, especially if it's how we make our living. I realize I'll never be an IT guy. It's just not my passion- but I continue to learn IT enough to configure my CCTV IP ready "network appliances."

[rory 0]

Why dont the IT guys stick to IT and leave us CCTV Guys to CCTV already

[JMANOFNVS 0]

Can't we all just get along??? I must agree with all of you on certain points. I think the IT guys should stick with IT and when it comes to IP based Security equipment they should use there IT experience and design the equipment around our needs and applications and not try to take over the world in a field that we (or I should say you all) have been mastering for years and also not try to take over methods and/or techniques that have proven throguh time to work effectively. I think by working side by side with their technology and our knowledge of the industry there is a much better chance of succeeding. In other words "One who masters one or 2 techniques will be far superior then one who tries to be a master of all" I think I seen that on a fortune cookie or maybe Kung Fu Theatre, anyways it makes the point.

[KrCCTV 0]

Having watched this push from the beginning (at least here in the US) I'll sum it up. It’s all about an attempt by Axis Communications (more generally "the Swedes") for world domination (it actually started with their development of print servers for IBM mainframes). That’s why to this day so many IP cameras look like Volvos.

 

Thankfully it’s still (despite all the hogwash) a terribly lousy approach to many a serious security application. Its success to date rests greatly on the premise that it’s easier to teach an IT guy about cameras than a camera guy about networking. It’s up to us to change that around. (so will any of you that understand networking please sum it up real simply for me – that crap gives me a headache).

[rory 0]

(so will any of you that understand networking please sum it up real simply for me – that crap gives me a headache).

 

plug and play is all I can say ...

[KrCCTV 0]

But the thing came with the wrong size phone plug Rory - - it's too big and doesn't fit in to the stupid hole in my wall.

[rory 0]

ahhh , yah can make it fit i know yah can ... push it till it breaks ...

[JMANOFNVS 0]

All I can say is...

 

OUCH!!!!!!!!!

[frosted 0]

 

excellent thread. some really interesting points. as an it guy myself i can see both sides of fence. im currently deciding what to do in regards to the cctv business ive been building in the uk. its actually cheaper in some instances to use ip based camera systems with a nvr than using a dvr/analoge camera system.

 

im also hooked on the quality bug, and although there is no way the megapixel cams that are out at the moment are better than analoge in all instances, in most they do seem to come up best (from images and video ive seen at least, getting a demo soon of some bits).

 

Im trying my best to learn the ideas of good camera placement, lenses e.t.c. and have been getting good results compared with the local muppets that seem to be doing it.

 

I think the main thing to consider is that the it camp is offering a lot of value added items to sell onto customers, remote monitoring, acsess over wan/lans.

 

all this stuff is bits you can charge for setting up. now or at a later date. i also thank god for poe! awsome stuff!

[Thomas 0]

It goes beyond just Axis, although they were one of the first ip cameras to market. There has been a massive influx of cash into this industry and alot of people are trying to figure out how to get a piece of it. This includes IT departments which are looking to justify thier budgets.

 

Opposing IP simply takes a potential tool out of your box. There are situations where it can be the right tool, like cheap wireless jobs. But IP about more then just cameras. Look at large campus jobs in which you can't get trenching done but there is a network between the buildings. So wire the DVR's together. Or a large college campus with tons of Fiber but all of it located badly for your needs. In these situations IP can be a great option.

 

Dismissing IP as completely worthless is a simular attitude to the IP guys dismissing analog as worthless. Ignore the hype and just add a tool to your belt. I've seen intresting deployments of IP and analog systems. The hard part is convincing both sides they have something to bring to the table and teach.

[rory 0]

Look at large campus jobs in which you can't get trenching done but there is a network between the buildings. So wire the DVR's together.

 

Dont need IP for that, you can simply use something like NVT.

And trenching can always be done, unless they are being cheap.

[frosted 0]

But IP about more then just cameras

 

this is the point im picking up on being an it monkey. its being able to integrate the managment and wireing of the system into an allready existing it infrastructure. very very advantagous i would say. poe has brought this into real use though imo

[normicgander 0]

At least for me, I believe the IP backbone is an effective method of signal egress and control. I don't really see the beef at my level (you know the self-employed, low-voltage guy aka "trunk slammer"). I work well with county goverments and thier IT departments.

 

In fact, some at the TechSec IP Conference called for more certifications such being "Cisco" certified in order to "keep out" the low-life "trunk slammers." All kidding aside, I've heard of this term before, but my work and dedication to quality and customer support is the nexus of my business....

[frosted 0]

i really cant see the need for cisco certification for the installers , i mean if really required it the network kit can be setup inhouse or done by outside consultancy if required (actually what i did not my last one as did not have the time to do the network setup as well).

[rory 0]

If its a Network set up I dont know, I would just outsource. Stick to what you do best and perfect that. Specialise, thats where its at in this day and age with so many new companies and cheaper products poping up left and right.

 

Normal Remote Setups dont require any serious knowledge of networks besides plug, play and port forward.