Today, we take a look at On Board storage for IP cameras

Potential Benefits:-

Some camera locations have limited or unreliable bandwidth. In those lcoations, ensuring that video can be streamed and recorded remotely can be expensive (or simply not possible). Putting storage inside of an IP camera can eliminate this problem. Of course, some network connections will be needed to remotely view/download record video. However, this will only need to be done periodically.

Cost: While storgae costs drop continuously, today the cost of on-board storage is far higher than centrally storing video in hard drives. Moreover, for most video surveillance applications, it is simply not possible to solely store video on-board IP cameras as it is not technically possible (with the exception of  suppliers supporting hard drives inside or attached to their cameras)

  • End User Risks
    Using on board storage may force compromises in the length of storage or the quality of storage (because of limitations on how much video can be stored inside the camera). Additionally, most VMS systems do not support remote playback of video recorded on an IP camera. This could make it difficult to access and use this video.
  • Installer Risks
    If the on-board storage cannot be remotely accessed using the existing VMS playback, the installer may be called for additional service calls. Some systems will require a technician physically remove the on-board storage while others will require downloading raw video files.

Taken from the ‘Emerging Video Surveillance Guide 2010’ from http://ipvideomarket.info/

we at IntegratedCCTV agree in part with the report – however, we still think that a camera recording in a continuous loop, just enough to cover a 3 9’s network (99.9% allowable down time, 43 minutes per month) and then using technology such as March Networks’ Shadow Archive feature, means that the system can synchronise video lost during the network downtime, with little effect on the overall system…………this is new and probably not known at the time of the report, but it is worth noting when discussing the above!!!

Have you any opinions on this? leave a comment for us!

continuing our look at IPVideoMarket.info’s ‘Emerging Video Surveillance Guide 2010’, today we look at IP Based Storage (SAN)

Ok, Potential Benefits?

Traditional video surveillance deployments combine video management software and hard drives inside a single appliance (usually a DVR). In larger systems, this can result in hundreds of hard drives inside of dozens of DVRs. This can be difficult to manage, inefficient and difficult to upgrade. Also, DVRs often do not provide redundancy for storage.

IP based storage provides centralised storage clusters that offer built-in redundancy and simple expansion. Each video recorder transmits surveillance video from the recorder to the storage cluster. This also reduces wasted storage as all video is ‘pooled’ in a central repository.

Cost:- For larger systems (20TBs or more), IP Based storage is often cheaper than storage inside of DVRs. However, the startup costs for purchasing a SAN often make it significantly more expensive than simply adding an extra hard drive inside a DVR, For isntance, SANs usually start at around £3000, far more than the incremental cost of adding a few hard drives inside DVRs or NVRs.

  • End User Risks:
    Overall risk is quite low. Some DVRs do not support external storage (usually as a business policy rather than a technical restriction) so that should be checked. Using a SAN that is remote from IP cameras or existing DVRs (essentially the source of the video streams) can be a problem. Specifically, it is generally not feasible to use a SAN to store video from remote offices/branches. This is due to limited and costly bandwidth connecting facilities to each other (WAN Bandwidth)
  • Installer Risks:
    Setting up a SAN (depending on the supplier) can be significantly more complicated than storage on-board DVRs. At least one person on staff should be trained in installing and maintaining SAN systems.

Taken from the ‘Emerging Video Surveillance Guide 2010’ from http://ipvideomarket.info/

Have you any opinions on this? leave a comment for us!

An interesting demo came up recently…..

we took a few cameras, HD 1080p to be precise, from a very renowned IP Manufacturer,,,,,,,,,,,

a couple were mini dome based, the type you see in the analogue arena, you know, Vandal Resistant with varifocal lens, 3 axis, day night etc etc

the others were ‘boxed’ cameras……..the type where you fit the lens, usually (and recommended) a high quality lens designed for Megapixel use………

putting them side by side, adjusted to look at exactly the same picture………….both 1080p cameras from the same manufacturer………..

The Result

well, both were excellent pictures – it cannot be denied – but, they were not identical……….not by some margin………. the mini dome was ‘softer’, a little more ‘noise’ in the picture whereas the ‘boxed’ camera was sharper, more ‘vivid’ colours………….electronically zooming in revealed that actually, the mini dome, despite the ‘noise’ was actually a sharper picture, the ‘boxed’ camera had a degree of ‘pixelaion’ which detracted away from the initial sharpness………….

turning the lights off to test the day/night function highlighted the difference again………..the mini dome wiped the floor with the ‘boxed’ version camera!!! that puzzled us !

talking with the manufacturer, the mini dome is a smaller lens, smaller sensor, limited in optics to fit inside the dome………..that we can understand……….but how was it better under low light??

Lesson learnt

so, it is imperative that when specifying a system, particularly with IP MEgapixel, be aware that even with the same manufacturer, you will sometimes see a difference in picture rendition………..

what are your experiences?!

An interesting twist on Perimeter protection!

We became aware recently of a new, emerging technology in the Security Industry……….Radar

It’s not a new technology, but certainly new in our industry.

Is it expensive?

Well, yes…….but, you need to look beyond the capital outlay and see what it replaces…

historically, protecting a huge perimeter, such as that of an airport, would involve 10’s or even 100’s of sensors, whether beams or detectors, alarm or dedicated CCTV beams such as those from companies like Optex etc…..

but, one single Navtech Radar unit, placed centrally, can monitor movement in an 800m 360 degree zone………and link various zones to multiple cameras……controlling PTZ cameras such as MIC-400 from Bosch or the new and excellent 360 Vision Predator product, moving them automatically to moving objects and dynamically tracking as the object moves within the detection zone………

Offering a complete revolution of the mentioned 800m 360 degree view in ONE SECOND this represents a very different way to think of sensor detection.

We think this is a very exciting new product, there is defintely a cost increase, but we are prepared to bet that if installation costs and labour are factored in, there is very little in it!

Navtech’s website can be found here – let us know what you think!

CCTV reviews.

Over the past few months we have reviewed many products. Below we link to some of the most popular posts and look for comments  from yourselves as to your views.

Engineers and sales alike, join in the debate and let us know what your experiences of IP CCTV really are. Too expensive ? too difficult to install or just too hard to sell at the moment . We want to know what you think.

Are your sales down this year?

What do your customers think about you …find out

Metal Mickey v Predator

PIXC v wide dynamic

Alhua

Just a few of the posts that have created a bit of debate and interest so far register today and feel free to comment and blog giving your views and comments about your products and company or just some interesting views you think that we should all know about.