ANALOG VIDEO: SAY IT ISN’T SO
What’s Driving Digital Video Surveillance?
• Integration into a complete solution • IP platforms • Video analytics • Digital storage • Homeland security
Source: Frost & Sullivan
market. One goes by the name of VESA (Video Electronics Standards Association) and the other is SMPTE-292M, which is a format standardized by the Society of Motion Pictures and Television Engineers. The VESA interface is the first genera- tion of this technology and is capable of transmis- sion up to approximately 450 feet over 95 percent copper RG59U without repeaters — or twice that of its SMPTE counterpart. SMPTE is expected to be lower cost and non-proprietary upon its release.” Daly, at Eye P Video Systems, believes it has a place. “It may be that part of the security industry may feel it is a mistake in creating a third so-called standard with HDcctv, but I see it has a place at the low end with, say, a 2-megapixel max,” Daly points out. “On top of that, a real benefit aims at the installer who cannot or won’t embrace the new IP technology.”
Analog cameras can do as well, but the HDcctv Alliance approach is “still an analog solution,” says Nilsson, who views the alliance approach as providing fewer choices. “It’s buyer beware. You still have to change out the cameras and DVRs with only the coax being repurposed.” The Axis execu- tive also sees a hosted video trend as yet another reason to take on IP. More bluntly, HDcctv “is going to be a dead end” for many system integrators, contends Wilson at Infinova. Video analytics, from motion detection to com-
plex algorithms, depends on IP video to blossom. In the command center, it’s a software world where integration is the password and joysticks are being pushed out by ease-of-use computer mice, drop- down menus and even touch screens. There is also a complementary trend of integrat- ing video surveillance solutions with access con- trol, intrusion detection technologies, and fire and safety applications, which encourages adoption of digital video. Wilson believes the choice between analog and digital video is not necessarily a technology issue
90 October 2010
but a financial one. “It’s a message of coexistence, analog and IP operating side by side. A lot of people are considering digital as convergence picks up.” It’s also a matter of quality of image. Today, forensics is more important, Wilson says. “Higher image quality is more important. You lose all the benefits of IP technology if you leave it behind to stay in the analog world.” Of coure, for many end users, it is more than challenging to justify a complete swap out to IP video. It is estimated that 80 percent of the installed base of cameras in the United States today is analog. Throw in today’s tough economic climate and stepped migration and hybrid strate- gies seem a better route for most. In many cases, with hybrid DVRs in place and working just fine with analog and digital cameras, a kind of coexis- tence can be achieved.
Then there is that security leap to sharing the enterprise network infrastructure: working more closely with a client’s in-house information tech- nology operation. Times are changing. For example, IT manag- ers are involved in almost 60 percent of decisions to purchase IP-based physical security products, according to a report by IMS Research. Based on a comprehensive survey of North American integra- tors and installers of IP-based security products, the report found that over three-fourths of the
‘The integrator must make
sure things happen the right way during this transition to the networking side. Ethernet switches, bandwidth, storage — pulling it together is the key for end-user customers.’ — David Jackson, American Dynamics
companies surveyed dealt with IT managers more now than they did just one year ago. Market Analyst Niall Jenkins says, “IT manag- ers are increasingly getting involved in making and influencing the decision to buy IP-based security products. These products often use exist- ing networks and IT managers are working much closer with security executives to facilitate this integration.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180