need was identified to update the TCO study to reflect current price points and the latest technological advancements. The fundamental objective of this study remains the same: to determine and compare the total cost of ownership of an analogue camera system using DVR(s), against a fully digital system using network cameras and standard network and computer components. Carried out in the spring of 2010,
the study was administered by Lusax: a research group at the Lund University School of Economics & Management in Sweden specialising in understanding the dissemination of new IP and IT- based technology systems within the global security industry. The results from the TCO and
interview studies can be summarised as: IP-based systems of 14 cameras have
a lower total cost of ownership than corresponding analogue based systems. Whereas the 2007 TCO study showed a break-even point at around 32 cameras, an IP-based system can now be said to exhibit a lower cost than analogue in a system with 14 or more cameras. Savings derived from off-the-shelf IT
and server recording equipment. While IP cameras still exhibit a higher cost per unit than analogue cameras, this is offset by a lower total system cost for IP. The TCO savings in the IP case mainly derive from using off-the-shelf IT and server recording equipment, as well as from installation and deployment, resulting in lower labour costs.
Integrators see several additional
advantages in going IP. According to them, there is a clear market trend towards fully digital systems. Scalability and flexibility are mentioned as two main arguments favouring IP-based surveillance systems. Superior image quality accelerates
the shift from analogue to IP. The availability of network cameras with very high image quality has become a clear differentiating factor on the market and a powerful argument for IP-based surveillance. Video images of HDTV quality speak for themselves and have set a whole new standard for what is possible within video surveillance.
www.netcommseurope.com
NETCOMMS europe Volume I, Issue 4 2011 25
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