Take a closer look at the true cost of CCTV security systems

Two opposing articles from different sides of the fence outline the pros and cons for analogue / hybrid and IP based CCTV systems.

Mike Newton, CEO, Dedicated Micros argues for analogue / hybrid systems while Mark Harraway, Country manager, Controlware argues that IP based systems deliver more benefits. The debate further centres on costing a 750 camera system.

To read both articles in full and get the cost information click here and enter your name and email address


4 Responses to Take a closer look at the true cost of CCTV security systems

  1. cyber dude says:

    Please send the article

  2. Jim Westlake says:

    I am not a CCTV expert, installed a few analogue systems over the years and maintained a lot more. However, the question of the integrity of the system and the security of the data is one that must be addressed. How that can be done, and I would propose a third party test house as the obvious route here but the speed at which this technology is developing would probably preclude that at present, I don’t really know but done it must I contend.

    With the current heightened security risks we all face, the only way governments and other interested parties can have confidence is for these technologies to be rigorously tested by independent third parties. It’s all well and good industry insiders debating the pros and cons using industry jargon but the important people are so far out of that loop as to be almost irrelevant I feel. We, at BRE, are not currently set up to test CCTV but we do investigate other security products and in the short time I’ve been here it’s clear that manufacturers claims do not always match up with reality. I hope that this field is better but we shall never know until a scheme to test the claims is set up, which by the way we would consider if asked.

  3. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by John White and Paul Wright, James Watson. James Watson said: Comment on Take a closer look at the true cost of CCTV security systems by Jim Westlake http://tinyurl.com/ybcfm4x […]

  4. Miguel Sabbe says:

    In general, as Mark puts it, it seems to be more of a sales pitch rather then a general debat. It goes without saying that I am convinced of the future of true and pure IP.
    Allow me to state in detail some of the remarks I have:

    •Network failure ? Only poorly defined systems/networks tend to fail. A properly built and configured network is among the most reliable components of an organization. Why else would any and every major organization and entity rely on networks to transfer information and valuable data ?

    •The burden put on a network by an IP CCTV system, is not purely the fact it’s IP, but rather the type of components put on it, and the actual configuration of the network. Again, poorly configured networks will consume far more resources than properly configured ones.

    •As for components put on the network, there is no common standard in cameras, in compression algorithms, in image quality, in fact there is no common ground whatsoever on IP cameras. Some manufacturers even call mjpeg a digital compression algorithm. Point is that there is an enormous difference in bandwidth (and thus in network load) between different IP cameras, even amidst cameras of a same brand ! Chosing a proper IP camera, with decent H264 compression, and a proper implementation of this algorithm, will deliver bandwidth effective en network efficient streams.

    •If high numbers of devices need be implemented, a multicast network should be considered. If multiple, external or public network connections need be defined, a trancsoding engine should be considered, as correctly suggested.

    •Decentralised architectures, edge-enabled systems, as opposed to client server architectures, could indeed be defined as slightly more reliable, simply due to their configuraiton. However, even in typical IP environments (which are here referred to as client/server) back-up storage, fail-safe recording, guaranteed functioning, failover network, dual ring configurations, etc, can be foreseen, with the same limited cost ! This client/server architecture is actually also the ‘result’ of the lacking of any common denominator or language in IP CCTV so far. Hopefully, ONVIF or PSIA will solve this issue going forward. At that time, all units and all devices should be capable of communicating directly with one another, thus creating the absolute key advantage of an IP system.

    •As for the example of a 750 camera system, and the cost ‘estimation’: first and foremost, the points mentioned are correct indeed of course; network performance, servers costs, CPU requirement for analytics, etc, etc, all put high demands – and thus high costs – for the system ! However, to this moment the only environments where I have found 750 cameras running on one single LAN network, storage being centralised in one single location, is either an airport or a casino. Both are high risk, high security facilities, where cost of the CCTV system is less dominant, to say the least.

    •Any enterprise, where the security director or the integrator, has the least bit of common sense, will distribute their architecture, thus pushing processing, recording, storage, etc as far to the edge as possible. The least one will do in such project, is create different nodes or clusters, each of which “function” on their own.

    •The specification, and thus also the cost, of a decoding server, is again related to the lack of a common algorithm: the ‘burden’ to decode an mpeg4 or h264 stream is again heavily dependent on the quality of this stream, or better of the way the compression algorithm is implemented. When using “good” cameras, one can achieve a high number of streams onto one single machine, thus displaying up to almost 100 streams on a single machine. All however depends on the cameras, their compression algorithm, the way it has been implemented, etc etc.

    •As for driving video walls, the limits there are defined by video wall manufacturers, rather then by IP CCTV manufacturers. Having said this though, it is true that one does not necessarily need expensive multiple units, decoders, and video wall drivers. Far more effective (and cheaper) solutions exist in the market today indeed !

    •The concept of the ICR seems somewhat contradictory to the statements made earlier on distributed architecture: with such ICR, one puts all functions into the camera itself, and the camera is actually referred to as a ‘server’. What processor(s) are used ? How much heat is dissipated ? How much noise is generated ? What are operational specs for such device ? What dimensions will such device have ? With the definition of this ICR, it is again referred to failure of the TCP/IP structure or the network. Repeating first question, how often do we actually still see true network failures ?? Does this ICR have 2 processors ? Which ? FPGA so they are field upgradeable ? Or ASIC which means they aren’t ? How is licensing handled/stored/managed ?

    •Most interesting aspect of this whole paper: there is no mentioning or referral whatsoever to non-IP parts. The only key message I find in this paper is that of a distributed architecture, vs a centralized one, no more, no less.

    All in all, one might argue that several things hold true, that there are numerous reasons to remain with ‘old’ analogue technology, that IP isn’t necessarily the answer to all our concenrs and questions. However, the drive to this new technology, which I prefer to call the merger into IP, in line with what happens all around us, is simply forced onto us by the market itself ! Every and any product or technology we have (and are) used in our CCTV business, is a direct derivative from a consumer product (VCR, CCTV camera, DVR, NVR, …..). So in this respect, our industry simply follows developments of consumer electronics. So as for what the future brings us: simply look at consumer markets; access anywhere, anytime; full wireless systems; broad bandwidths available all around; massive data transfer over (even public) networks; full HD television; multi mage pixel cameras (still as well as moving images), ever increasing HDD sizes; ever longer storing of images; gigabit networks even in residential environments; ….

    The industry is simply going digital, full stop. Look at Sony for example, world’s biggest manufacturer of sensors. For several years already, no more R&D is spent on traditional sensors; all investment are going into digital technology. So even if one would want to remain with analogue, the industry will simply prevent this. This evolution, combined with price decrease of digital technology components (network cost, switches, routers, PC, servers, HDD, storage, …) shows that the shift towards a complete digital world is simply inevitable.

    The point of an end-to-end solution vs multi-vendor solutions is – to my believe – a key advantage of the IP world: one can pick and chose various parts and components, and create his solution with different building blocks from different vendors. This way, the customer is ensured he has a solution that perfectly meets his demands, that fits his requirements perfectly, and that offers the best price/quality ratio. Manufacturers in their turn can focus on their core competences, and develop strong VMS systems, high quality IP cameras, cost effective storage systems, are new processing & analytics algorithms. When (not if) we have common standards in our industry, customers will be able to simply pick and chose products, systems and solutions, and he’ll have the ability to easily connect them together.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: