IP is the abbreviation for Internet Protocol. It is one of the most commonly used protocols for communicating over computer networks. IP monitoring solution is to transmit video information in digital form through wired or wireless IP network. As long as the network is reachable, video monitoring and recording can be realized, and this monitoring can also be perfectly combined with many other types of systems.
IP monitoring technology is not highly sophisticated, but IP applications draw on their own security and march into the mysterious IT field. In this sense, new technologies and new environments pose a threat to reality and cause disputes. The fact that IP surveillance directly competes with DVRs raises many questions, including questions about the current claims that DVR technology and analog cameras represent the ultimate and best technology.
Misconception 1: DVR is the latest and best CCTV monitoring technology. Actual situation: People generally think that DVR is the latest and best technology. Many people think DVR is a kind of all-digital network technology, but it is not the case. Compared to VCRs, DVRs have many advantages: no need to change tapes, image quality is stable, and search is fast. However, there are analog cables everywhere, these cables can affect the image quality, and they are quite expensive. IP monitoring has all the advantages and more features of the DVR, including the following:
• Upgradeability: IP surveillance can increase the speed of single cameras from one camera to thousands of cameras. Unlike the DVR, it does not experience a dramatic increase in the number of channels. IP surveillance can provide various frame rates for various types of cameras at any time without restriction.
• Economical architecture: Most devices are connected by twisted pair, so if you are using an IP infrastructure you don't need extra cabling (a major expense in a CCTV installation project) and manage data, video, audio, and other files. Enables efficient, low-cost management; • Remote access: Securely access and control real-time or recorded video streams anywhere through wired or wireless networks;
• The camera's intelligence: dynamic detection, event handling, sensor input, relay output, time and date, and other built-in features enable the camera to make intelligent decisions to determine when and where the alarm was sent, and when the video was sent. Even frame rate or clarity, etc.
• Low system cost: For many installation systems, IP surveillance systems have proven to be a lower cost system. Open and standard networks, servers, and storage devices enable multiple vendors to compete in the market, breaking the monopoly of the DVR market. In addition, only lower additional hardware is required for installation and maintenance costs to achieve better performance. It is clear that IP monitoring can save considerable costs.
Contrary to some false claims, DVRs are not the ultimate solution, but a milestone in the development of CCTV technology. Practice has proved that IP monitoring technology has its advanced nature. There is a big difference between these two technologies. Today, people just realize this.
Myth #2: IP technology is not yet mature If this technology is better, why are security solution providers not promoting this technology?
Actual situation: This misrepresentation has caused many related problems. These problems have a lot to do with the structure of the security market and the way of purchase, and have little to do with the performance and reliability of IP surveillance solutions.
IP surveillance is a relatively new technology, and many current and powerful vendors use DVR as a competitive solution. It is only natural that these companies want to protect their DVR investments. New technologies and new ideas require the establishment of a knowledge system and architecture among integrators, consultants, and vendors to get rid of current traditional ideas and procedures. How many of us still remember when people were told that the typewriter could meet all our requirements and who needs the word processor for these new inventions? Is it a very distant thing? Let's look at the cassette player or VCR again. They have been replaced by DVDs, and it takes time to change the technology and thinking that is already accustomed to.
The number of IP surveillance installations, and the number of integrators and agents are growing every day. The market will soon find the superiority of IP monitoring and the number of systems supporting this system is growing rapidly.
If these evidences are not clear enough, then IBM has recently entered the cyber security market. Cisco and Proxim have also started to study this field and further confirmed our view.
Misunderstanding 3: IP monitoring can not meet the requirements of enterprise-level applications Actual situation: The larger the installation scale and the higher the system performance requirements, the more IP surveillance systems can show strong competitiveness and superiority.
Among the advantages of the IP monitoring system obtained above, scalability is required by high-end users. For example, orders received by Axis usually include the installation of more than 200 cameras and more than 1,300 cameras. The largest number is currently 1,300 cameras, some of which are used in high security areas such as airports and prisons. This misconception can be easily corrected: The application case of IP monitoring proves that it can fully meet enterprise-level requirements. In fact, IP is the preferred architecture in the contracts of large-scale monitoring systems such as the government and airports. However, 12 months ago, this was not the case.
Myth #4: Network video image quality is not as good as the actual situation: Good quality webcams have the same high-quality image sensors (CCDs) and lenses as analog cameras. Moreover, by using video servers, analog cameras or currently installed analog cameras can be combined with IP surveillance systems. We must emphasize that this means that high-quality network cameras are used by professional departments. These high-quality, dedicated webcams should not be confused with low-end networks or computer webcams. In fact, these types of cameras do not reach the level of full-featured network cameras.
Soon, when using megapixel resolution, network cameras and IP surveillance technology will provide more advanced image quality, while analog cameras are limited by the 0.4 Mpixel resolution of the NTSC/PAL standard.
Myth #5: The cost of network cameras is higher than that of analog cameras, which makes IP monitoring expensive. Reality: Network cameras are indeed more expensive than analog because they include quite a few functions, such as digitization, image compression, and intelligence. If we analyze the total cost of the hardware (cameras, cables, and video equipment), we can see that IP surveillance systems are generally more advantageous than DVRs. If we take into account the installation costs, because the IP-based architecture is much lower in cost than analog coax, the advantages of the IP surveillance system are even more pronounced. In addition, systems using PTZ control require laying additional lines, while IP does not. Power over Ethernet is another cost-saving feature that does not require a power cord and is connected to an uninterruptible power supply in an IT network center.
In the high-end installation project completed by Axis in 2002, 300 cameras were installed in a very important high-security area and equipped with high frame rate video equipment. The total cost of installing a complete IP video surveillance system is $800,000 or $2,700/road. The same function, if installing DVR, the cost is about 1.8 million US dollars, or 6000 US dollars / Road, more than 2 times higher than the IP surveillance system.
Myth #6: If I have installed an analog camera, then IP monitoring systems should not be used because the DVR is the actual situation I need: this is not necessarily the case, and the video server technology can show off. Leading IP surveillance vendors can get video servers without investing much capital. The video server converts the analog video signal into a network digital video stream as if it were an analog camera converted into a network camera. Most IP surveillance installations include analog cameras, network video servers, and units entirely composed of network cameras. Systems with full network capabilities and existing analog cameras do not create any obstacles to the use of advanced P surveillance technology.
Misunderstanding #7: Overloading of all video data over the network will overwhelm the actual situation: If there are only a few cameras, the existing high-speed Ethernet (100Mbit) office network can usually meet all transmission requirements. For compression, the video stream speed of a single common webcam is 0.2 to 2.0 Mbits per second, depending on the compression rate, size, and frame rate. For any large system with network cameras and video servers, we recommend a separate network video system.
Take the railway transportation system as an example. If the existing line is very congested, another line needs to be established. For enterprise size, the LAN core should run on Gigabit Ethernet. With current network switches and routers, the segmentation of the network is very easy. In addition, other special steps can be taken to ensure the integration of IP monitoring technology and systems without burdening the network.
In addition, because the network camera has built-in intelligence, it can determine the frame rate for sending messages based on events, activity status, and time. In many cases, when the video has the necessity of recording, the camera sends the video through the network. The probability of this situation may be only 10%, and 90% of the time still needs to transmit the video.
Myth #8: Transmission of video over IP networks to achieve security is unreliable: Although the Internet is mainly used in public information, the Internet is equipped with security measures such as firewall, VPN, and password protection. It can also be used to transmit a variety of sensitive information. Banks and financial institutions often use the Internet as a medium to conduct financial transactions on a global scale. Moreover, the Internet has already shown applications for security monitoring and other applications. Unlike this new digital technology, analog surveillance systems cannot encrypt or authenticate information, making it easy for “hackers†to access relevant information, and can even tamper with information on the Internet (just like the movie “Ocean “s 11â€). This situation is not possible on a secure IP network.
Misunderstanding 9: No other technology is reliable for IP monitoring; for example, when the network is down: When the IP network architecture was developed in the 60s and 70s, providing redundancy was the first requirement. Similarly, transmission links, application servers, storage, and switches all have corresponding maintenance phases and optional communication paths. Storage can be hardened, and servers can use backup power supplies, hot-swap RAID disks, error correction memory, and dual-mode network cards. This all depends on the network designer. Although a small network cannot be equipped with all security measures, choosing a high-quality network IT component is more reliable than a CCTV system with a VCR or DVR. It is worth noting that with the standard server and network equipment, the time and cost of replacing the hardware in the system is lower than the professional DVR solution.
Misunderstanding 10: IP monitoring at least wait five years to achieve the actual situation: this argument is the biggest mistake! Since the launch of the first network camera in 1996, Axis has installed more than 280,000 multi-channel network videos. At the same time, people’s interest in IP monitoring and orders in this area continue to increase. Regardless of cost, performance, reliability or other aspects, IP monitoring is a mature solution, and will continue to develop and improve to become the core technology in the future.
IP monitoring technology is not highly sophisticated, but IP applications draw on their own security and march into the mysterious IT field. In this sense, new technologies and new environments pose a threat to reality and cause disputes. The fact that IP surveillance directly competes with DVRs raises many questions, including questions about the current claims that DVR technology and analog cameras represent the ultimate and best technology.
Misconception 1: DVR is the latest and best CCTV monitoring technology. Actual situation: People generally think that DVR is the latest and best technology. Many people think DVR is a kind of all-digital network technology, but it is not the case. Compared to VCRs, DVRs have many advantages: no need to change tapes, image quality is stable, and search is fast. However, there are analog cables everywhere, these cables can affect the image quality, and they are quite expensive. IP monitoring has all the advantages and more features of the DVR, including the following:
• Upgradeability: IP surveillance can increase the speed of single cameras from one camera to thousands of cameras. Unlike the DVR, it does not experience a dramatic increase in the number of channels. IP surveillance can provide various frame rates for various types of cameras at any time without restriction.
• Economical architecture: Most devices are connected by twisted pair, so if you are using an IP infrastructure you don't need extra cabling (a major expense in a CCTV installation project) and manage data, video, audio, and other files. Enables efficient, low-cost management; • Remote access: Securely access and control real-time or recorded video streams anywhere through wired or wireless networks;
• The camera's intelligence: dynamic detection, event handling, sensor input, relay output, time and date, and other built-in features enable the camera to make intelligent decisions to determine when and where the alarm was sent, and when the video was sent. Even frame rate or clarity, etc.
• Low system cost: For many installation systems, IP surveillance systems have proven to be a lower cost system. Open and standard networks, servers, and storage devices enable multiple vendors to compete in the market, breaking the monopoly of the DVR market. In addition, only lower additional hardware is required for installation and maintenance costs to achieve better performance. It is clear that IP monitoring can save considerable costs.
Contrary to some false claims, DVRs are not the ultimate solution, but a milestone in the development of CCTV technology. Practice has proved that IP monitoring technology has its advanced nature. There is a big difference between these two technologies. Today, people just realize this.
Myth #2: IP technology is not yet mature If this technology is better, why are security solution providers not promoting this technology?
Actual situation: This misrepresentation has caused many related problems. These problems have a lot to do with the structure of the security market and the way of purchase, and have little to do with the performance and reliability of IP surveillance solutions.
IP surveillance is a relatively new technology, and many current and powerful vendors use DVR as a competitive solution. It is only natural that these companies want to protect their DVR investments. New technologies and new ideas require the establishment of a knowledge system and architecture among integrators, consultants, and vendors to get rid of current traditional ideas and procedures. How many of us still remember when people were told that the typewriter could meet all our requirements and who needs the word processor for these new inventions? Is it a very distant thing? Let's look at the cassette player or VCR again. They have been replaced by DVDs, and it takes time to change the technology and thinking that is already accustomed to.
The number of IP surveillance installations, and the number of integrators and agents are growing every day. The market will soon find the superiority of IP monitoring and the number of systems supporting this system is growing rapidly.
If these evidences are not clear enough, then IBM has recently entered the cyber security market. Cisco and Proxim have also started to study this field and further confirmed our view.
Misunderstanding 3: IP monitoring can not meet the requirements of enterprise-level applications Actual situation: The larger the installation scale and the higher the system performance requirements, the more IP surveillance systems can show strong competitiveness and superiority.
Among the advantages of the IP monitoring system obtained above, scalability is required by high-end users. For example, orders received by Axis usually include the installation of more than 200 cameras and more than 1,300 cameras. The largest number is currently 1,300 cameras, some of which are used in high security areas such as airports and prisons. This misconception can be easily corrected: The application case of IP monitoring proves that it can fully meet enterprise-level requirements. In fact, IP is the preferred architecture in the contracts of large-scale monitoring systems such as the government and airports. However, 12 months ago, this was not the case.
Myth #4: Network video image quality is not as good as the actual situation: Good quality webcams have the same high-quality image sensors (CCDs) and lenses as analog cameras. Moreover, by using video servers, analog cameras or currently installed analog cameras can be combined with IP surveillance systems. We must emphasize that this means that high-quality network cameras are used by professional departments. These high-quality, dedicated webcams should not be confused with low-end networks or computer webcams. In fact, these types of cameras do not reach the level of full-featured network cameras.
Soon, when using megapixel resolution, network cameras and IP surveillance technology will provide more advanced image quality, while analog cameras are limited by the 0.4 Mpixel resolution of the NTSC/PAL standard.
Myth #5: The cost of network cameras is higher than that of analog cameras, which makes IP monitoring expensive. Reality: Network cameras are indeed more expensive than analog because they include quite a few functions, such as digitization, image compression, and intelligence. If we analyze the total cost of the hardware (cameras, cables, and video equipment), we can see that IP surveillance systems are generally more advantageous than DVRs. If we take into account the installation costs, because the IP-based architecture is much lower in cost than analog coax, the advantages of the IP surveillance system are even more pronounced. In addition, systems using PTZ control require laying additional lines, while IP does not. Power over Ethernet is another cost-saving feature that does not require a power cord and is connected to an uninterruptible power supply in an IT network center.
In the high-end installation project completed by Axis in 2002, 300 cameras were installed in a very important high-security area and equipped with high frame rate video equipment. The total cost of installing a complete IP video surveillance system is $800,000 or $2,700/road. The same function, if installing DVR, the cost is about 1.8 million US dollars, or 6000 US dollars / Road, more than 2 times higher than the IP surveillance system.
Myth #6: If I have installed an analog camera, then IP monitoring systems should not be used because the DVR is the actual situation I need: this is not necessarily the case, and the video server technology can show off. Leading IP surveillance vendors can get video servers without investing much capital. The video server converts the analog video signal into a network digital video stream as if it were an analog camera converted into a network camera. Most IP surveillance installations include analog cameras, network video servers, and units entirely composed of network cameras. Systems with full network capabilities and existing analog cameras do not create any obstacles to the use of advanced P surveillance technology.
Misunderstanding #7: Overloading of all video data over the network will overwhelm the actual situation: If there are only a few cameras, the existing high-speed Ethernet (100Mbit) office network can usually meet all transmission requirements. For compression, the video stream speed of a single common webcam is 0.2 to 2.0 Mbits per second, depending on the compression rate, size, and frame rate. For any large system with network cameras and video servers, we recommend a separate network video system.
Take the railway transportation system as an example. If the existing line is very congested, another line needs to be established. For enterprise size, the LAN core should run on Gigabit Ethernet. With current network switches and routers, the segmentation of the network is very easy. In addition, other special steps can be taken to ensure the integration of IP monitoring technology and systems without burdening the network.
In addition, because the network camera has built-in intelligence, it can determine the frame rate for sending messages based on events, activity status, and time. In many cases, when the video has the necessity of recording, the camera sends the video through the network. The probability of this situation may be only 10%, and 90% of the time still needs to transmit the video.
Myth #8: Transmission of video over IP networks to achieve security is unreliable: Although the Internet is mainly used in public information, the Internet is equipped with security measures such as firewall, VPN, and password protection. It can also be used to transmit a variety of sensitive information. Banks and financial institutions often use the Internet as a medium to conduct financial transactions on a global scale. Moreover, the Internet has already shown applications for security monitoring and other applications. Unlike this new digital technology, analog surveillance systems cannot encrypt or authenticate information, making it easy for “hackers†to access relevant information, and can even tamper with information on the Internet (just like the movie “Ocean “s 11â€). This situation is not possible on a secure IP network.
Misunderstanding 9: No other technology is reliable for IP monitoring; for example, when the network is down: When the IP network architecture was developed in the 60s and 70s, providing redundancy was the first requirement. Similarly, transmission links, application servers, storage, and switches all have corresponding maintenance phases and optional communication paths. Storage can be hardened, and servers can use backup power supplies, hot-swap RAID disks, error correction memory, and dual-mode network cards. This all depends on the network designer. Although a small network cannot be equipped with all security measures, choosing a high-quality network IT component is more reliable than a CCTV system with a VCR or DVR. It is worth noting that with the standard server and network equipment, the time and cost of replacing the hardware in the system is lower than the professional DVR solution.
Misunderstanding 10: IP monitoring at least wait five years to achieve the actual situation: this argument is the biggest mistake! Since the launch of the first network camera in 1996, Axis has installed more than 280,000 multi-channel network videos. At the same time, people’s interest in IP monitoring and orders in this area continue to increase. Regardless of cost, performance, reliability or other aspects, IP monitoring is a mature solution, and will continue to develop and improve to become the core technology in the future.
L Series American Standard Switch
Twin Receptacle,Wall Socket,America Socket
Rocker Switch Co,.Ltd , http://www.onbswitch.net