|
||
|
|
|
              |
|
 |
 |
||||||||||||||
|
 |
|
||||||||||||
By William Van Winkle |
||||||||||||||
Turn on the news tonight. Chances are fair that you’ll see a story about some robbery or assault that was caught on camera. You’ll watch out of morbid curiosity, waiting to see if someone gets whacked in the head or runs off with an armload of cash. But the image quality of that security footage—usually captured in black and white—is so bad that you can barely tell the perp has a face, much less make out identifiable facial features. Wouldn’t you like to offer nearly every business a better solution? Something more accurate, more manageable? Something that could radically improve your client’s security practices and make it more profitable? This is your segue into the lucrative world of physical security, and there’s no better entry point for channel resellers into this space than the universal need for video surveillance. |
||||||||||||||
|
At first glance, you might think that video surveillance is a niche
field dwarfed by conventional CCTV (closed-circuit television) solutions—and you’d be right. According to industry researcher iSupply, video surveillance camera unit shipments are realizing
over 17% annual compound growth. Last year, the category accounted for $4.85 billion in sales. Of that, only $363 million went to IP cameras. Clearly, the analog incumbent is in full
control of the market. Or is it? The first CCTV installation was done in 1961 at a London Transport train station. The United Kingdom has always been an early adopter in public surveillance, in part because of the decades of discord with the IRA and its bombings. According to Wikipedia, the UK now has one surveillance camera for every 14 people. The Electronic Privacy Information Center states that the average Londoner is surveilled over 300 times per day. Despite a lack of hard numbers proving the efficacy of surveillance as a crime reducer, most organizations feel it at least works as a deterrent, and, as mentioned above, the utility of camera footage in forensics can be seen on the news practically every night. With so much adoption in the public sector, widespread adoption in homes, at least for those who could afford it, was a no-brainer, and the security industry standardized on the technology.
Closed-circuit cameras can range from 200 to more than 1,000 lines of horizontal resolution. Obviously, the higher the resolution, the higher the camera cost. Over time, the standard National Television Systems Committee (NTSC) color video signal format, which uses 486 lines of horizontal resolution, became the standard used in the majority of North American color CCTV systems. To give you an idea what a retro homage this is, the 486 lines of NTSC (the remainder of 525 total lines after allocating 39 lines for things like sync and captioning) derive from the physical limitations of the vacuum tubes used in early televisions. Here we are in 2007 with 1080p widescreens in our living rooms and DVI dual-link (2048x1536) monitors on our desks, but the security systems to which your clients entrust millions of dollars in assets subsist with VHS-level image quality. Go figure that. There are some CCTV alternatives. Black-and-white systems for more stringent security needs typically range from 500 to 700 lines of resolution. Cameras with 800 lines of resolution or more often end up in broadcast, medical, or industrial applications. In general, one cannot identify a surveilled person by facial features with anything less than 16 horizontal lines (21 pixels) of resolution spanning a 1-foot-wide object. So when you consider that a mainstream CCTV camera mounted in a ceiling corner offers 470 lines, and a perpetrator’s face might fill 5% of the screen width (about 23 pixels), it’s no wonder that video forensics experts make big bucks.
At it’s simplest, a CCTV system involves a camera with a BNC connector that cables out via coax to a CCTV monitor, which is essentially a TV set without a tuner. With multiple cameras comes the need for a switch, which can either be a standalone device or integrated into the monitor. With a switch, the user can manually flip from one camera view to another or set them to “sequence” in a timed, rotating fashion. For a long time, VHS decks were a common means to record CCTV footage, and if you had one VHS recording a sequenced feed, then all you got on tape was what was shown on the monitor, not the complete footage from each stream. (This would require one recorder per camera.) More recently, VHS surveillance decks have given way to digital video recorders (DVRs). These decks accept coax input, convert each signal to a compressed digital video format, and store to hard disk. A 6-channel DVR with one internal hard drive can cost from $1,000 to over $4,000. If this seems absurdly high, consider that the CCTV business has never had any serious competition until now. With IP cameras, also commonly called network or Ethernet cameras, the optical image hits a CMOS or CCD sensor in the back of the camera, just as with a handheld digital camera. Instead of BNC, the IP camera features an Ethernet port into which you plug a CAT5 or CAT6 cable. (Since most entry-level to mid-range IP cameras still capture at 640x480 or less, you’re unlikely to need anything beyond CAT5.) The image stream is generally sent via Ethernet across the LAN, through the router or switch, and into a console system running the surveillance monitoring software. With analog, if the cable gets very long, has grounding problems, or gets tightly bent, signal quality will be damaged. With a digital signal over CAT5, either you have a connection or you don’t, so image quality remains unaffected by cabling issues—another plus for installation techs. The IP console system can be a regular PC, a dedicated surveillance server, or a network video recorder (NVR), which is the IP-based successor to the DVR. The term NVR is used both to mean a dedicated piece of hardware or the console/recording application that enables IP surveillance recording. Each image stream is compressed either inside the camera or at the console machine. Because the streams are digital, compressed, and processed independently, there’s no problem with recording the full content of all camera feeds assuming sufficient bandwidth and system resources, even if the monitoring is set to a sequencing mode. Older IP cameras typically used Motion JPEG (MJPEG) compression. Thanks to more robust video processing chips, MPEG-4 is now the norm, although you occasionally find some cameras that can output AVI. MPEG-4 is a far more efficient codec with much better image quality in a smaller storage footprint. A 16-camera system using MJPEG and normal settings would consume about 1TB of storage for five days of footage. The same feeds on MPEG-4 would need only about 250GB, and MPEG-4 streams carry less bandwidth impact to the LAN. Because camera ASICs still have their limits, there is often a trade-off between resolution, frames per second, and stream bitrate. Don’t anticipate getting 1280x1024 at 30 fps in most cases; that resolution at 15 fps is more feasible because there are half as many frames to process. There are many variables in IP camera quality, ranging from chassis durability and sensor type to audio support, integrated motion detection algorithms, and time stamp overlay. (Depending on your client’s application, time stamping may be critical if footage might be used in court.)
“There are so many things about IP that are functionally and technically superior to analog,” says Jeff Sandine, vice president of business development at Radius Security, a Northwest-based specialty reseller in video security, access control, and perimeter protection. “And most of the security guys you’ll find in your phone book are still analog. They don’t have network guys on staff, and if you don’t you can’t sell this stuff. IP itself is still a big differentiator. With analog, you can do things like adjust for backlighting or low light conditions, but the problem is that the controls are on the side of the camera. If you want to adjust it, someone has to climb up on a ladder and yell over to someone looking at a monitor. With a network-based unit, someone can do all that from a keyboard anywhere on the planet.” Years ago, analog had an image quality advantage, but today higher-end IP cameras offer four to ten times better quality than what any analog system could ever deliver. With NTSC analog systems, you’re dealing with images (at 720x480) equivalent to about 0.4 megapixel. The 1280x1024 resolution IP cameras deliver 1.3 megapixels per frame. And as with digital SLR cameras, resolution is only limited by the sensor used in the unit. Moreover, analog DVR systems usually top out at 16 input feeds per box. If you want to add a 17th camera, you need to add another DVR machine. With IP surveillance, assuming the monitoring software doesn’t have a hard stop at 16 cameras (as D-Link’s does, for instance), you simply add another camera and keep going. There is no inherent limit to IP surveillance scaling. “The sensor in the camera is similar in terms of light sensitivity,” says Fredrik Nilsson, general manager for Axis Communications in North America, “but the network camera has the ability to use progressive scan while analog is stuck with interlaced. Interlaced scanning is great if you’re looking at fluid motion video, but as soon as you freeze the frame to look at details, you’re going to get a blurry picture because of the interlaced lines. Progressive gives you a very sharp image. Obviously, with security, you want to be able to stop the action and see the face of someone who took something from the cash register.”
Axis invented the network camera in 1996 and originally thought the market would be converted to IP by the year 2000. But, according to Nilsson, network camera quality didn’t catch up to analog cameras up until 2004 to 2005. Until then, there were still frame rate issues and other reasons to use analog cameras. Today, the biggest impediment to digital surveillance adoption is the predominance of a very conservative industry. A security manager may lose his job if things don’t work. The analog system might not be stunning, but managers know that it works, so they’re reluctant to change. “It’s a fairly slow adoption community, and the entrenched vendors have good channels and good customer relationships,” says Mark Kirstein, vice president of multimedia content and services at iSupply. “Their customers are not necessarily adept at the new paradigm, so it takes time to educate them and transition. It’s not a traditional IT market, where it’s going to switch on a dime.” Still, the benefits of IP surveillance are huge. Video can be routed anywhere and monitored remotely; multiple monitoring stations can be centralized and consolidated. In the event of a trigger event, alerting is quicker to implement and respond, and alert options are more plentiful. Two-way audio in surveillance systems—a key feature when targeting organizations like schools—exists with both analog and IP, but on the network, the digital technology can utilize all of the efficiences and options found in VoIP because audio packets, quite simply, are just audio packets. “In looking at analog versus IP strictly from a cost standpoint, ignoring quality and features and everything else, there’s a cost break-even at about 32 cameras,” says Axis’ Nilsson. “Beyond that point, it makes more sense to do IP because you’re going to see a lower cost. Also, those systems are likely to scale up to 50 and 100 and so forth. And consider that most office environments already have Ethernet cable strung everywhere. Especially with some of our smaller cameras, like the 206 and 207, you can build a very inexpensive 5-camera system for under $1,000 if you have an existing server and network. You can’t do that with an analog system.”
The security surveillance market is growing at 10% to 20%, depending on whose numbers you pick, but the IP segment of that market is growing 40% to 50% per year. iSupply predicts that IP cameras will outsell analog starting in 2011. So resellers who get into IP surveillance and manage their business correctly can grow in this segment by 40% or more, probably for at least the next five years. Who can afford to pass up that kind of opportunity? That all said, don’t dismiss analog out of hand. Especially for larger organizations or those in which surveillance is mission critical, you need to figure redundancy into your plans, and a redundant analog system may be advisable. “I have my concerns about convergence,” says Stephen Northcutt, president of the SANS Technology Institute (www.sans.org), a college dedicated to information security. “If the network goes down, VoIP dies, data traffic dies, physical security dies. It’s a great Mission: Impossible scenario. But because the cost savings are so high, everybody’s going to chase convergence. There’s absolutely no stopping it. But as long as you’re punching holes in walls, why not run two cables instead of one? By not doing so, you’re making an economic decision not to run an out-of-band network and bet everything on your ability to get it back up fast in case something goes wrong.” Camera Features Most professional IP cameras contain onboard Web servers, just like a router or access point. This is the key ingredient that allows security managers to configure cameras remotely. Integrated Web servers also allow users to log into the camera from any Web browser, anywhere in the world, and see live images that the camera is shooting. Advanced functions may also include pushing video streams out to remote devices, such as smartphones or PDAs. Many well-known networking companies are now into IP cameras. You’ll find Cisco, D-Link, SMC, Hawking, TRENDnet, and others, along with more surveillance-specific names like 4XEM, Mobotix, and IQinvision that may be new to you. Many of the big boys from CCTV are now migrating into IP as well, including Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, Speco, and Bosch. While researching this story, it became clear to us that there is a prejudice within the industry—perhaps justified—against the smaller networking vendors.
“D-Link has some cameras in this space,” says iSupply’s Kirstein, “but they come at it from a networked perspective trying to migrate into the security space, unlike Tyco or Panasonic or Bosch, who are among the larger camera manufacturers who are decidedly in the security space. You’ve got a difference in expertise levels in the security. Physical security staff are used to these names. They’ve probably never heard of D-Link.” Talk with Cisco and you’ll hear about the importance of large-scale networking savvy. Talk to Panasonic and you’ll hear about experience and support. These are valid points. Several of us at RAM have had bad experiences with “wanna-be” IP camera support. Should your surveillance system crash late on a Friday night, you do not want to end up talking with first-level support from India. Some camera vendors will trash the image quality found in smaller competitors, but over time this has become a somewhat bogus argument. We’re rarely impressed with the quality from a sub-$200 IP camera. The resolution is too low and both the optics and sensor too cheap to offer satisfactory clarity and dynamic range. You don’t want a sunlit tabletop to leave the rest of your video in shadow, for example. And also be aware that the more you duck under the $500 to $600 segment, the more you can start worrying about low-light indoor performance, especially when there’s backlighting. There are many factors you need to weigh when approaching clients with a camera solution. A 10-seat travel agency office may only need entry-level gear that’s sufficient to provide remote monitoring if needed and send alerts to the manager in case of an after-hours motion trigger. A jewelry store is likely to want high-megapixel image clarity and infrared capability for night vision. A convenience store or gas station may have a special need for outdoor cameras with vandal-resistant housings. You get the idea. Let’s detail a few camera options to illustrate the various IP camera headline specs. At the very bottom of Axis’ network camera lineup are the AXIS 206 and 207, which retail around $189 and $259 respectively. Both use a fixed lens, meaning there is no optical zoom capability. Both support up to 640x480 at 30 fps and do Power over Ethernet (PoE, also called 802.3af). PoE is a technology that passes electricity to low-power network devices, allowing them to operate from a single cable. The only catch with PoE is that the power must be “injected” into the Ethernet line, either from a dedicated injector device or from an Ethernet switch with powered ports. This feature combined with Axis’ better than normal image quality, a very aggressive price, and excellent support set it above the usual $200+ crowd. There are a few differences between the models to justify the $70 delta. Foremost is that while both models support MJPEG, only the 207 supports MPEG-4. The 207 has a little better low-light sensitivity (down to 1 lux instead of 4, not that lux numbers translate well into anything meaningful in the real world). The more expensive unit features one alarm input and output, which can interface with devices such as smoke or vibration sensors. It also offers one-way audio (meaning a microphone but no speaker) and includes motion detection. This last point is important because the analysis that tells if a certain number of pixels in an image changes quickly from movement isn’t terribly compute-intensive, but it can have a significant bearing on LAN traffic. If the NVR software is set to only record in the event of a motion alarm, consider the difference in approach: When image analysis is done in the camera, video only streams across the LAN in the event of an alarm. When image analysis is done in the NVR or monitoring app, the camera must keep up a steady stream of frames to the console system so they can be analyzed by the software. Multiply this by dozens of cameras and you’re talking about a serious data transfer difference. ...more |
||||||||||||||
 Back to top
|
||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2007 RAM Magazine. All rights reserved.
Do not duplicate or redistribute in any form. |
||||||||||||||
