Welcome to Part 2 of the latest in SECURITY SALES & INTEGRATION’s acclaimed “D.U.M.I.E.S.” series: “Advanced Video for D.U.M.I.E.S.” Brought to you by Pelco, this four-part series has been designed to educate readers about recent advances in technology and systems that are likely to shape this decade’s progression of the video surveillance industry. “D.U.M.I.E.S.” stands for dealers, users, managers, installers, engineers and salespeople.

Part 1 of this year’s series (see “Redefining High Definition” in the March issue) covered alternate methods of achieving high quality HD video surveillance, including HDcctv and its ability to do so without the need for IP and/or megapixel networked cameras. The article looked at the technology, the organization championing it, how it compares to megapixel, its pros and cons, and its potential in the marketplace.

This second installment will explore the brains that tie together and facilitate control of today’s sophisticated networked video surveillance systems — video management systems/software (VMS). While these control platforms are feature rich and designed to optimize camera, recording and storage capabilities, there remains the issue of making them user friendly enough so customers can actually take advantage of all their full functionality.

So let’s take a closer look at VMS platforms and, more specifically, how they relate to scalability, hybrid solutions, analytics, remote capabilities, integration, troubleshooting, return on investment (ROI) and total cost of ownership (TCO) metrics, and much more.

Digital’s Dawn: DVRs and Hybrids

First, we need to discuss some of the options that existed before VMS systems came along. Since we are talking about digital systems, we will skip the VCR and start with the DVR.

The basic DVR consists of a single standalone box with dedicated hardware such as video capture cards and storage. One of the biggest advantages of a standalone model is that all the software and hardware is preconfigured. This can greatly simplify the setup process, and eliminate potential software and hardware compatibility issues that can arise with a PC-based DVR.

For this reason standalone models are a much better choice if the users are not very technical and do not wish to hire anybody so inclined. These DVRs are completely prebuilt, tested and functional right out of the box. They function with very little interaction from the user, and can be very reliable.

However, there are also potential drawbacks to consider with a standalone model, such as expandability or upgrades. If there is a need to expand the surveillance system to accommodate additional cameras beyond what the current DVR can handle, a new device would most likely need to be purchased.

Next in the digital recording progression are hybrid DVRs, which have been modified to accept video from IP cameras. They still come with dedicated software and hardware preconfiguration but also add the ability to make some modifications. Hybrid systems allow IP cameras to be connected to the system through the network port without decoders/encoders.

These units offer more flexibility than standard DVRs but still do not require a highly technical person to operate. Another benefit of hybrids is expandability. Many of them allow cameras to be added beyond the standard 16-camera installation. Still others only allow IP cameras to replace analog cameras on a one-for-one basis. That means those devices cannot be expanded beyond their preconfigured hardware.

Advancements Create VMS Need

Now let’s move onward and upward to the VMS, which operates in two basic types of hardware configurations: server-based involving one or more PCs, and network video recorder (NVR)-based.

A PC server platform consists of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) server and storage equipment that can be selected to obtain the maximum performance for the specific design of the system. COTS systems allow the customer to use existing vendors and partners. These “open” platforms make it easier to add functionality to the system, such as increased internal storage, added external storage, firewalls, virus protection and intelligent video algorithms, in parallel with a VMS.

A PC server platform enables the system to become fully scalable, allowing any number of network video products to be added as needed. Since the system hardware is COTS it can be expanded or upgraded to meet increased requirements. An open platform also enables easier integration with other systems such as biometrics, fire, access control and building management. Users can manage video and other building controls through a single program and interface.

NVRs come as a hardware box with preinstalled video management functionalities or software. Because it is a dedicated hardware box, a NVR is similar to a hybrid DVR. NVR hardware is often proprietary and specifically designed for video management. It is dedicated to its specific tasks of recording, analyzing and playing back network video, and often does not allow any other applications to reside on it. The operating system can be Windows, UNIX/Linux or proprietary.

A NVR is designed to offer optimal performance for up to a set number of cameras, and is normally less scalable than a PC server-based system. This makes them suitable for smaller systems where the number of cameras stays within the limits of a NVR’s designed capacity. A NVR is normally easier to install than a PC-based alternative.

When deciding whether to use a VMS system or a dedicated DVR, the TCO for the complete system must be taken into account. At first glance, we can see that IP cameras are twice the cost of analog cameras. Looking only at this cost, one might draw the conclusion that an analog system would be cheaper. That is why we must take into account the totality of all costs today and in the future.

Another TCO factor to consider is that the cost of IP cameras will be dropping quicker than the cost of analog cameras. Furthermore, when we compare the cabling for an analog system versus an IP system, it is necessary to include the cost of labor, as it is a significant part of the total job. Cabling is almost three times as expensive in an analog system compared to IP. That’s because separate power cables have to be used, while power over Ethernet (PoE) is used in the IP system. In addition, dedicated cabling is needed to control analog pan/tilt/zoom (p/t/z) cameras.

From this analysis we can conclude that the larger the system, the more favorable the cost of an IP-based system will be relative to analog. Thus, it would be ideal to determine the number of cameras in a system to reach the breakeven point. Most midsize systems offer no clear cost advantages for either IP- or analog-based surveillance systems. Studies have shown that beyond 32 cameras, IP offers a lower TCO, and between 16 and 32 the cost is quite similar.

If you enjoyed this article and want to receive more valuable industry content like this, click here to sign up for our FREE digital newsletters!

Related Content