In addressing some of these limitations, the HDcctv 2.0 standard muddies the waters somewhat. There are now two different types of HDcctv, NR (normal reach) and AT (advanced transmission). They both add a data channel so you can control cameras, and AT allows a signal to degrade over distance so it should be more resilient. There’s still no power option, no higher resolution cameras, no support for UTP or fiber optic cable, wireless, higher frame rates, and so on. And, by splitting the standard, we’ve moved away from the “plug and play” nature of the beast; you need to plug an HDcctv 2.0 AT camera into an HDcctv 2.0 AT DVR – it won’t work if you plug it into an HDcctv 2.0 NR DVR or an HDcctv 1.0 DVR. Whew!
So, I am back where I started, wondering just who the customer is for this technology. If you are looking for an inexpensive system, you are likely looking at a relatively small monitor, in which case plain old analog looks pretty darn good. If you are for simplicity, there are a number of IP cameras on the market that utilize local storage (no DVR needed) and connect to the internet via WiFi, so you only need to worry about power (WitnessAll even provides remote management and video alarm reporting for about $4 a month per camera). And if you are looking for higher quality images, there are far more options in the IP video world.
Want to use existing cable? Nitek, NVT, and a host of other companies provide products that let you do that. In fact, while the cost of HDcctv cameras may be lower – and I question whether that will be the case long term – the cost of IP accessory devices may well offset that on all but the smallest installations.
I’m not the only one who sees it this way, either. The list of manufacturing members in the HDcctv Alliance does not include a single first tier manufacturer. No Axis, Bosch, Honeywell, Panasonic, Pelco, Sony, UTC – I’m sorry if I left you out, Mr. Major Manufacturer, but you’re not on the list either.
In summary, if you are thinking of implementing this technology for your customers, my opinion, as previously disclaimed, is that you should steer clear. The Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.
You may now return to the normal spelling of CCTV.
Page 2 of 2 pages <
By Zeph on April 28, 2014
No, I don’t believe I missed the point you were trying to make. You said IP is better than HD-SDI for CCTV. I disagree with your point. I believe both are suitable in different situations. SDI has been in existence for many years and will continue to do so. Real time video without compression is a very good option. Today SDI supports up to 3Gbits/s transmission, going to 6 Gbits/s rates.. SDI supports simultaneous transmission, camera control, power and a greater distance (up to 220m) over a single coaxial cable. There are even HD-SDI repeaters in the market that will enable up to 1Km with simultaneous power, camera control and transmission over a single coaxial cable. These solutions can be used with existing, already installed, coaxial cable.
By Fadi Tabbara on April 27, 2014
Zeph, I believe you are missing the point of the article. The article is about IP vs HDcctv not about what you can or you cant do with coax cable/SMPTE/etc. I think it will be insane for you to compare all the things that you can do with an IP camera and cat5 to HDCCTV and Coax. The direction of the industry is your best proof. Fewer companies are doing R&D on HDCCTV and this technology will eventually die. The hottest topic on the market is the “internet of things” and the vision of having devices collect data and report back creating knowledge and smarter systems that can interact with you, like Nest.
By Zeph on April 23, 2014
I disagree with your analysis. Our devices (EqcoLogic ; now Microchip Technology) enable 3G SDI, plus camera control, plus power, plus up to 220m over a single coaxial cable. They are fully based on the SMPTE standard. Uncompressed real time video is much better.