|
|
|
Ten
Greatest Myths about IP-Surveillance |
|
|
|
There are a number of myths, large and small, surrounding IP-Surveillance
technology. We’ve taken the 10 most often-heard myths and organized
them into two categories: general and technical. We’ll take the
general un-truths first and then launch into some of the technical
misperceptions |
|
|
|
Myth #5: Network cameras cost more than analog cameras, making IP-Surveillance
too expensive. |
|
|
Reality: It’s true a network camera is more expensive than a
comparable analog camera because it includes considerably more
functionality, such as digitalization, image compression and
intelligence. If we analyze the total cost of the hardware (cameras,
cables, and recording), an IP-Surveillance system will usually
compare quite favorably to a DVR based system. If we then add the
installation cost component, the advantages with the IP-Surveillance
system become obvious since the IP-based infrastructure is
considerably less expensive than analog coax cabling. In addition,
systems using PTZ controls require extra cabling, something not
needed with IP. Power over Ethernet is another cost-saving feature
that saves on power lines and connects to uninterrupted power
supplies at the IT center.
In a high-end installation Axis completed in 2002, 300 network
cameras were deployed in a mission-critical high security area, with
a high frame rate recording requirement. The total cost for
installing the complete IP video surveillance system was $800,000,
or $2,700 per channel. If a similar functioning, DVR-based system
had been deployed; the cost was estimated at $1.8 million, or $6,000
per channel—more than twice the cost of the IP-Surveillance system.
|
|
<<
BACK |
|
