It's Time for IP-Based Solutions
- By Ralph Jensen
- Feb 01, 2011
IP-based video surveillance solutions have been around
since 1996, yet analog technology is still a vital part of
some markets and segments. Some reasons for this include
long replacement cycles and a tendency to do partial security
system upgrades.
According to a cost-comparison study of analog and IP-based
video surveillance from officials at Axis Communications, there
still may be knowledge gaps among installers, and there is a perception
that IP cameras cost more than an analog solution would.
The last argument is a weak point because cameras are only
one part of the equation, and the total cost of a complete system
is dependent on a number of factors.
The objective of the study was to determine and compare the
total cost of ownership of an analog system using DVRs and a
fully digital system using network cameras and standard network
and computer components. The analysis was prepared in 2010 by
Lusax, a research group at the Lund University School of Economics
and Management in Sweden that specializes in disseminating
new IP- and IT-based technology systems in the global
security industry. It considered current price points and the latest
technological advances.
The research method was managed with a request for proposal
(RFP) for one analog and one digital system to be installed at
a retail site. The survey was sent to a sampling of U.S. integrators
that are actively selling and installing both types of systems. Bids
were sought for both analog and IP-based systems. A realistic
scenario was then developed, which also included a site plan and
a set of technological requirements.
Five integrators replied to the RFP, containing bids for both
analog and IP applications, with all data compiled in a structured
manner to be analyzed. Integrators also were interviewed,
answering a broader range of questions about their views and
experiences working with different surveillance solutions and
technologies.
One profile taken into consideration was the total cost of ownership,
or the “up front” or “hard” costs of a video surveillance
system. This includes the basic component costs and labor involved
in designing, installing and deploying a system.
From the Axis whitepaper: “The fictitious case was set in a
retail store context, where the purpose was to compare the total
cost between a ‘greenfield’ installation of an analog camera and
DVR systems and an all-digital IP-based solution. Given the cost
focus, the case conditions were somewhat simplified, and peripheral
components and additional features that would not have a direct
impact on the comparison—public-view monitors—were left
out. The basic conditions of the case were set within the location
of a medium-sized retail store. There was to be no pre-existing
coax cabling, IP network infrastructure or power equipment for
the video surveillance system.”
The project was to be for surveillance only, with two technical
scenarios: an analog camera with DVR recording; and a fully digital
system with network cameras, video management software
and standard IP network and storage solution. It also included a
three-camera layout per scenario: 14, 25 or 40 cameras.
According to the whitepaper results, “The total costs provided
in the integrators’ bids were averaged in the six different camera
layout alternatives. Cost categories were added together in four
main groups, including cameras, cabling, recording and labor.”
The IP alternative turns out to provide a lower total cost of
ownership for all camera layouts, and the IP cost-benefit relative
to analog is smallest in the 14-cameras alternative but does
increase as more cameras are added. For 14, 25 and 40 cameras,
the IP solution has on average 11 percent, 13 percent and 16
percent lower cost, respectively, than the analog system, though
in the case of the 14 cameras, all bids came in relatively close to
one another.
In the 25- and 40-camera categories, the spread between analog
and IP video surveillance was larger, probably because of the
cost associated with recording capabilities: Cost in the IP system
is about half the cost of its analog counterpart. Labor costs also
represent about 25 percent of the total system cost and are slightly
lower for the IP alternative, probably because of shorter cable runs.
Researchers also conducted interviews with the study participants,
some of whom said they are doing predominantly
IP-based installations today, and that the number of analog
projects is falling. All installers agreed that IP is the future for
video surveillance, especially for greenfield installations. All
submitters agreed that IP-based video surveillance has many
more benefits than does analog, including increased scalability
and flexibility.
The independent study clearly shows that IP-based surveillance
systems are the way to go, and compared to study results
taken in 2007 that show the break-even point at about 32 cameras,
IP will hold its own from the beginning. While it is true that
IP cameras have a higher cost per unit than analog cameras, the
total system cost yields savings for users. Installation and deployment
also contribute heavily to the total cost of ownership.
In its final analysis, the study pointed to superior image quality
of IP-based products, a clear differentiating factor when making
a selection or when arguing for an IP-based surveillance system.
When the choice requires better images, IP-based solutions
offer the clarity needed to make the final decision.
This article originally appeared in the February 2011 issue of Network-Centric Security.
About the Author
Ralph C. Jensen is editor-in-chief of Security Products magazine.