Monday, April 19, 2010

Video surveillance camera systems

The discussion among security and surveillance video manufacturers, systems integrators, and end-users about the relative advantages and indications for different kinds of video installations is easy to oversimplify. Simplification aids end-user decision-making and furthers the business interests of equipment manufacturers and systems integrators. Industry writers also have good incentive to simplify information. The many motives include making a larger point, supporting a specific-case argument, and getting and keeping readers’ attention.

Simplification most often leads to statements like “IP video is more expensive than analog video,” which are true with so many exceptions that they are not actually true at all — studies sponsored by interested parties have shown the opposite to be true, and editors and bloggers have covered the studies’ findings widely. In fact, oversimplification often leads to an assertion and its opposite both being true.

Another manifestation of oversimplification is the argument that each installation is so unique that no useful rules-of-thumb can be developed.

In this paper we provide as simple as possible an explanation of the factors which indicate analog, IP, and hybrid IP/analog video systems respectively. This paper seeks to provide a reference for editors, end-users, and integrators who may need to evaluate a specific case or understand the general principles.

No comments:

Post a Comment