WhyIP? The Case for IP Suveillance
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

WhyIP? The Case for IP Suveillance

on

  • 465 views

A presentation making the case for implementing IP surveillance systems.

A presentation making the case for implementing IP surveillance systems.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
465
Views on SlideShare
462
Embed Views
3

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
38
Comments
0

1 Embed 3

https://twitter.com 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    WhyIP? The Case for IP Suveillance WhyIP? The Case for IP Suveillance Presentation Transcript

    • The Case for IP Surveillance The  ques(on  isn’t  should  I?              but  rather  should  I  NOW?   Jul 2012   y
    • Why IP•  Image  Quality  •  Sharing  Ability  •  Scalability  •  Integrate-­‐ability  •  Video  Analy8cs  •  Operator  Efficiency  •  Total  Cost  of  Ownership  •  Future  Orienta8on  
    • Image Quality•  There  are  two  ques8ons  to  ask   –  What  do  you  want  to  see?   –  How  clearly  do  you  want  to  see  it?  
    • Is this what you need to see ?
    • Or is it This ? Image  courtesy  of   Arecont  Vision  
    • Will this clarity suffice ?
    • Or is it this clarity you need ?
    • A Picture is Worth a 1,000 Words
    • IPAn ^  A Picture is Worth a 1,000 Words Image  courtesy  of  Arecont  Vision  Surround  View  
    • Shareability•  Deliver  informa8on  to  first  responders,  and   decision  makers  promptly  •  Remotely  access  the  required  feeds  for   distributed  monitoring.  •  Collaborate  with  internal  and  external   inves8gators  by  viewing  the  same  footage  at   the  same  8me  
    • Scalability•  Growth  =  Change  •  Businesses  are  networked.  •  Adding  cameras  to  exis8ng  networked  sites   does  not  require  addi8onal  infrastructure   work.  •  Changing  camera  loca8ons  does  not  require   addi8onal  infrastructure  work.  
    • How do they Scale?
    • Integarateability•  A  surveillance  system  is  the   Access   Intrusion   POS   sum  of  its  components   Control   –  Video  Surveillance,  Access   Control,  Intrusion,  etc.  •  Each  sub  system  shows  a   part  of  the  picture   Fire  &  Safety   Video     Surveillance   EBR  •  Integra8on  allows  for  a   fuller  picture  •  Advanced  integra8on   brings  in  other  business,   Business   Dispatch   Etc...   and  excep8on  repor8ng   TXN   Systems   systems  
    • Video Analytics•  If  integra8on  completes  the  picture,  analy8cs   narrate  the  story   –  Enhance  response  8me   –  Create  event  based  alerts   –  Direct  aRen8on  of  operators  to  high  interest   events   –  Introduce  automa8on,  and  workflows  into   surveillance   –  Mine  the  video  surveillance  data  
    • Operator Efficiency•  Reduce  number  of  situa8onal  awareness   displays,  by  u8lizing  higher  resolu8on   cameras.  •  Less  displays  +  larger,  clearer  view  =     –  BeRer  monitoring  ability   –  Increased  monitored  footprint  •  Along  with  integra8on,  and  analy8cs,   operators  are  directed  to  events  proac8vely  
    • Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)Labor   Cabling   Recording   Cameras  •  Installa8on   Infrastructure   Equipment   •  Including  camera  •  Configura8on   •  Cables   •  Servers   power  •  Training   •  Switches   •  Storage   •  Panels   •  SoZware   Total  Cost  of  Ownership  
    • It is interesting to note the flexibility of the IP-based system, represented by the wide spread in quotes. The reason is the wide flexibility using IP technology represented by using PoE, different cab IP & Analog A verage System types, network and server platforms. In an analog system, there is very little flexibility; hence m quotes came in close to the same cost. That is quite typical for a mature market. Costs The split of the cost in the IP-based system showed to be quite different from the analog/DVR system outlined in the graph below: •  On  average  IP  systems   $70,000 Figure 5. The split up of the costs 3.4%   cost  3.4%  less  than   looked very different in the $60,000 analog system Analog   compared to the IP-based $50,000 $21,932 34% system. $33, 209 54% •  Variance  within  IP   $40,000 16% systems  is  greater  with   $10,123 $30,000 the  most  expensive   $3,841 6% $16,066 25% priced  at  USD  $72K  for   $20,000 $13,437 21% the  same  project   $10,000 $15,360 25% $10,895 19% $0 IP System Analog Cameras & DVR Labor (installation, configuration, training) Recording & Playback (servers, storage, software)Source:  “Total  Cost  of  Ownership  (TCO):  Comparison  of  IP  and  analog-­‐based   Cable infrastructure (cable, switches, panels) Cameras (including camera power)surveillance  systems”  White  Paper,  Axis  Communica8ons,  and  Lund  University  (Sweden)  
    • 7. Cost as a function of the number of channels A general consensus around IP-based system is that the larger the system, the more favorable the cost of the IP system will be compared to the analog. So what would be the breakpoint, i.e. for what system TCO & Scalability size is IP lower cost than analog, and does the difference increase as the size of the system increases? Based on the research data, and additional information, the cost as a function of the number was cal- culated, as shown in the graph below.Figure 6.The cost differenceof analog versus BLUE: IP System has lower costIP-based system as 15%a function of thenumber of cameras 32  shows a 10% lower Cameras  cost for analogsystems between1 and 16 cameras, Analog 10% IP 10% lower cost TCO: Price advantage of IP systemclose to the same lower cost Same costcost between 17-32 5%cameras, and a10% lower cost ofIP-based system be-yond 33 cameras. 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 1 3 5 7 9 Number of cameras -5% RED: IP System has higher cost -15% Source:  “Total  Cost  of  Ownership  (TCO):  Comparison  of  IP  and  analog-­‐based  surveillance   The result shows that beyond 32 cameras the IP-based system is lowerhite  Paper,  Axis  Communica8ons,  and  Lund  University  (Sweden)                        systems”  W cost, and between 16 and 32 the cost is quite similar. In the case above, the assumption was that no infrastructure was in place. In many
    • Future Orientation•  A  new  solu8ons  must  address  today’s  needs,   and  tomorrow’s  an8cipated  needs.   –  More  integra8on.   –  More  on  demand  processing.   –  More  proac8ve  analy8cs.  •  More  networked!  
    • Where is the future? Rogers’  Innova8on  Adop8on  Curve   IMS  Research  Tipping  Point  PerdiNons:   •  Global  2015   •  Americas  2013   •  EMEA  2012  2011  IP  Video  Surveillance  market  share  of  total  installa8ons*     Consumers’  Adop8on  *  IMS  Research   Market  Share   30%  
    • Image  Quality   Sharing  Ability   Scalability   Because You AreWhy IP ? Integrate-­‐ability   Building for toda & y Video  Analy8cs   Tomorrow Operator  Efficiency   Total  Cost  of  Ownership  
    • Khaldiya  Business  Center,  Office  306   Prince  Sultan  bin  Abdulaziz  Street   Jeddah,  Saudi  Arabia   T.  +966  (2)  690-­‐1503   F.  +966  (2)  690-­‐1502   www.sintsys.com  High Tech, High Impact, High Value Security Solutions