All is quiet in Alcorcon.
Alcorcon is located in the suburbs of Madrid. It is a rapidly developing area with a population of over 165,000 people and an area of 33 square kilometers. The project was initially initiated by the city council, which decided to create a wide wireless network to help the police with traffic management and video surveillance. The main objective was to prevent urban vandalism, especially in the growing number of city schools.
The final solution involved integrating systems and solutions from a wide range of vendors, including IOImage video analytics, Alvarion wireless data link, and Genetec central control and storage. Hundreds of cameras were installed across the city, with approximately 30% of these cameras being controlled speed domes and the remainder fixed.
The domes are controlled by autonomous PTZ analytics that automatically track people and vehicles, while the fixed cameras are configured to perform a range of tasks throughout the day, including detecting intrusion, abandoned objects, loitering, and traffic violations (illegal parking, etc.).
After several months of using the system, the speed of detecting offenses has increased significantly, while reducing the labor costs of constantly monitoring video screens. As a result, the city's law enforcement service can rightfully be called the «Virtual Police of Alcorcon».
http://ipvideomarket.info/report/urban_video_analytics_case_study_madrid_suburb
What is the difference between HD and megapixel cameras?
2009 may be the year of the megapixel camera, but it may also be the year of confusion between HD and megapixel cameras. Historically, marketers of cameras with a million or more pixels have called them megapixel cameras. However, over the last six months, a number of manufacturers have started calling and advertising their megapixel cameras as HD. This has left professionals somewhat confused and consumers somewhat confused.
HD vs. Megapixel
Essentially, HD is a variant of a megapixel camera. All HD cameras are megapixel cameras, but not all megapixel cameras are HD.
All standard definition cameras (such as analog cameras and 4 CIF IP cameras) have 400,000 or fewer pixels, while all megapixel cameras (including HD) have 1,000,000 or more pixels.
The main differences between HD cameras and regular megapixel cameras are:
The maximum resolution of HD cameras is 2.1 MP (megapixels), the maximum resolution of megapixel cameras is 16 MP (most manufacturers already have 5 MP cameras widely represented in their camera lineup).
HD camera formats are 1280 x 720 or 1920 x 1080 (megapixel cameras have much more).
The aspect ratio of HD is 16:9 versus 5:4 or 4:3 for other CCTV cameras.
The speed of HD cameras is 30/25 frames per second, while megapixel cameras have 3-15.
HDTV has clear standards for resolution, speed and quality, while megapixel cameras simply indicate the number of pixels.
Which is better?
It is impossible to choose in favor of someone — everything depends on the tasks set for the camera. Some applications require a resolution of more than 2.1 MP (the maximum for HDTV today) and do not require high speed. Here, naturally, you should use non-HD megapixel cameras. Other applications require high speed and the highest quality image. In this case, it is better to use HD megapixel cameras.
However, if Axis has focused its marketing efforts on HDTV, one should expect high interest in HD cameras everywhere. In addition, Axis's actions are an advertising ploy, which consists of an attempt to distinguish its product from megapixel solutions of well-known competitors, such as Arecont Vision, IQinVision and Mobotix. Which, in turn, will increase buyer interest in HDTV cameras. This approach is unlikely to improve security, but it will definitely increase the perceived quality of the product.
http://ipvideomarket.info/report/whats_the_difference_between_hd_and_megapixel_cameras
The brewing battle between DVR and IP video solution manufacturers
In the next 1.5 years, DVR and IP camera software manufacturers will compete, as they say, nose to nose. They will add the basic functionality of both solutions to each other, and the difference between these manufacturers will practically disappear. This will be a major shift in the industry that will force end users to re-evaluate and make a choice of a future product.
Based on the analysis of possible development paths of more than 20 manufacturers, we can formulate the main theses:
— today, DVR and IP video surveillance software manufacturers are unlikely to see each other as competitors;
— DVR manufacturers, in an effort to protect their market from IP growth, will expand support for IP cameras and begin selling software separately;
IP camera software vendors, wanting to gain a foothold in the larger market of smaller installations, will begin offering DVR/NVR devices;
end users will stick with their DVR vendors;
the main challenge for DVR vendors will be to make the transition to IP.
But while consumers are comparing DVRs and IP video, the differences between the offerings remain vast. In fact, they are so vast that it is safe to say that DVR installers know next to nothing about IP solutions, and conversely, IP video providers have never dealt with DVRs.
Today, DVR manufacturers are beginning to understand the threat to their market from IP companies. They are losing contracts, especially for large and geographically distributed installations, to IP solution and software providers. And despite their desire to think that convergence will take a long time, they are already acutely aware of the power of this new business.
Almost all leading DVR companies surveyed have already realized and even started producing and selling only software that supports work with IP cameras from a large number of manufacturers.
In turn, IP companies are having difficulties in the DVR niche with a small number of cameras. The rapid growth of IP camera software companies has made them too self-confident and unable to replace DVRs.
It is expected that only a few IP companies will be able to release their DVR at first. The rest will be able to release it only when they start to share the views of DVR manufacturers on their advantages over IP.
Adding support for IP cameras will be a non-trivial task for DVR manufacturers. A number of companies are trying to integrate purchased cameras.
But there is one niche where DVRs are not yet a problem. These are enterprise-level solutions, such as centralized management and support for third-party systems. Despite all the efforts of IP companies, the leading DVRs are quite strong in this segment of the market. For example, Intellex's DVR is supported by many more access control systems than the popular open architecture system from Milestone.
The weak economy and the wide range of DVRs motivate the end user to continue working with existing DVR vendors. By adding support for IP cameras and selling only software, these manufacturers will remain ahead of IP companies for a long time. Moreover, as long as the operator is accustomed and comfortable working with DVR systems, many will be satisfied with the gradual addition of new features to what they have.
Such a transition will give the end user more options, increase the pressure on IP camera software developers, and help the main players in the DVR market stay on top and repel attacks from newcomers in the IP market.
http://ipvideomarket.info/report/coming_battle_between_dvrs_and_ip_video
Based on the notes of John Honovich, founder of the Internet resource on IP video – http://ipvideomarket.info