Comparative study of the full cost of analog and IP video surveillance systems
|
Cost analysis
The technical specifications included only those system elements that, according to preliminary estimates, affect the overall cost of the system. In addition to video cameras and recording equipment, this includes cables, power supplies, network switches, a monitor, fasteners and fittings.
Labor costs, as well as the total cost of installing cameras and laying cables, were detailed at the system design stage. In addition, integrators could specify any additional costs not previously included in the technical specifications. As a rule, integrators included additional labor costs associated with staff training, system commissioning, etc. in these “other costs”. The final analysis included all labor costs, including those belonging to the “other” category.
In addition to the pre-defined items, integrators, subject to compliance with the technological requirements and conditions, could make their own proposals for equipment. This, in particular, concerned the selection and layout of the recording solution, which constitutes a significant part of the total cost of the video surveillance system.
|
|
Figure 3. Detailed cost analysis
Results of the analysis of the CER
An average total cost was calculated using quotes from integrators for six different camera layouts. The cost categories were divided into four main groups: cameras (including analog power supplies), cables (including network switches, hardware, and fittings), recording solutions (DVR/PC, software, and monitor), and labor. The average total system cost for each camera layout, as well as the range of quotes, are shown in Figure 4.
The alternative IP solution has a lower TCO for any camera layout. The price advantage of IP solutions over analog solutions is the smallest when using 14 video cameras, but increases as more cameras are added, which is consistent with the results of the previous analysis. When installing 14, 25, and 40 video cameras, the cost of the IP solution is on average 11%, 13%, and 16% less than the cost of the analog system, respectively. The range of proposed prices is quite wide for any layout, except for the case of installing 14 analog video cameras, where all prices differed insignificantly from each other. It is interesting that when installing 25 and 40 analog cameras, the range of proposed prices is higher compared to using the same number of IP cameras. For any installation option — analog or IP systems — the range of prices is largely determined by the cost category of recording solutions.
Total cost (US dollars)
|
Figure 4. Total cost of the system according to a separate layout of video cameras
If you study the costs by category in more detail, you can note the following:
>In alternative IP systems, the cost of video cameras is from 38% to 51% of the total cost of the system, while in analog systems it is from 23% to 27% of the total cost.
> IP cameras are approximately 50% more expensive compared to analog ones.
>The cost of cables in analog systems is slightly lower. However, it should be noted that an IP solution includes not only the main cables, but also accessories such as network switches. In a relatively small area of the fictional facility, the difference in cost between CAT5 and Siamese (combined coaxial video and power cable) cables is insignificant.
> The recording solutions category accounts for only half the cost in IP systems, as opposed to analog systems.
In analog video systems, recording solutions are the most significant cost category, accounting for more than 40% of the total cost for any camera layout, and their share of the total system cost increases significantly as video channels are added.
>Labor costs are approximately 25% of the total system cost. In the case of IP systems, they are slightly lower for any camera layout, primarily due to shorter cable runs.
A detailed cost analysis therefore shows that the decisive factor in favour of IP systems in terms of overall cost is the lower cost of the recording solution. The analysis revealed the disadvantages of the DVR model, which gradually became an increasingly expensive option for the end user. In the case of IP recording solutions, end users are attracted by the trend towards lower costs in the competitive IT hardware market through the use of off-the-shelf PC servers and storage devices.
It should also be noted that the difference between the least expensive and most expensive recording option for the 40-camera layout is $10,689. This is 23% of the average total cost of this alternative solution. However, the least expensive analog recording system among all six camera layouts still costs more than the most expensive IP server solution.
|
Figure 5. Detailed Cost Analysis
Labor (design, installation, training)
Recording solutions (DVR/NVR, software, monitor)
Cables (including switches, hardware, and fittings)
Cameras (including camera power supply)
|
|
Figure 6. Detailed cost analysis, expressed as a percentage
Labor (design, installation, training)
Recording solutions (DVR/NVR, software, monitor)
Cables (including switches, hardware, and fittings)
Cameras (including camera power supply)
Survey Research Results
A telephone survey was conducted in conjunction with the SCB survey, which provided additional information and insights, summarized below.
> Respondents indicated that they currently prefer to install IP CCTV systems and that the number of analogue projects is declining.
>All respondents acknowledged that IP technology will be the basis of future video surveillance systems and recommended using it when installing systems from scratch. > IP video surveillance systems have many advantages over analog systems, such as greater scalability and flexibility.
> However, the decisive factor in selling IP systems to end users is the significant improvement in video image quality in the latest generation of IP camera systems (compared to analog).
>Some consumers are still committed to analog systems, and in cases of acute shortage of funds, integrator specialists sometimes recommend installing analog systems.
> In order to ensure security when using IP technologies, appropriate qualifications in the field of IT and computer networks are required, which not all integrators have.
|
Conclusions
The results of the conducted TCO analysis and survey research can be summarized as follows:
> The total cost of ownership of IP systems consisting of 14 video cameras is lower compared to similar analog systems.
The TCO study conducted in 2007 showed that the breakeven point is reached at 32 video cameras, while currently an IP system with 14 cameras costs less compared to an analog system with the same number of cameras.
> Lower Total Cost of Ownership due to the use of commodity IT and server-based recording equipment
The unit cost of IP video cameras is still higher than the unit cost of an analog camera, which is offset by the lower total cost of ownership of the IP system. The lower TCO for IP video systems is primarily due to the use of commodity IT and server-based recording equipment, as well as installation and commissioning, which require less labor.
> Integrators note additional benefits of using IP systems
According to integrators, there is a clear trend in the market towards fully digital systems, the main reasons for which are the scalability and flexibility of IP video surveillance systems.
> Higher quality video images contribute to the transition from analog to IP video systems
The availability of network video cameras with very high quality video images has become a differentiating factor in the market and a convincing argument in favor of IP video surveillance systems. HDTV quality video images speak for themselves and demonstrate completely new capabilities of the video surveillance system.
The editors would like to thank Axis Communications for the material provided
|
|
