The Case for IP Surveillance

The  ques(on  isn’t  should  I?              but  rather  should  I  NOW?  

July 2012  

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

A Picture is Worth a 1,000 Words ^  An IP

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  sum  of  its  components  –  Video  Surveillance,  Access  Control,  Intrusion,  etc.  

•  Each  sub  system  shows  a  part  of  the  picture  

•  Integra8on  allows  for  a  fuller  picture  

•  Advanced  integra8on  brings  in  other  business,  and  excep8on  repor8ng  systems  

Access  Control  

POS  

Business  TXN  

Etc...  

Video    Surveillance  

Intrusion  

EBR  Fire  &  Safety  

Dispatch  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  

Labor  •  Installa8on  •  Configura8on  •  Training  

Cabling  Infrastructure  •  Cables  •  Switches  •  Panels  

Recording  Equipment  •  Servers  •  Storage  •  SoZware  

Cameras  •  Including  camera  power  

Total  Cost  of  Ownership  

Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)

IP & Analog Average System Costs

9

The findings are also presented in the chart below:

It is interesting to note the flexibility of the IP-based system, represented by the wide spread in the quotes. The reason is the wide flexibility using IP technology represented by using PoE, different cabling types, network and server platforms. In an analog system, there is very little flexibility; hence most quotes came in close to the same cost. That is quite typical for a mature market.

The split of the cost in the IP-based system showed to be quite different from the analog/DVR system as outlined in the graph below:

IP System Analog Cameras & DVR

Tota

l Cos

t (qu

oted

ASP

in $

)

$72,000

$64,000

$56,000

$48,000

$40,000

$32,000

$24,000

$16,000

$8,000

$0

Figure 4. The IP-based system for 40 cameras had a slightly lower cost, addition-ally the quotes had a greater spread.

$70,000

$60,000

$50,000

$40,000

$30,000

$20,000

$10,000

$0

IP System Analog Cameras & DVR

Labor (installation, configuration, training) Recording & Playback (servers, storage, software)

Cable infrastructure (cable, switches, panels) Cameras (including camera power)

54%

6%

21%

19%

34%

16%

25%

25%

$33, 209

$3,841

$13,437

$10,895

$21,932

$10,123

$16,066

$15,360

Figure 5. The split up of the costs looked very different in the analog system compared to the IP-based system.

•  On  average  IP  systems  cost  3.4%  less  than  Analog  

•  Variance  within  IP  systems  is  greater  with  the  most  expensive  priced  at  USD  $72K  for  the  same  project  

3.4%  

Source:  “Total  Cost  of  Ownership  (TCO):  Comparison  of  IP  and  analog-­‐based  surveillance  systems”  White  Paper,  Axis  Communica8ons,  and  Lund  University  (Sweden)  

TCO & Scalability

10

Comparing the detailed costs, the conclusions were:

> The network cameras were half of the system cost in the IP-based system, while only a third of the cost in the Analog/DVR system> The network cameras were 50% more expensive than their analog counterparts> Cabling is almost three times as expensive in the analog system compared to the IP-based system. The main reasons are that separate power cable has to be used, while PoE is used in the IP system, and separate cabling is also needed to control analog PTZ cameras.> Recording and monitoring is similar cost. The quality and available service and maintenance contracts for a PC server used in the IP systems are often superior to the DVR.> Installation, configuration and training is almost 50% higher cost in the analog system

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 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.

The result shows that beyond 32 cameras the IP-based system is lower 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 buildings today an IP infrastructure already exists, which the surveillance system can piggyback on. So in another cost simulation the cost of the cabling, and installation of it, was removed.

7.

TCO:

Pric

e ad

vant

age

of IP

sys

tem Analog 10%

lower costIP 10% lower cost

BLUE: IP System has lower cost15%

5%

-5%

-15%

RED: IP System has higher cost

Same cost

Number of cameras

1 3 5 7 9 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

Figure 6. The cost difference of analog versus IP-based system as a function of the number of cameras shows a 10% lower cost for analog systems between 1 and 16 cameras, close to the same cost between 17-32 cameras, and a 10% lower cost of IP-based system be-yond 33 cameras.

Source:  “Total  Cost  of  Ownership  (TCO):  Comparison  of  IP  and  analog-­‐based  surveillance                        systems”  White  Paper,  Axis  Communica8ons,  and  Lund  University  (Sweden)  

32  Cameras  

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?

30%  

2011  IP  Video  Surveillance  market  share  of  total  installa8ons*    *  IMS  Research  

Rogers’  Innova8on  Adop8on  Curve  

Market  Share  Consumers’  Adop8on  

IMS  Research  Tipping  Point  PerdiNons:  •  Global  2015  •  Americas  2013  •  EMEA  2012  

Why IP ?

Image  Quality  

Sharing  Ability  

Scalability  

Integrate-­‐ability  

Video  Analy8cs  

Operator  Efficiency  

Total  Cost  of  Ownership  

Because You Are Building

for today & Tomorrow

High Tech, High Impact, High Value

Security Solutions  

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