Which CCTV design is better ?

[xicor]

in the picture attached there is two designs;

 

Design A uses an analogue 4k camera and RG60 Coax cable with BNC fittings, from there it goes to a 5 way BNC splitter then one coax cable goes to a DVR then from there HDMI to a wall monitor, the rest of the coax cables each go to 4 monitors and terminate to either the monitor directly if it supports BNC fitting or it would terminate to a simple BNC to HDMI converter.

 

Design B uses a 4K Poe camera that goes to a DVR then from the DVR two HDMI cables come out one goes to the monitor and one goes to a HDMI to Ethernet converter, then from there it goes to the network switch or a dedicated network switch then form there at each monitor the ethernet connects to a Ethernet to HDMI converter then connects to the monitor.which design is better in terms of reliability ? reliability in terms the number of failure points and overall robustness. money isn't an issue here.

 

it seems to me the analogue option A has low latency and a very simple design with less things to go wrong, the BNC splitter is just a copper splitter, the only point of failure I can think of is the BNC to HDMI converter as those seem to break but even so it would take all 5 of them to break to take the system down, even if the DVR is down the live feed is still active.on the other hand the POE option seems to rely on multiple things, a DVR, a HDMI to Ethernet convert, a network switch, a ethernet to HDMI converter etcanyone here have any thoughts on this ?

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by xicor

[xicor]

I should probably say that each monitor is in a different location in the building, the longest cable run is less than 60 meters

[localzuk]

Consider also the likelihood of new cameras being added, and the cost of running coax, and moving that coax should your requirements change. Compared with structured cabling.

[Aprice]

One thing worth bearing in mind is that you can have multiple NVRs connected to one IP camera, which is what we did so the reception desk could get a feed of the cameras on gates.

 

We had a central NVR that did all recording in the server room and then just a HIK 7604 under the reception desk that was just view only, no recording setup.

 

I would advise against running coax now, especially in schools / business, maybe in homes where there is a really tight budget and not much to gain using IP cameras.

[Rob_D]

Just to throw in something completely different...

Our Qvis system has client viewer/monitoring software that connects to the NVRs over IP for remote camera monitoring (I always assumed most providers would have something similar). It would probably be an easier/better solution than having HDMI over eithernet/IP (which I've always found kind of flaky when I've tired it). If space is an issue you could use low spec mini-PCs on the back of the screens.

[Andrew_C]

(A) has significantly less to go wrong.

(B) may give more flexibility, and ease of addition in the future.

[markberry]

Personally I'd go with B. Network cabling is so much easier to deal with. We used to have multiple DVRs with cameras on COAX, it was a pain to get new cameras installed and reaching limits of each DVR. We moved to an AXIS system. Cameras anywhere we want them with a simple run of Cat6 if there isn't any, server in server room recording everything, PC in CCTV room with large TVs attached and you can monitor the cameras anywhere using their software.

[xicor]

Consider also the likelihood of new cameras being added, and the cost of running coax, and moving that coax should your requirements change. Compared with structured cabling.

 

problem is I don't even have ethernet in the locations where the other 4 monitors are and the building has had the same setup for the last 20 years I don't know if they will need more cameras in the future but I see your point

[xicor]

I see what you mean, so rather than use a hdmi to ethernet converter I would instead use multiple mini/cheap NVRs behind each monitor ?

 

 

One thing worth bearing in mind is that you can have multiple NVRs connected to one IP camera, which is what we did so the reception desk could get a feed of the cameras on gates.

 

We had a central NVR that did all recording in the server room and then just a HIK 7604 under the reception desk that was just view only, no recording setup.

 

I would advise against running coax now, especially in schools / business, maybe in homes where there is a really tight budget and not much to gain using IP cameras.

[localzuk]

problem is I don't even have ethernet in the locations where the other 4 monitors are and the building has had the same setup for the last 20 years I don't know if they will need more cameras in the future but I see your point

Running ethernet is far easier than running coax in my experience.

[xicor]

though surely that would add more complexity ? in a sense that I would need to have a computer at each monitor with running software, both would need regular updates and maintenance etc ?

 

Just to throw in something completely different...

Our Qvis system has client viewer/monitoring software that connects to the NVRs over IP for remote camera monitoring (I always assumed most providers would have something similar). It would probably be an easier/better solution than having HDMI over eithernet/IP (which I've always found kind of flaky when I've tired it). If space is an issue you could use low spec mini-PCs on the back of the screens.

[xicor]

yes indeed, i think in my case the flexibility might be less of an issue as the site requirements hasn't changed in 20 years or so

 

 

(A) has significantly less to go wrong.

(B) may give more flexibility, and ease of addition in the future.

[Aprice]

Yeah, Hikvision now do Intercom stations as well - (wall mounted tablet basically) that can just connect over the network to a IP camera. POE powered as well.

[Rob_D]

though surely that would add more complexity ? in a sense that I would need to have a computer at each monitor with running software, both would need regular updates and maintenance etc ?

Potentially it would add complexity. Would viewer PCs be any more hassle than using multiple hdmi over lan converters? Our viewer machines have pretty setup-and-forget (it's what LTSC/LTSB was built for).

[xicor]

Hi All

 

I have added two more designs based on your suggestions as option C and D, C gets rid of the HDMI to Ethernet converters and instead uses cheap DVR's at each monitor to convert the ethernet to HDMI, Option E uses a mini computer behind the monitor and software to broadcast the camera to the screen, something like an all in one computer

 

[slugshead]

D is how I setup everything, but skip DVR for a NAS and just install the relevant application on the workstations.

 

Cameras to be IP cams too, no adaptors etc.

[PaulZoom]

Give Mark Yeomans a call at Mytech - http://www.mytecgroup.co.uk They are amazing

[Guest ZFarnworth]

Design B sounds like a good option to me

[Oaktech]

I would not ever install a new coax system unless it was absolutely tiny, structured cabling will always be easier and more scalable. Cameras for IP will only get cheaper and better and you have far more flexibility in terms of ways to view - I've used windows 10 in Kiosk mode to facilitate a viewing station.

[xicor]

but isn't that more expensive and requires more maintenance ?I'd need to buy 5 computers that can stay on 24/7, 365 days a year, their OS will need to be regularly updated and ideally be small form factor to so they can be tucked away behind the monitor

 

 

 

D is how I setup everything, but skip DVR for a NAS and just install the relevant application on the workstations.

 

Cameras to be IP cams too, no adaptors etc.

[xicor]

I don't think the cabling specifically is easier, I mean crimping RG59 is easier than crimping Ethernet ? I agree IP cameras are scalable but this site does not need that kind of flexibility, the cost of purchasing 5 computers that can stay on 24/7 is just too high not to mention the regular maintenance they require ?

 

I would not ever install a new coax system unless it was absolutely tiny, structured cabling will always be easier and more scalable. Cameras for IP will only get cheaper and better and you have far more flexibility in terms of ways to view - I've used windows 10 in Kiosk mode to facilitate a viewing station.

[Oaktech]

I don't think the cabling specifically is easier, I mean crimping RG59 is easier than crimping Ethernet ? I agree IP cameras are scalable but this site does not need that kind of flexibility, the cost of purchasing 5 computers that can stay on 24/7 is just too high not to mention the regular maintenance they require ?

 

How much cat cabling would you need to terminate? Mostly it's already installed in buildings already... You wouldn't necessarily even need to add computers, you could utilise the app on existing relevant staff PCs?

[Rob_D]

I'd need to buy 5 computers that can stay on 24/7, 365 days a year

Have you got someone (or 5 someones) who will be monitoring the system 24/7/365? Surely the monitoring stations could be turned off overnight and holidays when they aren't being actively used?

Otherwise, yeah. Having to get and maintain 5 extra PCs is an over-head.

[slugshead]

but isn't that more expensive and requires more maintenance ?I'd need to buy 5 computers that can stay on 24/7, 365 days a year, their OS will need to be regularly updated and ideally be small form factor to so they can be tucked away behind the monitor

 

Little more expensive, but less maintenance.

 

Synology nas with 96TB of skyhawks - £5,500

 

IP cameras hik do some around the £100 mark.

 

Software is free

 

Just plugs into your regular IT infrastructure then off you go

[DrBeaker]

I would not ever install a new coax system unless it was absolutely tiny, structured cabling will always be easier and more scalable. Cameras for IP will only get cheaper and better and you have far more flexibility in terms of ways to view - I've used windows 10 in Kiosk mode to facilitate a viewing station.

 

How well does that work for you? Kiosk mode?

 

What sort of camera software do you use?