All change

08 Sep 2009

by: By John Adams

NETWORKED security solutions have reached a key point in their development. But where will they go from here and is senior management prepared to pay to take such systems global? While most end users and integrators are awake to the advantages of globally networked IP solutions, it’s going to be very interesting to see where the digital revolution takes us next – if anywhere.

Yes, that’s right. At present there’s no question that most digital surveillance systems are a local proposition only – despite significant improvements in network bandwidth worldwide. Clearly there’s a significant and ongoing playoff between potential performance and cost that hamstrings even the latest installations. Perhaps hamstring is too strong a word, but there’s no doubt even the latest systems are not being designed to network globally.

Consider that majority of installation still use DVRs. Despite the fact that most existing digital video recording solutions allow video surveillance users to link to DVRs using a web browser such units are essentially standalone.

It’s true that these systems do allow DVR manufacturers to build what are essentially network add-ons that retain many of the elements of older analogue solutions. DVRs can operate independently in the event of network failure but they can be cumbersome to operate over networks. For a start they often employ a single codec that supports one compression protocol (or a proprietary protocol). This can make it tough to get a DVR operational in an open environment.

A single stream is not designed to give users the multi-protocol compression engines a fully networked environment demands. Each protocol has its advantages and protocols best for local storage are not best for video streaming over networks or the Internet. All this means a given DVR will be far better at one task than another. That makes for variable performance characteristics.

Ability to keep up with changes in compression standards are also important. There are new standards like H.264 that need to be taken into account when systems are built and only a handful of systems can manage this.

Comparatively, a particular advantage of server-based solutions is that instead of being stuck with the built-in codec, they are able to take advantage of whichever connected codec is best for the application at hand.

In open infrastructure environments, server farms could be strategically placed at points on local and global networks allowing access to video data from a linked access point at any location. Of course it’s not cut and dried. Servers designed to support surveillance solutions would need to be more robust than standard business network servers and there’d be a need for redundancy and local power system backup. They’d also need thumping storage capacity, massive comms pipes and and lots of processing power. Is all this really possible at the current juncture? No it’s probably not, given current surveillance budgets.

Moving forward, a key is going to be the push to open standards touted by interest groups like ONVIF. No one can deny that open infrastructure environments are a different world from the one in which current network-enabled DVRs exist. They’re more flexible and can offer greater storage redundancy than a DVR. At the same time they’re also still vulnerable and potentially less reliable.

While reducing the risks posed by remote server-based CCTV solutions is possible, it would be forbiddingly expensive in the short term. This means our industry’s future direction may depend much less on clever technology than it does on senior management’s ability to rationalise funding security solutions whose comms and storage requirements are at the pointy end of technological possibility but whose budgets are a long way behind.