A presentation making the case for implementing IP surveillance systems.

1. The Case for IP Surveillance
The
ques(on
isn’t
should
I?
but
rather
should
I
NOW?
Jul 2012
y

2. Why IP
• Image
Quality
• Sharing
Ability
• Scalability
• Integrate-­‐ability
• Video
Analy8cs
• Operator
Efficiency
• Total
Cost
of
Ownership
• Future
Orienta8on

3. Image Quality
• There
are
two
ques8ons
to
ask
– What
do
you
want
to
see?
– How
clearly
do
you
want
to
see
it?

4. Is this what you need to see ?

5. Or is it This ?
Image
courtesy
of
Arecont
Vision

6. Will this clarity suffice ?

7. Or is it this clarity you need ?

8. A Picture is Worth a 1,000 Words

9. IP
An
^
A Picture is Worth a 1,000 Words
Image
courtesy
of
Arecont
Vision
Surround
View

10. 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

11. 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.

12. How do they Scale?

13. Integarateability
• A
surveillance
system
is
the
Access
Intrusion
POS
sum
of
its
components
Control
– Video
Surveillance,
Access
Control,
Intrusion,
etc.
• Each
sub
system
shows
a
part
of
the
picture
Fire
&
Safety
Video
Surveillance
EBR
• Integra8on
allows
for
a
fuller
picture
• Advanced
integra8on
brings
in
other
business,
Business
Dispatch
Etc...
and
excep8on
repor8ng
TXN
Systems
systems

14. 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

15. 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

16. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
Labor
Cabling
Recording
Cameras
• Installa8on
Infrastructure
Equipment
• Including
camera
• Configura8on
• Cables
• Servers
power
• Training
• Switches
• Storage
• Panels
• SoZware
Total
Cost
of
Ownership

17. It is interesting to note the flexibility of the IP-based system, represented by the wide spread in
quotes. The reason is the wide flexibility using IP technology represented by using PoE, different cab
IP & Analog A verage System types, network and server platforms. In an analog system, there is very little flexibility; hence m
quotes came in close to the same cost. That is quite typical for a mature market.
Costs
The split of the cost in the IP-based system showed to be quite different from the analog/DVR system
outlined in the graph below:
• On
average
IP
systems
$70,000
Figure 5.
The split up
of the costs 3.4%
cost
3.4%
less
than
looked very
different in the
$60,000
analog system
Analog
compared to
the IP-based $50,000
$21,932 34%
system.
$33, 209 54%
• Variance
within
IP
$40,000
16%
systems
is
greater
with
$10,123
$30,000
the
most
expensive
$3,841 6%
$16,066 25%
priced
at
USD
$72K
for
$20,000
$13,437 21%
the
same
project
$10,000
$15,360 25%
$10,895 19%
$0
IP System Analog Cameras & DVR
Labor (installation, configuration, training) Recording & Playback (servers, storage, software)
Source:
“Total
Cost
of
Ownership
(TCO):
Comparison
of
IP
and
analog-­‐based
Cable infrastructure (cable, switches, panels) Cameras (including camera power)
surveillance
systems”
White
Paper,
Axis
Communica8ons,
and
Lund
University
(Sweden)

18. 7. 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
TCO & Scalability
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.
Figure 6.
The cost difference
of analog versus BLUE: IP System has lower cost
IP-based system as 15%
a function of the
number of cameras 32
shows a 10% lower
Cameras
cost for analog
systems between
1 and 16 cameras, Analog 10% IP 10% lower cost
TCO: Price advantage of IP system
close to the same lower cost Same cost
cost between 17-32
5%
cameras, and a
10% lower cost of
IP-based system be-
yond 33 cameras.
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
1
3
5
7
9
Number of cameras
-5%
RED: IP System has higher cost
-15%
Source:
“Total
Cost
of
Ownership
(TCO):
Comparison
of
IP
and
analog-­‐based
surveillance
The result shows that beyond 32 cameras the IP-based system is lowerhite
Paper,
Axis
Communica8ons,
and
Lund
University
(Sweden)
systems”
W 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

19. 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!

20. Where is the future?
Rogers’
Innova8on
Adop8on
Curve
IMS
Research
Tipping
Point
PerdiNons:
• Global
2015
• Americas
2013
• EMEA
2012
2011
IP
Video
Surveillance
market
share
of
total
installa8ons*
Consumers’
Adop8on
*
IMS
Research
Market
Share
30%

21. Image
Quality
Sharing
Ability
Scalability
Because
You Are
Why IP ? Integrate-­‐ability
Building
for toda &
y
Video
Analy8cs
Tomorrow
Operator
Efficiency
Total
Cost
of
Ownership

22. 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
High Tech, High Impact, High Value
Security Solutions