Connecting this to ONVIF's proclimation of not being a 'police organization' and recommendation for people to become observer members to verify for themselves, these results show that approach to be unrealistic.
ONVIF Mega Test 2014
Published Apr 16, 2014 04:00 AM
** **** ************** ******, ** ***** findings ** **-*****************.
ONVIF **** ***** ***********
** ****** ** ****** ************* **** 5 *****, ********** ** ***** ************.
*** ****** ************* ********: ****, ********, Axis, *****, *****, ***, *********, *********, Honeywell, *****, *******, ****, ****** (*** super ***** ******* ********).
*** ***** ********: *****, *********, ************,**************. *** ***** * *** ***** Profile * **********, *** ****** * are *.* / ******** ******** *** the **** ** *** ********** **********, just ****** ** ** *********. **** provided * ***** ** ******** / conformance ** ********.
*** ******* ******* (*) ************, (*) video *********, (*) ******* **********, (*) setting ***** **** *** (*) ******** camera **** ****** *********.
ONVIF **** ****
***** *** ** ******** **** **** that ** ******** ** ****** $*** to ****** * ******. **** ** the **** **** **** ****** ************ uses ** ****** ***** ***********. ** tested **** **** ** ******* ** determine *** ****** **** **** ** for ********* *********** *** ************* ********.
ONVIF ****** *******
*******, ** ****** *** ***** ****** Manager, ** **** ****** ****, ** understand **** ***** ** ******* *** how ** ******** ** *** ******** ONVIF **** ****.
Key ********
**** *** *** *** ******** **** this ****:
- ********** * ******** ** ******* **** 14 ********* ************* ** * *********, the ******** ** *******, **%+, ********* and ********, ********** ** ***** ******* and ******* ***********.
- ******* * **** **** *** **** likely ** ******* ****** *********, **** Exacq *** ********* ********** **% ** more *******. ***-******* **** ********* ****** on ****** ** *******.
- ******* *** *****************, **********, *** ***** ******** (**********, contrast, ***) ****** ****** ********* ** VMS *** ***** ******* ****.
- ******** ** ******* ***** ****, *********** *** ********* ******, **** basic ******** *********** **********.
- ** *** ***** ***** *** ***** Device **** ****, ** ******* (*** of **+) ****** * *********** ****, even ***** ********* ***** *************** *** settings ************* **** *** ***** *** conformance *****.
- *** **** ****** ** ******* ** operate, **** ****** ******** ** **** settings ** *** (********, ***** ********, etc.), *** ****** ***** ******** ** what ****** ******** ******* ******** ********* of *** ***** ****** *** ******* performance ***********.
- ***** ****** ******* ****** ***** **********, viewing, *** ************* ** ***** *******, but **** *** ******* *********** *********** and ****** ** *** *** ** diagnostics.
- *******, *** *** ****** ******** *** available ***** *** ***, ** *** not ******** ***********, ******* *** *** to ***** ********* ****.
***************
*****, ********** *** ************ ** ******* S, *** **** **** ** ******** camera/VMS *************, **** **** ****** ******* and **** **** ** ******* *** stream. *******, ***** ********* **** ** the ******* ** ****** ********** *************** *** *********** ****** *** *****, and ****** ********* ****** ** *** combinations, **** **** **% ** *** time.
*** ***** ****** **** **** ** likely ****** **** ** ************ ********* staff, ** *** *** ***** ********* details ******** ** ***** ** ******** run * **** *** ********* ******* are *** ********* ** ******* *******.
***** ** *** ** ****** *** basic ****** ************* *** ******* ******, but **** *** ******* *** *********** testing, ******** *** *** ** ***** tasks.
*************, *** **** *** ** ***** test ** * ******** ******/******** *********** will **** ** ** **** ** in *** *****. **** ** ********** true ** ****** **** ****** *********, as ******* **** ********* **** *** confirm **** *** *** *** ********** motion ****** ******** ** **** ************.
ONVIF ******/*** ***** ****
** ****** ** ******* **** * VMS ******* *** ** ***, ******* in ***** *********** **** ******* * to ******* *.** ** ******** *********** without ******** *******. ** ****** *** following **********:
- **** *** ****** *******?
- **** *** ****** ******?
- *** ********** ************** ********?
- *** ***** ***** ******** **** ** brightness, ********, ***. ** *******?
- **** ****** ********* ****?
*** ********* ****** ****** **** ** these ******** *** **** ***:
*******/******
***** *** **** *****, ** ****** whether *** ****** ***** ** ***** to *** ******** ***** ****** ***********, and ***** ********. ** *** **** instances (**%+), **** ****** ****, **** some ******* **********. *** ****** ***, which ** *** ********** ****** ** conformant, ******* **** *** ******** ** camera (******* *) *** *********. *** Wodsee ****** ***** *** ******* ** 3 *** ** * *********.
*********/**********
****, ** ****** ******* **** *** had *** ******* ** ****************** ********** ** **** ****** **** the ******. ** ***** *** *********, the ******* * ****, **** ******* could ** *******, **** *** **********. Axxon ****, ** ***** *.** ***, was **** ** ****** ********** ************** *** *** ******** *** *******. Video ******* **** *** ***** ******** of************ ********** **** *** ******, *** does *** ****** ***.
*** ***-********** (*** ******** ** "*****") Wodsee ****** ***** *** ** ******* from *** ****** **********.
****** *********
********* ********** ****** **** **** ******* in **** **** (*/**), ***** ***** handles *** (************** *** ** ********** ** ********* a *** ***** ** *** ****). ** *** ******* *.** ****, motion ********* **** *** **** ** all.
**** ************, *** ****** *** ******** events **** *****, *****, *** ********* cameras, ****** ** ** *** ********** listed ** **********.
******* ********
*******, ** ****** ******* *** *** could ****** ******* ******** **** ** brightness, ********, ***., **** *** ******. These ******** *** ****** ******** ** the *** ******, **** *****, *********, and ***** *********** *** ******** ** cameras, ***** ** *** ****** ***** not ****** ***.
ONVIF ****** **** ****
**** ***** ******** * ***** ******** of ***** *** ********* ** *** ONVIF **** ****:
**** ***** **** ***** ** **** or **** ** **** *****, ********* on *** **** ******** *** ***** tested, ******* ********, *** ****** ***********.
Test **** ***** ******
****** ** ******* ***************, ** ***** several ****** ******** *********** ******* *** we ***** *** *** *** ****** cameras ** **** * *********** ****. We ******* ***** **** ***** ****** and ****** **** ******* *** ********, but **** ***** ********* ***** ***************, we ***** ****** ***** ********.
***** ****** ******* *** *********:
******* *** ***** ********
** *** "**********" *** ** *** Device **** **** *** ******* ******* settings ********* *******. ***** ******** ******* the **** ******* *** **** ********* tests, *** **** ******* *** *** device ** ****** (****** ******* ***** during *******), **** *** **** ****** for ******** ** ********, ***.
******* * **** **** ******* ******** resulted ** ***** ******* ** ****** test *****. ***** ******* *** **** we ***** ** *** "******* ****" XML ******** ***** ** ******** ** each ****** ** *** *********** ******* (see ****** **** **** ***-***** [**** no ****** *********]) ***** ***** **** settings **** **** ** *** ****. However, **** ****** ***** ******** ********* the ****** ** ****** *****, *********** still ******.
**** ********** ******* *** ** **** this *** ******** *** ****** ******** accordingly, *** ************ *** **** ************* may ******.
******* ******** ** ********
******* ******** ****/**** *********** ** ******** by *** **** ****, ****** ** raw *** **** *** **** ****. This ****** ***** ******* ******** ********* of *** ****** *** *** ***** spec ****** ** ********** ******* *** the **** *** ******.
** **** ********** ** **** * failed ****, ***** *** *** ***** recommended ************ ******** ******** *** ****** the ******** ******** **** ** ******** on **** ****:
**** ***********
** *** *****, ***** ****** ** run ** * ****** *******. ***** traffic *** ***** ************* *******, *** increase *******, ********* *** ******** **** were *** ** **** *************. ******* DHCP *** *** ******* **** ** available ** *** *******, ** *** test **** **** ***** ** *** conformance ****. *******, ***** **** ********** the **** **** ****** ** *** as *************.
ONVIF ****** *******
******** ****** ******* (***)*** ******* ** * ***** ***** developer *** ***** ******* *** ************* of ***** *******. **** ********** ***** basic *** ** ***** **:
****** *** ******** **** ****, *** does *** ******* *** *********** *****. Instead, ** ** **** *** ***** configuration *** ******* ** ***** *******. Some ** **** *********** *** ** quickly **** ** ***** ** ******* support ***** *********, *** ****** ** diagnostic *********** ** ******** ** ******** functions ** *** ****.
***********
** **** *** ********* *** ******** in **** ****:
- ***** ****: *.*.*.***
- ***********: *.*.*.*****
- *********: **** (*.**)
- ***** *******: *.*.**.*
- ******: **.**.***.********.*****
*** ****** ******** ******** ** *******:
- **** ***: **.**.**
- ******** *.**-**-***: *.*.*.**
- ******** *.**-**-*: *.*.*.**
- **** *****: *.**.**
- **** *****: *.**.*.*
- ***** ***-****: *.**
- ***** ***-****: *.**
- ***** ***-*******: *.***.******* **.**
- *** *********** **: **.*.****
- ********* **-*******: **.** ****-**-**
- ********* **-*******-**: **.*.*
- ********* *****: **.*.*
- ***** ******: *.*.*.**.****-**.*
- ******* ***-****: *.**
- ******* ***-****: *.**
- **** ***-*****: *.**.*
- **** ***-******: *.**.*
- **** ***-*****: *.**.*
- **** ***-*****: *.**
- ******* *******: *******-****-*****
- ****** ******-***: *.*.*.******
Comments (41)
JH
John Honovich
Apr 16, 2014RW
Rukmini Wilson
Apr 16, 2014Ironically a self-unfufilling prophecy!
Seriously though, although expecting 'people' to become observers may be a bit naive, your work here creates a milestone from which a refined focus can be applied and further progress assessed; undeniably if 'others' were to offer-up similar 'report cards' it would drive conformance from many points, not perfect perhaps, but perfectly understandable.
Either that or pay a buck a box for the right to place a 'Big O' conformance sticker on your stuff...
Marty Major
Apr 17, 2014Kudos to Ethan....
This piece is probably the best explanation/demonstration of what 'ONVIF Conformant' actually means in existence.
I learned a lot. :)
DB
David Bloom
Apr 17, 2014Has (fortunately) become a moot point for my XProtect install. Milestone's device drivers now support generic chip level, so what was once last year's ONVIF camera is now this year's native supported camera. I'm seeing cleaner setups, more robust feature sets, and snappier connects. All in all not unhappy to see the need for ONVIF fade away.
Great article!
JH
John Honovich
Apr 17, 2014David, do you mean the Milestone universal driver? I am not sure what you mean by 'chip level'.
DB
David Bloom
Apr 17, 2014Hi John,
I use a mix of IPCams, including direct purchase ONVIF compatible no-names from Shenzhen. Earlier last year, XProtect could only drive them as ONVIF 1.02 devices. But since upgrading to XProtect 2013 (server v2.5e), what were once listed as "ONVIF" are now listed as (for instance) "Hisilicon HYV3802". Thus, the IPCams are now correctly detected and driven at chip level.
Kudos to Milestone for developing fast, generic, chip level drivers.
David
JH
John Honovich
Apr 17, 2014David, thanks for elaborating and clarifying that it is for specific chips. I am not sure if it is truly 'chip level' as much as there are a bunch of companies OEMing that same camera under different names and this is Milestone's way of supporting them all in one shot. I believe they have something similar for the various Hikvision OEMs that is listed under some obscure reference.
DB
David Bloom
Apr 17, 2014You're very welcome. I can say from experience -- having purchased from more than one ODM using the same Hisilicon chip -- that (at least in this case) it's a chip level, rather than OEM level approach. The guts of the IPCams were radically different.
JH
John Honovich
Apr 17, 2014The housing and mechanics might be different, but for the integration to work it implies all of those cameras are using the exact same API, i.e., not developed or customized independently by the OEMs.
I think it's a smart move by Milestone as a lot of budget / low cost cameras use Hisilicon.
DB
David Bloom
Apr 17, 2014Ding! Ding! Ding! You have just nailed the engineering philosophy behind the vast majority of Shenzhen OEMs!
While they may not put the "Original" in OEM, they at least maintain a great deal of generic consistency. :-)
RW
Rukmini Wilson
Apr 17, 2014...what was once last year's ONVIF camera is now this year's native supported camera.
Rather than being an indication of the necessity of ONVIF fading, you are unwittingly making a case for the opposite point.
Consider that before ONVIF your statement might have been:
...what was once last year's unsupported camera is now this year's native supported camera.
Agree?
JH
John Honovich
Apr 17, 2014It's also a strategy few VMS companies can replicate as most do not have the R&D dollars to do such integrations. It's definitely an advantage for Milestone but for the rest of the VMSes, they need to depend on lower cost, more 'universal' techniques.
Ethan Ace
Apr 17, 2014There's also nothing stopping VMS manufacturers from adding to their base ONVIF support of specific cameras with other non-mandatory features. For example, this is from Exacq's release notes:
* Ehnancement - Onvif - Add input trigger for JVC, motion for Etrovision, and motion/input trigger for Digital Watchdog.
Previously those cameras connected and streamed, but didn't support motion or inputs.
It wouldn't suprise me, honestly, if some manufacturers' "direct" drivers are customized ONVIF drivers. Why reinvent the wheel when the camera is already connected and streaming?
RW
Rukmini Wilson
Apr 17, 2014It's definitely an advantage for Milestone but for the rest of the VMSes, they need to depend on lower cost, more 'universal' techniques.
Ok, I must be missing something, but i'm not sure what:
1. Regardless of how quickly Milestone is at writing one-off drivers with their universal framework, if a camera with a never seen before prop. API comes out, one must wait for Milestone to write to the new API.? Yes/No
2. But if the camera also comes out ONVIF, it IAPW, will work right away? Yes/No
This universal driver stuff from Milestone sounds like a framework written by a development team who got so good at writing one-offs, because they had done so many, that they were able to abstract many of the elements from seemingly different api's into a common model. Thats what programmers do for a living. Great for them as you say, but still when a camera presents new functionality in a new way, they still gotta go figure it out and code it.
Ethan says
It wouldn't suprise me, honestly, if some manufacturers' "direct" drivers are customized ONVIF drivers. Why reinvent the wheel when the camera is already connected and streaming.
Isn't the opposite also true too, that new many new cameras only have ONVIF and no prop. API?
And over time fewer and fewer would ever have a prop. driver? Like ethan says why reinvent the wheel?
JH
John Honovich
Apr 17, 2014My point is that Milestone does both extensively (direct and ONVIF) while most (smaller) VMSes have to depend more on ONVIF.
DB
David Bloom
Apr 17, 2014Yes, most IPCams have ONVIF with no propriety API.
However, and to address your point, cheap "IPCams on a chip" come with their own APIs. These APIs are similar enough across product lines that creating "one-up" drivers is not so onerous a task from chip to chip. How standardized then, for a Shenzhen shop to build out using off the shelf components and APIs. Milestone seems to have taken note of this approach.
Besides, how many "IPCams on a chip" silicon manufacturers are there?
DB
David Bloom
Apr 17, 2014I agree with John's perspective.
I see your comments outlining the VMS progression from proprietary to other manufacturer supported to device independent ONVIF/PSIA. But I don't see that negating the bonus of a low-level device driver build out to include SOC (security on a chip).
MN
Mahesh Nagaraju
Apr 17, 2014Thank you team. This is ONVIF!
JP
John Poole
Apr 17, 2014I know these articles strive to be concise, but defining an acronym at its first use is a desirable practice and really can help a reader unfamiliar with the term. Each industry creates their own language of acronyms to speed their discourse and the proliferation of acronyms makes keeping tabs across industries challenging.
ONVIF = Open Network Video Interface Forum (learned this only by click twise and finally viewing a PDF)
VMS = Video Management Software
ODM = ONVIF Device Manager (defined at the end)
DM = Device Manager?
DVR = Digital Video Recorder?
DB
David Bloom
Apr 17, 2014
david tonsberg
Aug 10, 2014ODM = Original Design Manufacturer // where the design is either patented or invented by other but most often not manufactured by brand.
OEM = Original Equipment Manufacturer // pretty self explanatory
RB
Rick Berger
Apr 17, 2014I'm a big fan of a consolidating specification for the industry, so I love ONVIF, perhaps because that is the soliitary fish in the sea. However...
Imagine you buy a new toaster and plug a toaster into the wall it doesnt work.
You find out that the latest electrical codes require elaborate new smart appliances that exchange all kinds of
information with the wall outlet about the user and manufacturer, etc.
Regardless of the lack sophistication required by the appliance.
To claim conformance to the first and most basic core ONVIF specification requires:
Hundreds of web services
At least 6 different combinations of codec/transport
at least one of 3 very complex methods to stream events
100s of different very specific error types
I'm just going from memory here, but the list goes on and on
For any manufacturer, product quality is going to be inversely related to complexity/quantity.
RB
Rick Berger
Apr 17, 2014One question about the streaming results. Onvif has a number of codec/transport choices for streaming, in my experience, some are more compatible than others. Did a conclusion of streaming failure imply that none of the transports worked, or perhaps that the VMS's default choice did not work?
Ethan Ace
Apr 17, 2014None worked. Although honestly, in 2014 if H.264 didn't work, but MJPEG did, I'd still call it a faill
IJ
Ian Johnston
Apr 17, 2014John/Ethan, some of the pain that Manufacturers you hear of isn't very visible in your testing due to the amount of tweaking' the manufacturers had to do to get ONVIF working with VMS <x> vs VMS <y>, etc.
The ONVIF spec started out really as a collection of suggestions on how, possibly, maybe something could be crafted by a VMS to give a response that possibly, maybe, perhaps could be understood by a Camera.
Later revisions of the specification have arguably been 'better' as everyone has become more militant about exactly how things should be done, but our implementation of ONVIF for example still has to be hand tweaked and coded for specific responses required by each VMS manufacturer.
To the user it seems to 'work' for streaming... to the manufacturers it's a prison that is poorly supported, rarely policed and is a moving target.
It is still ironic to me that all the major manufacturers (i.e. Axis, etc) have been given exemptions from this prison by the fact that they are still wholly supported by their own proprietary and native driver extensions.
RW
Rukmini Wilson
Apr 17, 2014It is still ironic to me that all the major manufacturers (i.e. Axis, etc) have been given exemptions from this prison by the fact that they are still wholly supported by their own proprietary and native driver extensions.
In the case of Axis for instance though, for their camera implementation, then they must also be hand crafting different responses for all other major VMSes also, Yes/No?
JH
John Honovich
Apr 17, 2014But Axis is directly supported by most everyone. That's Ian's point / implication that they don't need to hand craft anything for VMSes. Often, given how broadly Axis is used, VMSes are more motivated to do any enhancements / optimizations needed.
IJ
Ian Johnston
Apr 18, 2014Not only that, but all the advanced features and functionality, or anything innovative is purely done through Axis' proprietary interface.
They are actively encouraging the ONVIF specificaion to the be the absolute lowest common denominator, keeping everyone else 'in their place'.
This is in my opinion a form of anti competitive behaviour. It's not going to change and I applaud their brilliant move of creating an 'open' spec for everyone else and then continuing on their own path to do anything unique.
Bottom line, if you're happy with the digital equivalent of a VCR - and MANY commodity customers are - you're happy with ONVIF and it has been a good thing.
Some of us... not so much.
JH
John Honovich
Apr 18, 2014Ian, to your point about keeping ONVIF as the 'absolute lowest common denominator', what about Profile G / storage?
(1) Why would they pursue this, if that was their goal?
(2) What do you think of Profile G? Do you plan to support it?
BD
Bill Douglas
Apr 18, 2014I have a more fundemental question about the current ONVIF specification which maybe someone can answer. We have done extensive testing of various manufacturers of ONVIF conformant cameras with ONVIF conformant VMS/DVR since ONVIF was introduced. It was not until Profile S was released that we found any consisitant interoperability. We have found in many cases that a camera or software manufacturer claims conformance to a specific ONVIF rev. when, in fact, it may only be 95% conformant to that rev. and that last 5% makes all the difference in the world. Sadly, this has led to much skepticism from the market as to ONVIF's reliability. In our experience, only when Profile S was introduced did ONVIF become a practical consideration. Currently we find that when testing various Profile S cameras with Profile S VMS basic functionality, including motion alarm recording, is working in probably 75% of our tests. So my question is if a camera and VMS product are truly 100% Profile S conformant should basic functionaliity (that is commonly used features like motion recording) be expected to work out-of-the-box close to 100% of the time? In other words, in the 25% or so of the cases where we find this not to be the case is this because the ONVIF S spec is still not mature/tight enough to ensure this or is it because the manufactures claiming conformance are really not? Cleary in many cases it is the later but my question is about the current ONVIF spec.
Ethan Ace
Apr 18, 2014First things first: motion detection is not a mandatory feature in Profile S. So unfortunately, I would not count on it to work. Profile S essentially boils down to a couple of simple things: connecting, streaming, PTZ and relays, and configuration of the video stream. I could get into a discussion of my opinion on that, and what various people at ONVIF have told me about the decision not to make VMD mandatory, but that's a long discussion.
The issue is that while ONVIF added default events in a newer version of the standard, they are not mandatory, either. So some manufacturers have added them (both camera and VMS) while others are still using unique syntax, which must be integrated by the VMS in order for it to work.
Aside from motion, I have seen very few problems with Profile S features. The vast majority of Profile S cameras that I take out of the box and add to Exacq or Milestone work just fine.
BD
Bill Douglas
Apr 18, 2014Aside from motion? As motion recording is used in 90% of installations it really doesn't matter if everything else works.
Jeffrey Hinckley
Apr 21, 2014Why would you use motion recording in 90 percent of installs. $25 of storage for a month of continuous recording on a 1 Mbps average camera (average interior camera installed is normally $800-$1000 and exterior is $1200-1800) or multiples of this for higher resolution or bandwidth cameras. These days, motion detection is used for event tags, and using on motion should only be used for close views like doors. That number brings me back to the days of the 160 gigabyte dvr.
BD
Bill Douglas
Apr 21, 2014I don't want to veer off topic for this debate. We are not an installer/integrator and I am simply mentioning what we see is actually practiced.
JH
John Honovich
Apr 21, 2014Jeffrey, see our recording mode statistics. Our survey did not show 90% but it was the overwhelming majority that used motion only or motion boost recording.
It's a good question / point to discuss. I've created a new discussion here: Is Storage So Inexpensive You Should Record Continuously Now?
PP
Peter Pan
May 14, 2014The item "Does the camera stream?" here should consist of "live video", "recording""play back" and"decoding on the wall", right, not just see the live video on the NVR' client, right?
i think these is key point comparing to the other item and looks you brief it.
UE
Ulf Eklund
May 27, 2014Great test.
Is there any plans to test Profile S PTZ conformance as that would be interesting, or is this to early yet?
david tonsberg
Aug 10, 2014I believe the ONVIF organization was good for the industry. Now they will either continue to improve, or turn into a government oversight regulatory agency with as many loop holes as the people who pay them money want to have!
Having three categories of attainment for ONVIF seems like a compromise that is keeping users in hell. Shouldn't the PROFILE be a standard where features are (M)andatory, not (O)ptional or (C)onditional?
The level of understanding a user must have to buy a product claiming to be ONVIF is still cloudy and difficult for most of them to understand. Full disclosure and accountability is what the users of the world want for their hard earned money! Allowing or disallowing features in a proclaimed industry standard complicates the intent of being universal and creating an agnostic environment.
MF
Michael Friends
Nov 05, 2020Where can I download the Onvif Device Test Tool Software?
JH
John Honovich
Nov 07, 2020Michael, that requires being a member of ONVIF, a minimum of $500 per year.
LF
Luca Fogliati
Aug 26, 2023As per august 2023 this is (IMHO) the situation:
1 Onvif Device Manager is an absolute piece of rubbish. It still doesn't support H265 streaming while H265 was already mandatory in ONVIF T profile (year 2018? 2017?)VLC player actually gives a better preview of ONVIF compliancy and that's all said......
2 I suceeded to find a version of onvif device tool online.I wanted to check some cameras that the producer declares ONVIF M compliant. The device tool is another useless piece of rubbish. Failing most of the tests (same as you state in your reports here)It just doesn't work (or 85% of the cameras on the market are not compliant to any onvif profile)
Now what's the credibility of a consortium that doesn't even supply the right tools to test the products?
Plus i am very scheptical about ONVIF M profile and specifications. Metadatas are u huge world and it looks like ONVIF has enough of 4/5 features for compliancy.I already have some products that claim compliancy to ONVIF M and do not even support MQTT and actually MQTT in the onvif m official support list is under the state of "if supported". Can you call this conformancy and unification?
Sorry if i went a little bit O.T.
NOTICE: This comment has been moved to its own discussion: ONVIF Problems - Test Tool, M Support - 2023