Exacqvision Undocumented Feature (Re: Onvif)

Not really sure where this info could go to be useful to everyone, so I thought I'd stick it here for now.

I do Onvif testing as part of API development work. Recently I got the newest version (6.4) of the Exacq VMS software and was doing tests. The ONVIF support was coming up short and I couldn't get around some basic issues.

While involved I had a Tyco show to attend to, and an the Exacq RSM was doing a portion of the presentation. During Q/A I mentioned my problems with integration of Onvif 1.02 and how the basic authentication feaures were lacking. I explained that I use the ONVIF test tool and verify compatibility, but was unable to get some of the cameras to work.

To be clearer, many onvif interfaces use a directory folder as part of their login interface. For example:

http://<ipaddr>/h.264/1/major (example of TI-GB20 HD-IPC DP-2206-MAIN-REV.B-2988)

- or -

When you select Onvif as the camera type in the ExacqVision Pro server you are prompted to fill in the IP address of the device. However, when I did, it would say 'Connecting' and then timeout with no response from the camera.

Although the field says "IP Address" the RSM found out from his support guys that you can actually put more into this field then just the IP address! Both the Port number is accepted as well as extending the IP to include the directory folder can be added here.

Once I adjusted the value to reflect the directory folder, my cameras all took off and were detected.

Caveat - A number of my test cameras did NOT successfully stream video even though they passed the detection step. I am certain this is naunce differences on the implementation of Onvif 1.02 and not Exacq's problem. Their support statement is clear 'Onvif S' ... and as I'm trying to get basic features up on older cameras it's on me at this point.

Very interesting James, I did not know this myself and I represent ExacqVision. With any software there is always going to be a nuance that someone has not realized because their applications may be different, but I will keep this in mind. Thank you for sharing.

Btw, we double checked with Exacq engineering and they confirmed this is correct.

James, thanks for sharing!