Subscriber Discussion

Powering Wireless Cameras?

U
Undisclosed #1
Oct 02, 2016

Have any of you done any deployments of cameras connected over WiFi? How do your customers work around issues like powering mounted cameras but still maintaining physical security of the installation?

MC
Marty Calhoun
Oct 02, 2016
IPVMU Certified

Have you heard of POE power/connectivity with the use of an Ethernet switch?

(1)
(5)
U
Undisclosed #2
Oct 02, 2016
IPVMU Certified

Lots of wireless cameras don't have POE.

U
Undisclosed #1
Oct 03, 2016

Yes, of course. However, if you have access to a switch then you wouldn't be connecting the camera over WiFi, you'd have your data path already setup...

I know you can purchase PoE injectors and push power that way, but that would still require cat5 cable runs from where you place the injectors.

Are there building code issues to have an AC-DC power brick in the ceiling or wall? Would be really annoying if the power brick broke down. Thinking more along the lines of a customer that already has a robust WiFi network and does not want to pay for more switches and cable runs.

Avatar
Jon Dillabaugh
Oct 03, 2016
Pro Focus LLC

I just don't get why people bang their heads so hard trying to go against the grain with wireless cameras? Is pulling some CAT5e that hard for you? Going the wireless route is hardly going to be cheaper. Unless you have a very dynamic environment where cameras need moved frequently, I am unsure why anyone is hellbent on using wireless.

(4)
(1)
(2)
Avatar
Kevin Bennett
Oct 10, 2016

We have acres of parking lot with existing power but no data, and no clear shots from building because of trees, bushes, etc. Going wireless is FAR cheaper than trenching, boring, and laying conduit to get data service to the lots. So the answer is "yes", pulling some Cat5e (or Cat6, fiber, <insert cable type>) is that hard for us.

(1)
Avatar
Jon Dillabaugh
Oct 10, 2016
Pro Focus LLC

Wireless backhaul using dedicated PtP or PtMP links is entirely different than using wireless cameras. We frequently use wireless backhaul links.

(3)
Avatar
Kevin Bennett
Oct 10, 2016

Same principle, different equipment. A wireless camera is just a more compact PtP method than using an external Wi-Fi device with a standard camera.

I was replying to your question of "Is pulling some CAT5e that hard for you?" For our applications where we are using Wi-Fi, it is.

Avatar
Jon Dillabaugh
Oct 10, 2016
Pro Focus LLC

The lack of a decent antenna on built in wifi, as well as advanced security features, is a good reason not to use the embedded wifi of a camera. Using a UBNT radio just makes much more sense. Especially if you have multiple cameras on a pole that need a wireless link.

(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Oct 10, 2016
IPVMU Certified

That's a good point. I wonder if any cameras let you external the antenna.

Avatar
Jon Dillabaugh
Oct 10, 2016
Pro Focus LLC

I haven't seen a camera with an SMA connector onboard, but it's entirely possible to do so. At least you could place a higher gain antenna, or directional antenna, directly to the camera. However, I think most wireless cameras in the commercial security world have internal omni antennas with very low gain.

I would still trust a dedicated PtP radio over any integrated wifi chip though. Unless the camera manufacturer can prove it's as safe and secure as a dedicated AP, I would stick with dedicated APs.

(1)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #3
Oct 05, 2016

Jon...have seen lots of covert applications to detect internal theft. Usually includes on-board storage as well.

(1)
(1)
Avatar
Jon Dillabaugh
Oct 05, 2016
Pro Focus LLC

That makes more sense than just trying to use wireless cameras for no other reason than not wanting to pull some cable. There will always be niche cases where wireless is appropriate. But, generally speaking, I don't see the point.

(3)
Avatar
Kevin Nadai
Oct 05, 2016

Thinking more along the lines of a customer that already has a robust WiFi network and does not want to pay for more switches and cable runs.

Don't.

Just. Don't.

I agree with Jon. Wireless (especially Wi-Fi) should only be used as a last resort.

I do understand the temptation as the other day I was playing with a way cool wireless 1080p PTZ camera I can get for $95USD. "Heck, I can just bolt these babies up and use their existing Wi-Fi -- no cabling! And I don't even have to aim the darn things."

Don't be that guy. Unless it is a small system and you want to do it for the learning experience.

If so, here are some things to consider other than just the power problem:

  • Do a wireless survey before committing to the project. There are only so many Wi-Fi channels out there, and especially the 2.4GHz spectrum can get pretty crowded. Many wireless cameras have a survey function built in, or you can get apps for your laptop and smart device. Consider that every employee has at least two (phone and laptop) wireless clients and, well, Youtube.
  • Add up the bitrates coming from the cameras. Will the customer's existing access point be able to handle that much bandwidth?
  • Do use QoS. Video does not like being delayed, since it is continuous and pours into buffers until they tip over. Do they use Wi-Fi for cordless phones? What happens when there might be a phone call vs. streaming video situation?
  • Eventually, your customer might want cameras outside. Check to see if Wi-Fi makes it out there, or you will have to consider an outdoor access point.

Wireless cameras tend to be more expensive than their ethernet counterparts. And transmitters do burn out eventually. I think any savings in cabling and network appliances might be taken up by more expensive cameras with shorter lives and much more of your time configuring the network.

(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Oct 06, 2016
IPVMU Certified

Wireless cameras tend to be more expensive than their ethernet counterparts.

$95 bucks for a 1080p PTZ is pretty cheap with or without wires, no?

I think any savings in cabling and network appliances might be taken up by more expensive cameras with shorter lives and much more of your time configuring the network.

What's the average install cost per camera, $100/200?

Do you think that wired cameras will last 2 or 3 times as long?

Wireless cameras also don't need a POE switch, cuz they come with a (hideous) wart, maybe that explains some of the price difference?

Avatar
Kevin Nadai
Oct 06, 2016

$95 bucks for a 1080p PTZ is pretty cheap with or without wires, no?

Agreed, which is why I bought it. The imager is okay, the low light performance is poor, the LEDs have little reach, the zoom is only 3x or so, and the speed is slow. What I meant was that an IP camera with a Wi-Fi transceiver will cost more than the same one without. No fair comparing an Axis or Bosch (wonderful people, fine products) with an Alibaba Wi-Fi camera.

What's the average install cost per camera, $100/200?

An integrator I know charges a base rate of $1500 per camera. That includes the camera, mounting hardware, cabling, real estate on the network appliances, license back at the VMS (if any) and labor to install. Your point might be that installation of a Wi-Fi camera would be much less, and I would agree. My point would be the hassle of configuring and troubleshooting Wi-Fi, in the long run, will be even higher. RF has, like, quantum mojo that can eat up troubleshooting hours like standing in line at the DMV.

Do you think that wired cameras will last 2 or 3 times as long?

I do. I use DD-WRT to "hack" my home Wi-Fi access point to cover the two acres of verdant and bucolic Michigan wilderness that is the Nadai Compound. DD-WRT allows me to boost the RF output, and because of that, I end up replacing access points every 2-3 years. Transmitters eventually burn out. Certainly, today's IP cameras can last 2-3 times that long. Now that we no longer have tubes or nicotine to deal with (I'm old, okay?), who knows how long today's IP cameras can last?

Wireless cameras also don't need a POE switch, cuz they come with a (hideous) wart, maybe that explains some of the price difference?

I do not understand this comment, literally. Of what wart do you speak?

I could be wrong about everything. A wise person only believes half of what I say, and a genius knows which half.

Perhaps it is incompetence on my part, but it seems like anytime I touch wireless, it always takes much longer than I expect, and follow-up service calls are more frequent and frustrating.

(2)
Avatar
Jon Dillabaugh
Oct 06, 2016
Pro Focus LLC

Great post Kevin, and I hate to rain on your parade with a more serious post, but I have to say that maxing out the wifi signal on a router in order to connect to an end device that doesn't have the same ability is pointless. Sure, your phone will show a signal from you router at a further distance, but that doesn't increase the abilities of the phone to communicate BACK to the router. IP is a two way street, let's remember.

In fact, doing the opposite would have a much greater effect. Lower the output and install MORE routers/APs. Try your best to match the abilities of your lowest strength end device. If you find that the signal strength isn't good enough in a given area of your palace, add another AP to accommodate.

(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Oct 06, 2016
IPVMU Certified

...but I have to say that maxing out the wifi signal on a router in order to connect to an end device that doesn't have the same ability is pointless.

Why? If you have 5 bars from the AP to the iPad and 2 from the iPad to the router, and 99% of the traffic goes from the AP to the iPad, (web pages, not cloud ip cameras), i would think that would be an improvement.

Plus, I'm guessing that Kevin may have a big-ass antennae as well...

(1)
Avatar
Jon Dillabaugh
Oct 06, 2016
Pro Focus LLC

I disagree. Even if a majority of your "traffic" is downloads vs uploads, there is generally an equal amount of packets in both directions.

(1)
(1)
Avatar
Kevin Nadai
Oct 06, 2016

Jon is correct; TCP communication requires a packet-by-packet two-way conversation. I suppose UDP wouldn't need that but that is not my application.

In my case, I have an access point at the house with an omnidirectional antenna in order to serve the entire compound. The far office building has a directional antenna serving a wireless bridge that essentially turns Wi-Fi back into wired LAN. Good strong signal outbuilding to house, not so much the other way around. I boosted RF a bit and it made quite a difference.

With that said, more RF power only gets you a little more range, which is all I needed in this case. A much bigger improvement was the advent of the 802.11n standard. And the farther you go, antenna height and directionality (gain) become much more important than RF power.

(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Oct 06, 2016
IPVMU Certified
.
U
Undisclosed #2
Oct 06, 2016
IPVMU Certified

I have to say that maxing out the wifi signal on a router in order to connect to an end device that doesn't have the same ability is pointless.

This is easy enough to test, no?

The usual wager?

Avatar
Jon Dillabaugh
Oct 06, 2016
Pro Focus LLC

What is the usual? I don't even recognize you.

(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Oct 06, 2016
IPVMU Certified

Sorry, "the usual wager" is a bit obscure.

To be clear, you are saying that it will be of no benefit to the device to increase the transmitting power of the router, if the device is transmitting at less power?

So

router 250mw and laptop 250mw should perform the same as

router 500mw and laptop 250mw, right?

while browsing the internet or streaming a movie say.

U
Undisclosed #2
Oct 06, 2016
IPVMU Certified

Of what wart do you speak?

I speak of the wart-of-the-wall, that trashy transformer, awkward adapter and burdensome brick. The bane of real integrators everywhere.

(2)
Avatar
Jon Dillabaugh
Oct 06, 2016
Pro Focus LLC

You have no ground to stand here?

(3)
U
Undisclosed #2
Oct 06, 2016
IPVMU Certified

Nah, I'm not gonna fight for wall-warts.

I'm just waiting for wireless power with a 30ft range, then we can talk aesthetics.

Wireless Power: What Will You Use It For?

(1)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #3
Oct 05, 2016

Jon...agree. Tried to use some Bosch wireless cameras a while ago. Not very straightforward. Lots of issues with channels, etc. I guess wireless cameras are one of the last resorts.

HD
Heng Dju Ong
Oct 06, 2016
IPVMU Certified

Other than the wireless itself is easily being jammed/lack of secure streaming, the bandwidth issue and crowded frequency with the access point devices, I still see that the no data cable run is a good enough reason for certain end-users as they want to just install the wireless camera using their existing power outlets (most of the power outlets are already in place, no new fixer upper mess).

I installed some WiFi cameras simply because users hate to see cable running around and in other case they don't like the process of putting up cable no matter how short the time to do that. Even though I explained to them the cons, they still think wireless (WiFi) is a better choice. It baffled me at the beginning but it's part of the bigger trend of faster vs. secure or faster/neater vs. secure you pick....

Its one of those thing in the market, a bit off the course of mainstream but if they pay the bill then why not?

Mostly for this category would be small & medium enterprise or home/small shops though.

UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #4
Oct 10, 2016

Wire-less Camera......... Hmmm wouldn't that be a Battery Operated camera ? :-)

FM
Frantz Mathias
Oct 10, 2016

Hi

I did investigate wireless cameras. They work in some environment. The added complexity of the installation must however not be taken lightly:

You must conduct RF surveys of the location. We are IT integrator and have had our shares of coverage varying at different time of the day. Multiple Surveys need to be conducted at various times during the day and the week. This add considerably to the cost.

The other thing is powering the AP and Clients/cameras, the subject of the OP. One can rely on local power but for the most part few people have facility-wide UPS or other Power continuity systems. a 10 seconds blackout may results in several minutes of video loss. AP has to reboot, Cameras have to reboot. AP and camera have to reconnect .. Those processes may take more than few tens of a seconds... a minute is quite enough for a lot to happen and not be recorded or monitored. So you are back to use centralized power scheme.. UPS or battery backed-up Power with ... a wire, defeating the entire wireless purpose.

I learned it the hard way :(

(2)
(1)
Avatar
Kevin Bennett
Oct 10, 2016

We (an end user) have been trying out a wireless solution using Ubiquiti Wi-Fi products and external power supplies for the cameras.

We have had success using directional antennas or units (e.g., Ubiquiti Nanostation at the camera location, Ubiquiti Rocket with sector antenna at the consolidation point) connected to enterprise class cameras. We have not tried using cameras with built-in wireless at this point, although I do plan to give it a try.

These installations have been in parking lots. The lots had some existing power (lighting) that we were able to utilize to power the cameras using external power supplies mounted in NEMA boxes on the poles.

Avatar
Kevin Bennett
Oct 10, 2016

And as for wireless security, we utilize hidden SSIDs, MAC filtering, VLANs, strong passwords, etc.

On a side note, we have Arecont Vision AV20185 (4 x 5MP) cameras at full resolution connected to Avigilon ACC5 via the Ubiquiti wireless method and have had good results.

New discussion

Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.

Newest discussions