Given the proliferation of Video analytics into mainstream cameras, does it make sense to have an industry inter-operability standard to allow analytics from different/independent developers/companies to talk to different VMS/camera platforms?
Does one already exist? If not, any organisation that would be best placed to create and drive it apart from Onvif?
The issue with analytics and standardization is how far the standardization goes and what tasks it covers. It generally falls into multiple categories:
Event integration: This would simply mean that the camera transmits event data to the VMS. So if a line is crossed, an event is triggered, and an alarm can be created, recording started, etc.
This, in theory, is possible today. I believe some manufacturers are doing it. For example, we connected a Uniview camera to Exacq for testing, and Exacq shows multiple rule options in Event Linking.
But if you look at Exacq's supported device list, they do not claim support for Uniview analytics. So I suspect this is an ONVIF integration (which we're confirming as part of additional testing).
The issue is many manufacturers simply don't support this method. Many claim to provide analytic events over ONVIF but they do not simply appear in VMSes.
Bounding boxes: Analytic events are the first step, but many users prefer bounding boxes be included in any integration as well to highlight objects and their path. However, this is not required by ONVIF, and I would have to check the Profile documents to see if it's even supported. Even widely used manufacturers such as Axis or Bosch do not integrate bounding boxes to most VMSes.
Configuration: The bigger issue is how analytic rules are configured. This is a much more complex integration than events or bounding boxes. Some manufacturers simply use the camera for rule configuration, which avoids issues, but may not be preferable since it's decentralized and requires users to go to each device. Others use a configuration tool, like Bosch IVA or Axis Perimeter Defender, which centralizes configuration but then a separate software is required for recording/event management, etc.
However, others perform analytic configuration only through their VMS, such as Avigilon. There is no way to configure Avigilon analytic rules without licensing the camera through Avigilon Control Center. So even if ONVIF or other integrations worked for events/bounding boxes, using them with another VMS would effectively double up on license cost, making it pretty unlikely anyone would do so, except in niche circumstances, such as takeovers.
I agree it would be great to see analytics more widely supported and the format standardized, but I think we're still years from it. I think there is some slow movement, such as manufacturers beginning to use the ONVIF framework for events, but it's not widespread.
Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.
