IP Camera Long Distance Ethernet Test

Try UNV. they say if you use UNV NVR and Camera they can guarantee up to 250m operation. I am not sure exactly what models support that though

Could you test Cat6a -v- Cat6 please

Great "what if" stuff. I wish I had more time to do things like this myself. Glad to have IPVM look into these interesting scenarios.

The problem is that these things might verry well work and sometimes they won't. There's no guarantee that it will work if you go behind limits.

That's the purpose of the standards: making sure it works reliably if you stick to them.

I have also seen longer than allowed lengths working just fine. I've also seen a lot of them fail, from time to time or all the time. That's the problem, you never know what it will do now and in the future

What Brand of Cable were you using for the tests?

Great article! While we've all seen this in the field, it is great to see a reputable source verify some of what is seen in the field. I agree completely that it's generally not worth the risk. That said, there have been a few times where we have a 400' run and have decided to chance it without extenders.

Thanks for the test. The subject is very close to my heart, and wallet.

Undisclosed Vs Undisclosed Ethernet Challenge - Who Will Go The Distance?

Maybe had this research come out first I wouldn't have been so incredulous.

Did you use a cable verifier? It would be interesting to see what a high-end one would say.

BTW and IMHO, the biggest limitation and variable when getting out past 500' is something you can't control and varies by mfr.

Namely the twist rate of each pair. They're always different to reduce local crosstalk, which has the effect of making each pair a different total length. This length variation is left up to the mfr.

Different lengths of each pair means different timings, after some point the differences between pairs becomes so great that the interface can no longer keep the signals synced and the link fails.

This is one of the main things that Ethernet extenders either a)regenerate (if inline) or b) tolerate if at the ends, using their own prop methods.

John your tests implies that longer cable lengths work even though you threw in the caveat to follow industry standards. Our field experience says different when it comes to multiple cameras connected to the same POE switch. We had a junior sales engineer do exactly that and almost cost us a customer when cameras started dropping out after several months of working. The more cameras on a switch increases the draw and, in time, will experienced camera failures.

The problem is when an inexperienced installer, after reading a report like yours, ignores the standards and thinks that he can regularly exceed cable length will eventually have failures. The TIA/EIA standard is there for a reason and for you to even suggest that it can be done doesn't mean it should.

I'm glad they tested and posted. This won't change my answer to the question.

As a manufacturer, all I can tell them is we ONLY support a standard installation, using industry standards.

I know for a fact at 900' it doesn't work because I had a guy install a camera at that distance without understanding there is a distance limitation on Ethernet.

He felt we should have listed Ethernet distances on the product box.

Extending runs past standards, 100 meter rule is like driving with your feet. You can do it, but it's probably not a good idea.

Lost in all this is that there is at least one company claiming that their gears is (perdon the pun) geared to exceed the 100 meters limitation.

The thing is we should (and likely will ) see this more often. The introduction of extenders to go past the 100 meter limitation is frustrating to say the least: These are not cheap and don't always "play nice" with switches.

We are also of the advice that IPVM in no way encourages >100 meter lengths. The discussion is a good one: some gears do work past the 100 meter limitation. If someone is naive and inexperienced enough to see the article has an endorsement it cannot be attributed to IPVM.

Very interesting study/experiment.

As you rightly point out following the standards is the only way to go, by way of an example I recently discovered at a coal processing plant located in Australia, 4 IP PTZ cameras with CAT5e cable runs at 150m+ that were not working at all. These cameras had initially been working for a number of months then 1 by one they stopped.

I've seen this as well where a temp installation that marginally exceeded 100m (10m+) worked fine for a couple of months and then stopped completely. I'd be interested to figure out what process caused the failure by aging as the physical installation appeared fine. The cam/nvr combo worked fine with a short test jumper and identical new devices refused to work in the field. Had to install a field switch to shorten distance.

Same as other people here who did not run into an immediate problem going past the max distance, but problems developed later. We've had a couple cases of cameras just occasionally dropping off for no good reason and they'd come up after a switch reboot done remotely in the office. We even replaced a switch and a camera in one instance.

We finally got a tech out who knew what they were doing and in one case the cable was around 360ft and the other around 400ft.

Thanks for the test.
BTW. Network latency already included in your test?
Camera frame rate remain the same after using 300M cable??
Long distance should be drop frame and increase latency in theory.

I'd like to see fluke cable test results for those long runs

If you violate the cable length spec you're in trouble.  Doesn't matter how many magic tools you use to test it.  One screw-up and you'll get to explain it to the customer. Get your cables "certified" (means you burned a grand on a second vendor with actual testing gear who came in, did a test, and delivered an actual report.)