I am honestly a little surprised by these opinions. Seeing the decent image quality and low price of HD analog cameras along with the ease of configuration when compared with IP alternatives I expected more acceptance. I may be stuck in the past, but I just don't see a need for normal surveillance projects to require more than a 1080p image (if that). Combine this with not having to worry about all of the headaches currently happening around the world with IP devices (botnets, shortage of IPv4 addresses, IP subnetting, etc) and I really expected HD analog to be a better alternative. Do people think that it must be better because it costs more, is more difficult to set up/maintain and is able to be set to resolutions that would provide nothing more than eating up more disk space?
HD Analog Usage Rising But Barriers Growing
The good news for HD analog is that its usage is rising, fairly significantly since our 2015 HD analog usage statistics.
The bad news for HD analog is that integrators rejecting it is also rising, even more significantly compared to 2015.
The result is one of the most polarizing technologies in the industry. This report shares and analyzes those statistics, examining the key barriers and future challenges for HD analog.
HD ****** **********
********** ** *** ********** *********** **** almost ******** ***** ***** ** ****** and *** ***** * ****** ** it:
*********** *** ***** ****** ** ***** it.
2015 **********
********** *** / **** ** ** analog ********* **** **% ** **%, a ****** *******. *******, ********* **** climbed ** *********** *** **** ****** unsure ** *** *** **** ***** it **** ******* ******* **.
HD ****** *****
*********** ***** ** ****** ******** ~**% of *** ******* **** **** **** HD ****** ** ****. ** ****** proponents **** ** ******** **** ** a *****, **** **** ** **** selectively, ***** ****** **** ** * majority (**% ** ****) ** *** time.
*********** ********* ******* ** ****** ***** averaged *** ** ~**% ** ***** total ******* ***** ** ******.
****** **% ** *********** ******** ***** HD ******, **** ********* **** **** it ** ******** *********, ****** ** analog * ********** ***** **** ** their ******* ********:
- "**% ** ****** *** ** *** cost ** ** *******, **** ******* and ***********. *** *** **** **** IP *******"
- "** ****** ***** **%, ** ***** 65%"
- "**% ** ****** / **% **"
- "**:** ****** ** ***** **** ***** coming ** ** ****** *** *** 1080p ******* ** ****** **** ******* available ** *********."
- "*% ****. ** **** **** ****** all ** ** **** ***** *** larger ********** *** ********** *******"
- "*-**%. ** * ***** ****** ** sell ***** *************. **** *** *** budget ******** ** ***** **** ** analog ****** ** ** ******* ***."
- "**%, **** *** *** ** *** requirements ** *** *****"
- "** ****** **** ***** ** ***** 10% ** *** ********. ** ***'* like ********* ** ***. ** ************ use ****** *** ******. *** ** the *** ******** ** *** **** interface ** *** ****** *******. **** just ***'* **** ** **** ** a ******** ***."
- "**% - ****** *** ***** ******* due ** **** ***** ****** ** this *********"
- "** ****** *%, ** **% ****** is **** ** ** ****** ************"
- "** ** *** **** ****** **. We *** ***** ******* *** *** PC *** *** ***** ** ******* with ****** **** ********* *******. ***** is *** ******* **** ** ******. Mostly ** *** ********* ******* *** smaller ***** *** ********* *** ***."
- "**%. ** ****** ** **** *********** for **** *********, *** ***** ****'* many ****."
- "** **** ***** **% ** *** 5% ***. ** **** *** *** if * ****** *** ******** *******. If **** **** ***** **** ******, we ********* *** ** ** *******. We ****** **** ***, * **** there **** **** ***** ********* ******** for *** *** *** ** ***** use ** **** ** ***** ****."
- "** ****** **% / ** **% Most ********'* **** ** **** ** full **. ** ****** ** **** in ********* ***** ** ** *** feasible ** ******* *** ***** *** EoC ******* ***** ***** ** *****."
- "*% ** ******. ********* ******** ** as ***** ** *** *** *** prefer ******* ** ******* **** ** Analog."
- "*% ** ******; ****** ** ** competitive **** ************ * ******** ****** system *** ***** **** ****** *** situations. *** **** ******** *** ******** is *** **** **** ********** *** benefits ***** ** ** ********. **** the ********'* ** ****. ** ******* involved ***, ** ********* **, *** they ********** *** ** ********* *** like *** ** ***** ** ** under ***** *******."
- "** **** **** *%. ******** ** sell ** ( ** * *** cost *********) ** ***'* ******** ***** it ** *********; ** **** *** customer ***** ** ******* ** ****** for ********* *******."
- "*% ** ****** ** **% **."
- "%** ** *******. **** * *** projects *** *** *******."
- "****** ** (**%). ** **** *** HD ****** *** **** ***** ********** and ********. *** **** ********* *** medium ** ***** ***** ********** *** government. **** ** ** ***** ***** used *** *** ****."
*********** ********* * ***** ********** ** HD ****** ******** ********* ***** ** analog's *** **** ******* ******: ****, and ******* ** ***** ***** (***** is ****** **** ******* **** ** cost-saving). **** ***** ******** ** ******* of **% ** *** ******* **** installed **** ** ******:
- "**% ** ** **% **, *** to *** **** ** ************ ******* and **** ** ** ********."
- "**/**. *** **** ****** ** *** sold ** ****** *** **** ******** by ***** **** ** *** ******** cabling. ****** *** ********* **** *** image *******."
- "***% ** ******. ********* ** *********** market *** ********* ******** ****** ******* at * ******* **** ** ***'* have ** ******* *** *** *** new ******* ** ****."
- "**/** ******* **** ** ** *** reuse ** **** **** ********** *********** IP."
- "******** **% **** ** ******. ** is ***** ****** **** ******* *** cable ** * ********. *** **** new ******** ** ****** *** ****** due ** ****. *** **** *** is *** *** **********, ** ** easier ** **** ******* ** *** all *** *************. *** *** ******** factor ** ***** ** ****** ** retrofit ****** ** *** *** ********** available *** **** ********** ***** ********** for ** *******."
- "**% ** ****** &**% ** ** had * *** ** ******* ******** systems **** *** *** **** ** spend *** ***** *** *** *****"
- "**% ** ****** ** **% **. Because ***** ************* & **** ********* resolution *** ** ******."
- "**/**, ********* ******."
- "**'* **% ** ** ******. ******* we **** * *** ** ***** (low ***) *******. *** ** ** compare *******, **'* **% ** **."
- "**% ** *** ******* *** ****** analog ** ** ******. ********* *** still **** ***** *********. ** *** offer ** ** ****** ******* **** we *** ***** **. ** *** still ****** *** ********** *** ** with **************."
- "* ***** *** ****** **/**. ** HD ****** **** * **** ******* stand *****. ** ***/***** ******** ** the ******** ***** ** **** * little ***** ** **** **** ** going ** **** ****** *** ***** run *** ****/**** *** ******** **** for * ********** **** ** ** as ******."
- "**-**. ******* ****** ** ******* ** systems. ** **** ********* *** **** customers. **** *********** *** ** **** to ****** *** ***** *****"
Reasons *** ********* ** ******
* ******* ****** *********** **** *** rejecting ** ****** *** * ***** on ****** *********/*******, ***** ** ****** did *** **** ***** ********, ** had ******* *********** **** ** *******:
- "***% **. ** **** ****** ** large *** ************, *** ******** *** design *********** **** ** ******* **."
- "***% ** ***.....** **** **** ** Axis (** *** **** ******* **********)."
- "* **** *********** **** ** ****** and +** ******* ******. * ******** analog ** ** ** **** *** small *******."
- "**% ** **. ** **** **** on *** ***** ******** ** ** such ******** **** ****** ****** ** invest ** ***** ************, **** ****** IP."
- "***% **. ** *** ********** ******** installing * ***** *** ************** *** just ***** ************ ** *** ** option."
- "*%. ** ***'* *** ** ******. It ** *** **** ** ***'* believe ** ** * ****** ****** for **** ******. *** *** ***** and ************* ***'* *** ****. ** see **** ** * ******* *** cheaper *******."
- "***% ** - ** ** ****** - ******* ** ****'* *********, ******* or ********** ******** **** **** *.* MP **********. **** **'* *** ***** cellphones *** ****** ***** ********* ***, who ****** ***** ****?"
- "*% *****'* **** * ****** ***. It *****'* **** ***** ** * professional *********** **** *** **** ******* switches ******* *********** ******* *** **********. For *** *** **** ****** ****** runs ** *** *** ********."
- "*%. ** ***'* **** *** ******* price ********* ******** **** ***** ********* toward ** ******. ********** ******* *** even ******-***** ********** *** ****** **."
- "** *** ******** ** *** ******* to ** ** ** ***'* ***** our ****."
- "***% **. ** ***'* ******* ** analog ** * **** ******** *** our *********."
- "***% **. ** **** ***** **** HD ******. * ***** ******** ** in * ***** ** ** ** upgrade ***** *** ******** ******* ****** could ** ****** *** ***** ****** advise **-******* ** **** ** *** more ****** ***** *** ***** *** cables ** ******* **** **** ** you ***'* **** *** ******* ** the ****** *** ***** ************. * would **** ******** ***** ******** ******* cables ** * ***** ***** **** are **** ********* *** *** ******* was ** *** **** ********* *** cables **** *** ******* **-******."
- "*%. ** **** **** ** *********. We *** * ******* **** ******** many ********* ******** **** *** ****** on *** ******* ** ** ***** only **** ***** **** *** ******* we **** **** *** ******* *****."
- "* ** ******. ** *** * broader ***** ** ****** *******."
- "*%, ******* **** *** ** ****** do *** **** **** ****** *** existing *******."
- "*** ******* **. *** ** ****** as ** *********** ****-** ****-****** ** native ** **** *** **** ********* proprietary ***********"
- "*% ** ******, **% **. ** fits *** ******* ****** ******, *** when **** ** *** *** ******* factor ** **** ****** ****** *** quality *** ************* **** ** ******* allow."
Barriers ** ** ******
****** * ********** *** ******** *****, we *** * ****** ** ******** barriers ** ** ******:
- **** ** ***** ***** ******* - Only * ** *** ~** ******* manufacturers (*********, *****, ******) **** ***** HD ******. ******* ** ****, **** integrators *** *** ***** ****** (*.*., Axis, ********, ****, *********, ***., ***.) have ** *******.
- ********* ****** **** *** ****** *** do - ***** ********* *** ***** are **** ***** *************, **** **** generally ******** ** ****** ** * lower *** / ****** ****** ** IP, ***** **** *** ***** ** sales *** *********.
- ******* ******* ******* - **** ** analog ******* *** ***** ***, ******* offerings, **** * **** ** **** factors *** ******** ******** (**** ****** the ********** *****, ***** ** ****** now ** *** *** ** *** range).
- ******* ******* ******* - **** ** large ******* ****** ** *** ** analog, *** ******* ****** ** ******* options ***** **** **** *********.
Positive ****** ** ***
** *** **** ****, ** ****** has ***** **** ********* ******* ** 2012 ** * ******** **** ****** half ** *********** ***, ******* ***** barriers. ****** ** ***** *****.
Negative / ********** *** ******
** ****** ** ******* ****** **********, format ************* *** ****** ***** **** Coax. *** ** ***** ****** ****** help **********.
*******, ****** **** ***** ****** *** HD ****** ******** *** ****** *** current *** * ** ****** ************* emphasize ***** ******** **** ** ***** marketing, ** ****** ** ****** ** remain ** *** ***** *** ** the ****** ** * *****, *** constrained, ******.
Do people think that it must be better because it costs more, is more difficult to set up/maintain...
The manufacturers spent a decade convincing everyone IP was better. This is an important factor.
To be clear, IP is definitely better in many ways but unless most of the (Western) manufacturers offer HD analog, the barriers are going to be hard to overcome.
What specifically do you feel is better about IP over HD analog? I'm not trying to be contrary, just honestly interested in the opinions.
Higher resolution, PoE, structured cabling, on-board analytics, multi-imagers, panoramics, edge recording, lots more of options of where to buy from, various form factors, etc.
I am not saying that all of these are critical to the average application but there are definitely many benefits of IP. Related: HD Analog vs IP Guide 2017
I've always wondered why these features hit IP first and not Analog. I suppose an IP Camera is basically a little computer anyway, it already compresses & process the video before sending it to the NVR (opposite of analog).
I think the answer is that manufacturers LOVE to use the BARE minimum in analog DVRs. They'll never leave processing power unused. I imagine the processing of the information would have to happen on the DVR and have to happen on each channel that it's set up on, which would mean you'd have to actually make a decent DVR to handle that.
No one is putting Intel or AMD in a DVR, so until HiSilicon makes a processor that can do it I suppose we won't see it. I'd love to see it happen though.
Though this year will see the release of 4MP HD Analog cameras, so perhaps analog will have it soon?
"No one is putting Intel or AMD in a DVR, so until HiSilicon makes a processor that can do it I suppose we won't see it. I'd love to see it happen though."
We actually sell that one...though we kinda have to admit it's basically an NVR with a 16 coaxial video inputs (and 16 coaxial audio inputs).
I dont think I've ever seen anyone nail it better in describing the differences in attributes between IP and HD analog in one sentence. Expectations, budget and flexibility affect the choice and one isn't better nor worse than the other.
I chose my good, reliable Honda Accord to go to the market but when I need raw power, capacity and features I've also got a solidly more expensive 4WD, 4 door pickup with a better suspension and far more horsepower than is required, usually anyway :-)
That pretty much sums up the choices the end user client considering HD analog versus IP has to make ahead of time: what do I need to accomplish, what might I need to accomplish in the near future and how much can I spend.
If distributors market this to customers the demand will increase without relevance of a solid security investment. I just see so much DIY box sale kits coupled with the eager trunk slammer startups. It's going to be a balance of quality control and cost design that aids the IPC based security systems. Would you buy a smart phone if it wasn't smart?
I might add this site is IPVM and as such you have a diverse, but adept group of IP video installers/users.
I might add this site is IPVM
That could be a factor, by definition what is not there is hard to tell. Certainly, HD analog is doing well in big box stores / online where price sensitivity is especially important.
Analogue is the better audio format, but for reasons of marketing we have digital content now. Beta was the better video format, but VHS won the war.
Why when we have rejected better formats in other areas in the name of "progress" are we returning to HD cameras? Are we all trying to "race to the bottom"?
It seems to also come down to the level of the installer; if they are focussed on selling to the trade end of town, then cheaper cabling & using electricians instead of installers drives the purchase towards HD.
If the purchasing officer is involved with the IT of the business, then they want the advantage, control & technology they understand in an IP based system.
Forgive me if someone else has already mentioned, but one of the pros of analog would be that the cameras are less vulnerable to exploits. I can see a comparison where IT folks would look at every IP Camera as a potential vulnerability, versus a solution utilizing HD-Analog, IT would only be worried about NVR's and Clients.
I think that is a good point, however organizations with that much awareness of security may also have needs that go beyond the capabilities of what many HD analog DVR's can provide (even with companion PC software).
IMO, a solid cost-effective multi-channel HD analog to IP encoder, to maximize VMS compatibility and ease of integration, could go a long way to make HD analog cameras more attractive than IP cameras in more cases.
One of the main benefits I can see of HD anlog over IP is the ability to utilize the customer's existing coax infrastructure. The need (and cost) to re-cable for an IP system for a customer with multiple legacy analogue cameras, can have a significant negative impact on their final choice.
Limited encoder options - Even if large systems wanted to use HD analog, the limited number of encoder options makes this more difficult.
Question for the group:
I'm not aware of any encoders for AHD, does anyone have any idea of who makes one and perhaps a decoder as well?
For wireless applications. Wireless is IP based, need a way to get this signal to work over an IP based system.