This Manufacturer Shuns IP Cameras

Coaxial solutions are getting better and better. CVI and TVI have both made nice steps, so I am not suprised another coaxial solution.

But choosing a cheaper product to avoid the race to the bottom seems counterproductive.

Clinton says its EX-SDI products are competitively priced with HD analog solutions, keeping with the generally cheaper pricing of various HD analog options as compared to IP-based systems.

If racing to the bottom is not what you want, that statements conflicts with choosing a cheaper product.

Choosing not to offer the same as everyone else does make sense, but that can be done by simply not specifying all your components including partnumers etc, but rather specifying the solution.

John, what's with the Click-Bait for title?  Why not just lead off with Clinton Electronics? 

If I learned anything from Clinton’s video, it was within the last six seconds when they showed us that WDR performance is better on SDI.  Sold.  </sarcasm>.

We had some experience with HD-SDI when it first became widely available in the CCTV segment somewhere between 2010-2013. Back then we found it had (or at least the products we did use) serious limitations:

- Short running distance - after 90-100 m picture quality seriously degraded, in many cases it was totally lost

- Video signal was highly susceptible to interference caused by lower quality coax cable and/or using mainstream BNC connectors. Expensive high quality gold plated BNCs had to be used in order to make sure distances of over 70-80 meters would be reached without losing the signal. Using Cat5 UTP/FTP cable was also out of the question.

- HD-SDI Cameras/DVRs were not compatible with older analogue cameras, so they were economically not feasable as an easy-to-do upgrade

When the CVI / AHD/ TVI technologies appeared, they basically solved exactly those same issues and became the natural choice for the lower end systems - no matter if it is an upgrade of an existing CCTV system or a totally new one. 

In my view, the decision of this company to focus on HD-SDI was not driven by some technological advantages, but the possibility to "lock' customers to their offering. Once you have a HD-SDI system and you need an upgrade with HD-SDI cameras - there are not many companies selling this, so it makes the SDI a kind of "exclusive" offering which would distinguish the company from the rest.

Actually stating that it helps "in avoiding getting caught up in the race to the bottom" is also strange, as even Longse offers tons of EX-SDI cameras now:

I have several Clinton DVR's and cameras deployed at the dump. Clinton is avoiding the race to the bottom because their product line is already there.

That's a bold strategy Cotton... 

I want to address some things that have come up in the comments around this report.

In short, I believe that Clinton has "shunned" IP cameras in their current business. This is based on the fact they have had a very limited IP product lineup in their surveillance solutions, have promoted EX-SDI heavily, and have used Axis cameras when they needed IP camera capabilities in one of their main product lines (PVMs). 

When I spoke with Dan Clinton, I was upfront about the fact that the lack of IP cameras/recorders in their catalog/website was what I found most notable. I found it intriguing that Clinton was able to offer a surveillance lineup in the current atmosphere that ignored IP solutions, and also focused on a more esoteric option in EX-SDI. This was much different than the approach some manufacturers/brands have taken around OEMing HD analog gear and selling their "value add" around things like support or warranty, etc.

Dan is correct that we discussed some of their PVMs that featured IP cameras. However, these utilize Axis cameras, not an IP system designed or sourced by Clinton. While we left PVMs out of the report, because that was not the core focus, I think the fact they use Axis cameras in the PVMs further highlights how Clinton is not putting a lot of R&D effort into IP cameras, instead using Axis products in their PVMs. 

When the report was initially published, Dan sent me a couple of minor corrections via email (e.g.: I had them listed as selling HD analog products, which he clarified as being SD analog, not HD analog, and some comments on EX-SDI vs. HD-SDI). He did not state that the title or report itself was inaccurate or misrepresented them. This is hopefully due in part to the fact that we did not claim anything like "Clinton vows no IP ever!". Clinton may change their strategy around EX-SDI/IP in the future. If they do, we may cover that change and how/why it came about. For now, though, "shunning" IP cameras certainly sets them apart in some ways.

CLINTON ELECTRONICS serves a niche market. And by the way, every single camera on the market serves a niche. Can anyone here argue against that a proper CCTV deployment, delivering the maximum quality of picture, is a custom application completely contingent upon the individual environmental conditions? Isn't that what sets the trunk-slammer apart from the pro? (oh, and by the way...Service after the fact. But more on that later...one point completely missing from the debate above so far.).

Next, I really don't give a hoot about what the big installation companies are doing because I'm not one of them. And last time I checked, they don't buy CCTV installations from me. They have NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING to teach me. (that last little diddy does NOT include IPVM ;})) Moving along, most arguments citing, or implying, 'industry trends' also mean little to me. In contrast, what is happening right outside my front door, with my particular market sector - and my ability to read THOSE tea leaves - is what matters. Anyone looking for middle-of-the-road, one-size-fits-all, silver bullets in terms of the perfect technology is looking too far over the horizon if the next fiscal quarter means anything to them.

Today is August 2020. CLINTON now has 4MP and several hybrid DVRS that are also well thought out, in my humble opinion. They are doing fine.

Finally, my clients and yours don't give a hoot about anyone's CCTV but their own. Those clients, ESPECIALLY small businesses and homes, have 16 cameras and usually get by on less. Why? Budgets. Small businesses are also pissed at being 'sold' on CCTV that seems to keep getting outdated relative to how long they were expecting to use their (usually) coaxial, analog systems. So you keep it up, telling them once again that not only are their cameras and DVR in need of replacement, BUT THEIR ENTIRE CABLE PLANT NEEDS ABANDONING (oh, you were intending to pull out the RG59 for them? Or will your bid put the abandonment clause in small print??).

These successful small businesses are still around today because they've come to trust their very frugal instincts. Big shocker, lower cost is still King. During the closing process, these prospects wait to commit until the 'other foot falls'. They want to be 'wowed' - and Clinton delivers picture clarity, ease of installation (existing coax up to 1400ft before repeaters. yes, they can repeat too), very little network integration (small business translate complicated network upgrades as a security risk they do not comprehend) compared to IP. Don't pass by that fact soooo quickly Friend. Network integration is a completely auxiliary function to the camera product MOST OF THE TIME for this market sector. Ask a rural small business person how much fun it is for them to retain good IT help. BAM! That foot landed - they commit. The installing company even provides the proverbial cigarette afterwards....TOP QUALITY SUPPORT FOR YEARS AFTER THE SALE. These clients love support, as they should. Proudly, the Clinton Team and I deliver.

Dan is more cautious than I so I will say it. We are Americans building American products as best we can. I'm no purest here but please, stay on this continent as much as you can. And if that isn't important to you, then....you know.

And guess what folks...LABOR, is still a respectable portion of the installation cost. Anyone else out there experiencing shortage of qualified new hires? That is tough, but it also happens to puts US on the winning side of the Supply/Demand continuum (folks, raise your prices).

Any layman suspects, if the installer doesn't have to re-cable with CAT5 in order to attain 1080p, or higher by-the-way, for all or most of the client's upgrade, then the labor cost kicks my competing IP bids' a$$. Which incidentally leaves more room for the other portion of the installation cost not yet mentioned here.....PROFIT MARGIN...and if you are set up to install like a Champ...a healthy profit margin.

Profit margin.If you don't know your short, medium, and long numbers what the heck does it matter - you'll be out of the game soon enough. Profit margin. PM.

Apparently the only point you (#15) have to make is to crack a funny...which is no point at all.

Meanwhile, I fully admit that my perspective is very narrow and clearly doesn't apply to the majority of strategies. But using SDI for 2MP and 4MP applications for small installations, especially when the existing cable plant is salvageable, is a completely viable option. Clinton's AVMS software, for remote management of DVRs, is very good. I have used it for medium businesses (gyms) that have multiple locations with camera counts up to 64 per network connection. Also, AVMS can support simultaneous connections that bring the total available camera count even higher.

If a re-cabling is required, I still choose SDI because of the nearly ZERO latency while streaming live no matter how many cameras you are viewing at the head end. With IP, the more cameras the client wants, the more you are managing latency/choppiness/robotic playback issues.

I think the popular rise in IP camera solutions is in part due to people in the IT industry wanting to get add-on value to their existing portfolio. And I don't blame them for that. Of course, I am not saying SDI is perfect for everybody. The learning curve involved in any change of vendor has it's own cost to bear. I think IP cameras have popular momentum because of the army of IT people out there with an existing client base in place already - and good for them.

But you are not going to convince me that IP beats out SDI for:

- cabling infrastructure

- cost effective head-end

-power management

-distance limitation

-material cost

- manufacturer support

Just because SDI has a small market share and will always be small doesn't make it wrong for that reason alone - and that's the primary argument I seem to hear against it.

I can take a joke, and I won't tell you not what to use your keyboard for. And 'Thank You' for responding to my opinion, truly.

I hope our discourse is useful however opinionated.

PM