Camera Comparison Tool Released

By John Honovich, Published Nov 26, 2014, 12:00am EST (Info+)

Now you can find the exact differences between multiple camera models you are considering, with the new IPVM Camera Comparison Tool.

Don't just guess or try to compare data sheets, IPVM instantly shows what specific features match and differ across 39 categories.

**** ** ***** ****** ***** ****** in ********* ******** * ******* ****, **** **:

***** ** ** *** *** *** compare **** ***** ** *** ** 2000+ ***** ****** ******, **** **:

**** ** *********** ******* *** **** *****-** *** the ******** *.*-**-**-**(***** ***** ** *** **** *******):

** ******, *** *** ******* *** model ** *** ***** ***** *** desire.

**** *** **** ***** ************ ** look **:

***** *** **** * *** ** examples.

** ** ********* ********* *** ** *** ********.

Comments (21)

When comparing cameras of different resolutions you should add a "replacement" factor. EG: Camera1 is 5MP it can replace 2.5 units of Camera2, which is 2MP.

:)

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

I am going to add 'Pixels Per Dollar' to celebrate Arecont!

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny: 1

We all know your secret bias for Arecont anyway. You list them near the top of every sorted list ;)

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny: 3

Any possibility of adding support for Multicast via ONVIF? I know it's a rather unique specification but the problem I've encountered is that many manufacturers actually don't even know if their cameras have that capability or not. Way too many manufacturers have claimed support but when we tried to get that function to work, it did not.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

multicast via ONVIF?

It might be worth adding in multicast as that would be straightforward to check / add.

But you specifically want multicast supported via ONVIF? Ethan, is it required or optional for ONVIF conformant cameras to support multicast?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

ection 8.12 of onvif profile s spec demands device that support multicast at all to support it via onvif.

on practice, that mean multicast is optional, as nobody cares to compare onvif features with other protocol/access method features of the same camera.

i am not 100% sure, but this feature should be mentioned in camera feature list available from onvif site (for conformant devices).

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Yes, Multicast via ONVIF. Our system, as configured, requires that capability.

We could add servers to alleviate that need but we don't want to spend the money or add to the system's complexity and to its rack space, cooling and power requirements.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Hi Carl!

There is a feature in ONVIF Declaration of Conformance data on ONVIF site. For example (see comment below) for Axis Q1615-E it is here. If you look into feature list link (btw, Safari is not opening it, but FireFox works fine), you can see the list of features at the end of file. if there is RTPMulticastUDP among them - device is supporting multicast via ONVIF and this feature was actually verified by Test Tool.

BR, Alex

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Thanks Alexander. That may work. I confirmed that the Sony SNC-WR600 we tested says " <RTPMulticast>false</RTPMulticast>", which jibes with our tests.

Now, if only there was a spec that says whether a camera can synch with our Spectracom NetClock 9489 time server. A Bosch NIN-733 wouldn't, nor would any Vivotek cameras.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

ntp is a bit different. Onvif assumes ntp as 3rd party standard and only referencing to it. Moreover, test tool is NOT checking how device actually working with ntp. It only check some flags that device expose, and if device claims ntp support than test tool tryes to play with ntp, but only check that onvif interface is working properly.

as for yours sony camera, it claims ntp and can be configured to work with it via onvif. Will it actually work? At least the same way as if configured with web interface.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Any plans in the future to be able to compare more than 2 cameras at once?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

We have talked about comparing more than 2 cameras internally. We'll take that as a vote for that! I am not sure if or when we are doing that, mostly because we are trying to figure out the optimal way to lay out some functionality / results.

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

hi John,

thank you for sharing this tool!

just a question: What is the ownership status of that information (it is yours or respective manufacturers), and do you have an API to access it from 3rd party applications?

sorry if this is something well-known -- i am a nubie here????

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Alexander,

There is not an API, primarily because we have not seen or heard from anyone who would want it.

As for the ownership status of the information, we own the code to organize / filter / query the information. As for the details itself (e.g., that the Axis Q1615-E is an outdoor camera with true WDR and 1080p resolution), I am not sure how anyone owns or does not own that. Those are simply facts describing an object. I do not see that as being a practical issue.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

John, thank you for a quick answer.

sorry for unclear question: I mean ownership in programmer-centric sence, as where is this data comes from (ex you have your own database, or you have an engine that is asking vendor's databases or something else). So, how this data is complete and precise?

as for the first part of the question (about api), will it be ok if i will play with your data (or should i call it data gateway) from say python script to prove/false hypothesis i have?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

We compiled it by reading through datasheets, using our own knowledge, etc. We have our own internal database and have normalized the data accordingly.

What hypothesis do you want to test?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Hi John, sorry for late reply!

My hypothesis is that there may be a value in comparing general view with ONVIF-centric view.

Let try with your example: Axis Q1615-E.

features in your database - Axis - Q1615-E

features in ONVIF database - http://www.onvif.org/DesktopModules/ONVIF_PAProductsDisplay/ONVIF_ViewProductFile.aspx?FilePath=6354648381716032462XMLFileDoc.xml

can we see any special in ONVIF report? yes, a bit:

  • camera is fast - typical command processed in 23 milliseconds (yes, this is not exellent, but please compare with other cameras!!!)
  • camera have IPv6 support (btw, is it really a need in closed networks?) and DDNS - so suitable for cloud installations
  • does not support HTTPS (at least from ONVIF point of view)
  • support multicast ([Feature]RTPMulticastUDP[/Feature]) - this is answering Carl's question
  • support PTZ (strange! may be digital PTZ?)
  • support configurable alarm input and output (1:1)
  • other features are either ONVIF-specific either not interesting

what is not there:

  • audio full-duplex (ONVIF recognized only direct link, as there is no backchannel feature). this is typical by now, may be a change next year
  • Auto-Iris / Auto-Focus / Number of independent channels - as camera is using old version of ONVIF there are no such info in XML

what is explicitly missed - ProfileG feature (on-board storage)

what I am asking you: is it possible to compare your database (via web interface. Now I know that most interesting data is for PRO-only) with ONVIF database? Will it be possible to share aggregate statistics (without disclosing PRO-only RAW data) to 3rd parties? Naturally, I can share it with you if you are interested.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Theres been alot in the news about artificial intelligence replacing the human race.....your tools might be replacing us before long! Love them though so keep improving them. I look forward to the day I can shoot a short video tour of a site, plug it into your "future tool" and have the entire design, complete with drawings and parts list spit out! :) Am I asking for too much?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Noticed something weird in camera finder:

From the opening screen it seems to be filtering ~300 cameras right off the top.

Also, not that it's necessarily wrong, but does the average price seem to be a little on the high side at $1674, considering the only mfrs with higher avg. prices than that are Pelco ($2200) and AD ($2000)?

It's fun and a good exercise to try to find the most dissimilar cameras you can, it's harder than you might think to find one with just 2x the differences...

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

The cameras that it is filtering out are those that are discontinued. We recently made a decision to not show them, by default, as the goal of the finder is to find products that are available for sale now.

I believe there is a bug in the average calculation. I did 6 queries, and 4 of them were right, but 2 of them were off.

I did a direct db query and got an average price of ~$900. That said, the median price is ~$500.

We are going to fix that bug and also display both the mean and median in the calculation function / display. Thanks.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

The average calculation tool has been fixed and improved. It now calculates both mean and median values. For example:

  • For all in-production cameras in the Finder, Mean price is $908 and median price is $620.
  • For all PTZ cameras, the Mean price is $2,392 and median price is $2,090.
  • For all Pelco cameras, the Mean price is $1,734 and median price is $860.

You can certainly run whatever combinations you desire. The above are just a few examples.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts reporting, tutorials and software funded by subscriber's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.
Loading Related Reports