I find it shocking that any client is still willing to shell out anywhere close to a grand for a very underwhelming 2MP camera in 2020.
And PTRZ is ostensibly an installer-only bonus; it isn't meant to be used by the client in a PTZ-type function. I am genuinely curious then how integrators are up-selling their clients on a feature that never benefits them? I can see if a manufacturer's entire line comes with PTRZ as then it's standard, but that's not yet the case.
I am genuinely curious then how integrators are up-selling their clients on a feature that never benefits them?
I could see definite value. I have not had the opportunity to sell a PTRZ camera, mostly because of the brands we are constrained to. We work at industrial sites and utilities quite a bit. They are subject to vibration from heavy machinery. Sometimes a camera goes out of focus which P-irises have solved. However we do see scenarios where the camera shifts over time. The cost to a client for them to roll two of our technicians (tech in lift and ground man), rent a lift, stop work in a given area for our access is substantially more than the cost differential between a standard camera and a unit with PTRZ.
That's a very interesting application, I can definitely see PTRZ being useful there as then it becomes a solution to a client problem rather than an installer one.
As it stands though it seems that companies are marketing PTRZ more as a benefit to techs so they can just attach the camera and get down without having to adjust it there. And for this purpose, the added cost and complexity to me just doesn't add up.
I see PTRZ as more of a half-baked implementation of PTZ. As a manufacturer, assuming a varifocal camera you're adding THREE additional motors and the associated engineering/hardware to support them. That is not trivial. It has got to add considerable complexity to the manufacturing process as well as component cost, and all it's for is to get a tech off a ladder five minutes sooner and then never used again!?
Just make the thing a proper mini-PTZ at that point like Hikvision did with their DS-2DE2A404 which costs me $250 CAD wholesale, and is actually a usable PTZ.
PRTZ is an excellent tool for rapid deployment of national rollouts of thousands of cameras. An electrician or cable puller can simply mount the cameras and they can all be aimed and programmed remotely by the parts-and-smarts person. These motors are inexpensive low lifecycle devices meant strictly for installation. PTZ functionality can lead to views being mistakenly moved by operators since controls are typically on the main user UI, where PTRZ controls are kept buried in configuration menus. PTRZ can be added to a variety of lens\chip\sensor combinations where PTZ are limited to specific components. PTZ require a different and more complicated firmware type to be able to program presets, tours, speed, auto tracking, etc., where PTRZ is much simpler addition to a standard fixed dome.
Comparing a company like Hikvision and all the unethical and illegal (by most democratic and free capitalist country standards) that allows them to sell at well below market prices and choosing to support that with your money is a discussion for another time, but not a fair comparison to manufacturers who have integrity in the global market.
I appreciate the detailed explanation from a manufacturer's perspective. That was precisely the information I was looking for to change my opinion about PTRZ.
I was going to leave you an Informative vote, but you just couldn't help yourself with the jab about ethics, could ya?
You know what would stop people from buying Hikvision? If instead of just whining about how unethical they are, manufacturers actually stepped up to the plate and made equal-performing products at equal (or at least within the same ballpark) prices.
Purchased some Ganz ZN-DN332XE dome cameras many years ago with similar PTZ remote adjustment but no rotation. Our environment changes product a lot and I thought this might save some work, but ultimately it was negligible as we needed to physically relocate more often than not due to line of sight issues.
Considering most IP cameras these days have no analogue output, from an installers perspective being able to mount/install and complete all alignment and camera settings from the head-end would be invaluable and time-saving, just not at the sacrifice of picture quality.
I can see value in this for outdoor cams requiring manlifts. Generally, where outdoor cams are deployed you will need to rent a lift 2 to 3 times and perhaps after the security director has a final handover of the project.
If I can reduce my install cost by $100, then I'm in
End user perspective here - PTRZ cams have been a welcome addition for our above 9' installations. I can't count how many times I've aimed cameras with a vendor on a lift, to only need some of them tweaked (for a variety of reasons) once the tech and his lift have departed. Reminds me of the migration from manual to remote-focus lenses.