March Networks MP Coax DPoC Camera Examined

By Brian Karas, Published Jun 14, 2016, 12:39pm EDT

Add a new entrant to coax based HD offerings. Instead of joining AHD, CVI or TVI, March has developed a different approach to using / reusing coaxial cable and delivering HD video.

In this note, we examine the offering, its pricing, positioning and comparison to rival HD coax offerings.

********

*****'* ****, ** "**** and ***** **** ****" camera *********** ******** ***-****** coax ******** *** *****-****-**** technologies ********.

**** ******** *** ******** **/**** 1901 [**** ** ****** available] standard, ***** *** **** very ******* ******* ** other ********.

 

Multiple ******* ************* *********

****** ** ****** (***, CVI, ***), ***** ******** point ** ***** ******, DPoC *** ******* ******** topologies, **** **:

*******, ***** **** **** do *** ********* **** than * **** ******* per ***-**** ***********. 

Power **** ****

******* *** **** *********** advantage ** **** ****** is **** ***** **** **** support ** **** (*************** ******* ******** *** Power **** ****).

***** **** **** ** the**** ********* ****** ** ***** the ******, *** ** NVT-1701 [**** ** ****** available] *********** ** ****** as *** **** ********* transceiver.

Closest ********** - *******

*** ******* ******* ********** is *******'* *****, ***** had * ******* ******* approach, ****** ** ******* without *** ********** *****. This ***** ****** *********** market *****, ****** **** was **** **** ** Stardot's ******* ****** ********.

Single ***** ****

**** ** * ****** model ******* ****, ***** currently **** *** **** to *** **** ** any ***** ****** ******** in ***** *********.

***** *** ***** ***** existing MicroDome * [**** ** longer *********] *** ********** *** transmitter / ***********.

 

*****

**** ** *** **** Microdome ** $***. *** ***-**** is ~$*** ******.

**** ** * **% discount *** ****, *** DPoC ****** ***** **** an ********* ***** ** ~$820. **** ***** ** easily ****** *** ***** of ******* ***/*** **** ******* (though ********* ******** ***** cable), *** **** **** ********* than ******* *********** ** cameras **** ******** **** coax ********.

Vs ** ******

*****'* ******** ** *** more ********* **** ** analog ********* *** *** two **** ********, ***** over **** *** ******** architectures, *** ****** ** limited *** ****** *** large / ******* ************.

************

***** **** *** ****** was ********* *** * customer ** *** ************** industry **** * ***** installed **** ***** ***** that ***** *** ** easily ********. **** *** potential *** ***** ************** markets, ** ********* **** hospitals **** *** **** a ***** **** *******.

** *** **** ****** as ****** * **** limited ******, ********** **** compared ** *********** *******.  While ***** ************* ***** implement **** **** *******, the *********** ** **** is **** ***** ***** the ******* ** *** EoC ************ **** ******** cameras, *** *** ******** popularity ** ************ **** TVI.

Comments (16)

Undisclosed #1

06/15/16 02:48am

Nice product. I also love the stardot as well.

If i remember correctly you can also view stardot cameras on your digital TV

Undisclosed #2

IPVMU Certified | 06/15/16 05:19am

The redundant loop thing is cool.

Though I assume you could do the same thing with your own nvt-1701 transceivers and cameras.

Jaime Trujillo

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Undisclosed #2 | 06/21/16 01:17pm

Yes, you definitely can!

Jaime Trujillo

IPVMU Certified | 06/21/16 01:23pm

March's camera is IP. You can't compare analog HD to IP. They are two different technologies, even though (in this case) both cameras are using coax s the trasmission media. Topologies, distances, and features are very different and, thus, don't expect prices to be similar. You should compare this camera with a similar IP cameras from other manufacturers plus an EoC adapter.

Avatar

Brian Karas

IPVM | In reply to Jaime Trujillo | 06/21/16 02:03pm

Jaime -

I think the comparison to HD analog is fair, given that this is only a 3MP camera.

The end user of most systems is going to be more concerned with the output image than with the transmission methodology. The popularity of HD analog systems overall confirms this, which is why that comparison was included.

In terms of the price comparison to other manufacturers and EoC adapters, I think you would find many alternatives much cheaper. A pair of Veracity Highwire EoC units is ~$250, and you can find many 3MP dome cameras under $300, making comparable IP alternatives half the price.

The topology options are interesting, but given that these products are being positioned as a way to re-use existing coax from analog cameras, it does not seem like there would be many cases where the topology is anything other than point-to-point.

Undisclosed #2

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Brian Karas | 06/21/16 03:14pm

The topology options are interesting, but given that these products are being positioned as a way to re-use existing coax from analog cameras, it does not seem like there would be many cases where the topology is anything other than point-to-point.

Though, if I'm not mistaken, it gives you the option of adding cameras either by extending the run, or by cutting into it anywhere along its length. Also, two distant homeruns that come close enough at their end points could be connected to make a redundant loop.

Avatar

Brian Karas

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed #2 | 06/21/16 03:22pm

Yes, it gives you those options, but you're paying a premium for them and it is not very likely many people would do any of those scenarios.

Also, with standard EoC adapters you could add a standard Ethernet switch somewhere along the line, and then just connect regular IP cameras. Given that you wouldn't be paying for an EoC adapter in each camera as you would with this March DPoC unit, it may be cheaper as well.

The redundant loop looks interesting on the surface, but it is mostly just protecting you from a cable cut. While I'm sure that happens, if we're talking about using legacy cables here, and the cables have survived this long without being cut/damaged, what are the odds they will be damaged in the near future? Is mitigating that risk worth the added cost of this approach?

Undisclosed #2

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Brian Karas | 06/21/16 03:48pm

Why do you think new cameras wouldn't be economically added via daisy chaining?

Integrators might not be comfortable for a variety of reasons, one would be unfamiliarity, since neither ethernet nor coax cctv allowed this, however that should not preclude it from consideration.

An interesting question would be "Integrators, if every IP camera allowed daisy chaining, how often would you use it?"

Probably, the biggest objection would be that a single cable failure could cause multiple cameras to go out..

This is where the redundant loop can be used effectively. So combining the two topologies overcomes objections to either.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed #2 | 06/21/16 04:03pm

Why do you think new cameras wouldn't be economically added via daisy chaining?

Because there is only one model that supports this, so every camera on the chain needs to be that one model.

A few other vendors have offered daisy chaining throughout the years, e.g., New Daisy Chain IP Cameras (Vivotek) but it's never gone anywhere.

Undisclosed #2

IPVMU Certified | In reply to John Honovich | 06/21/16 04:34pm

Because there is only one model that supports this, so every camera on the chain needs to be that one model.

Just to be clear, the March "innovation" is only the convienent embedding of an NVT transciever inside a dome housing.

Besides that, this is the same NVT technology that you have tested extensively on many cameras, like in the EOC shootout.

So it would work on most IP cameras with the addition of a NVT transciever. Which might be preferable, since March seems to be charging a hefty premium for their packaging.

Avatar

Brian Karas

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed #2 | 06/21/16 04:23pm

Why do you think new cameras wouldn't be economically added via daisy chaining?

If your primary concern is economics of the system, I don't think you would go this route to begin with.

Probably, the biggest objection would be that a single cable failure could cause multiple cameras to go out..

Personally, my objection would be around installing a very non-standard cable plant that could also be a nightmare to manage.

This is where the redundant loop can be used effectively. So combining the two topologies overcomes objections to either.

At the cost of investing in a non-standard architecture that will practically limit you to only using this technology for the life of the system.

If you look at the NVT-1701 manual, your max rated throughput, and max power budget drop over distance. If you're going to use the loop approach for resiliency, you also need to make sure the loop can support the attached cameras if one of the first segments is damaged and the last camera now ends up much further away from the headend electrically.

You are also limited to 4 cameras per segment/loop, so trying to do this at any kind of scale is going to start to involve a lot of cable and terminations.

Undisclosed #2

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Brian Karas | 06/21/16 05:41pm

If your primary concern is economics of the system, I don't think you would go this route to begin with.

I thought that was the only reason: to save money over ripping out the coax and putting in twisted pair.

What other reason is there?

Avatar

Brian Karas

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed #2 | 06/21/16 06:25pm

If your concern is economics, you might use some form of EoC, but probably not this product from March networks.

Undisclosed #2

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Brian Karas | 06/21/16 06:54pm

Agreed.

Jaime Trujillo

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Brian Karas | 06/21/16 06:51pm

You are only taking into account the resolution. But it's clear that IP technology has many other features that analog HD does not have, like analytics. That's why I insist you can't compare both technologies only based on resolution.

Avatar

Brian Karas

IPVM | In reply to Jaime Trujillo | 06/21/16 07:09pm

The camera being discussed in this release does not have analytics by default, and it does not appear to offer any analytics upgrades. It is a basic 3MP camera, and so it is very comparable to HD-analog alternatives.

While it is true that some IP cameras have analytics features, IP technology alone does not just automatically come with analytics.

What are the "many" other clear features of IP?

Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 6,736 reports, 909 tests and is only available to members. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

Already a member? Login here | Join now
Loading Related Reports