March Networks MP Coax DPoC Camera Examined

IPVMU Certified

Yes, you definitely can!

Reactions:

Jaime Trujillo

IPVMU Certified

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.

Reactions:

Brian Karas

In reply to Jaime Trujillo

IPVM

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.

Reactions:

Undisclosed #2

IPVMU Certified

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.

Reactions:

(1)

Brian Karas

IPVM

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?

Reactions:

Undisclosed #2

IPVMU Certified

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.

Reactions:

John Honovich

IPVM

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.

Reactions:

Undisclosed #2

In reply to John Honovich

IPVMU Certified

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.

Reactions:

(1)

Brian Karas

IPVM

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.

Reactions:

Undisclosed #2

IPVMU Certified

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?

Reactions:

Brian Karas

IPVM

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

Reactions:

Undisclosed #2

IPVMU Certified

Agreed.

Reactions:

Jaime Trujillo

IPVMU Certified

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.

Reactions:

(1)

Brian Karas