Both motion and continuous based recording have downsides. In this test, we look at a feature that aims to rectify both of them simultaneously.
With motion based recording, you can miss relevant events that the camera or VMS does not detect. This exposes user to liability risks and is the most common reason why users object to motion based recording.
However, with continous recording, you almost certainly will be recording for significant periods where nothing is happening - a significant waste of bandwidth, and more importantly, storage. Users can often save 60 - 90% of storage costs by using motion based instead of continuous recording.
On the one side you save storage and money, on the other you risk liability issues.
The best solution to this issue is to use a feature often called 'boosting' or 'speedup' recording. This allows recording lower quality video when no motion is detected while increasing the quality when motion is detected. This ensures that video is always recorded, minimizing liability risk but with lower storage consumption when no activity is happening, saving storage.
The main concern is how well boost up recording works. With analog DVRs, this was not a risk nor concern as the encoder inside the DVR handled this completely. However, with IP cameras and VMS software, most systems require the VMS software to request the IP camera to adjust its quality settings when motion is detected. Because of this, risks exist in whether it works, how well it works and what length of delay is incurred in cutting over. In a recent 89 comment discusion with our Pro Members, this was frequently cited as a concern.
We devised a series of tests with 3 VMSes and 3 cameras with 2 different boost up approaches.
- The 3 VMSes were ExacqVision, Genetec and Milestone Corporate
- The 3 cameras were from Axis, Panasonic and Sony
- The 2 approaches were boosting up just frame rate (resolution remained the same) and boosting up both frame rate and resolution)