IP Camera Long Distance Ethernet Test

By: John Scanlan, Published on Aug 12, 2016

Many often ask about running Ethernet beyond its standard distance of 100 meters for UTP, especially when cameras are 400', 500' or more away.

Will it fail? 

How We Tested

We tested lengths of Category 6 and 5e cables starting at 1000' (~300m), down to 300' (~90m). Plugs were directly connected to both ends, with three tests performed:

  • Camera test: We first tested whether cameras would power up and maintain link with a switch, whether pings were received reliably, and whether we could access the web interface/live video. Cameras tested included: 720p, 1080p, 4MP, fixed, PTZ, integrated IR, 802.3af and 802.3at.
  • Laptop test: Next, we connected two laptops together via the length of cable to see if they maintained link and check connection speed using iPerf.
  • PoE test: Finally, we measured voltage and wattage using a PoE tester at the far end of the cable to see if power over Ethernet was being properly delivered over the length of cable.

Cat 6 (yellow, below) and 5e (blue) were both used to check for differences in performance due to category rating or simply larger gauge (23 AWG vs. 24 AWG).

See our results inside.

**** ***** *** ***** running ******** ****** *** ******** distance ** *** ****** for ***, ********** **** cameras *** ***', ***' or **** ****.

**** ** ****? 

How ** ******

** ****** ******* ** Category * *** ** cables ******** ** ****' (~300m), **** ** ***' (~90m). ***** **** ******** connected ** **** ****, with ***** ***** *********:

  • ****** ****:** ***** ****** ******* cameras ***** ***** ** and ******** **** **** a ******, ******* ***** were ******** ********, *** whether ** ***** ****** the *** *********/**** *****. Cameras ****** ********: ****, *****, ***, fixed, ***, ********** **, 802.3af *** ***.***.
  • ****** ****:****, ** ********* *** laptops ******** *** *** length ** ***** ** see ** **** ********** link *** ***** ********** speed ***** *****.
  • *** ****:*******, ** ******** ******* and ******* ***** **** ******** *** *** *** of *** ***** ** see ** ***** **** Ethernet *** ***** ******** delivered **** *** ****** of *****.

*** * (******, *****) and ** (****) **** both **** ** ***** for *********** ** *********** due ** ******** ****** or ****** ****** ***** (23 *** **. ** AWG).

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

[***************]

Key ********

** *** ***** ** cables **** *** ******** 300', ** ***** ******* key ********:

  • ******** ***** ********* *** achieved ** ***' ** multiple ******* ** ******* specifications.
  • **** ******* *** **** at **** ******* *******, as *** ******** ********** using * ***' ***** length.
  • ********* ******* *** *********** ********* when ***** **** **** cables *** *********-********* *******.
  • *** *** ******** ********* at *,***' (*** ******* length ******), *** *** signal.
  • **** *** ** *** 6 ********* ********* ** our *****, **** ** practical *********** ******* **** at *** ********.

What ********* ***

****** *** ** ** no ****** **** **** (~330') ********* ** ******/***-*** ********. **** **** ** specified ** ******* *** horizontal ***** (********* *****, from ***** ***** ** device) ** **** ** up ** *** ** patch ******, ****** ** the **** ** ** cameras ** ****** ******* panels, ***** ****** *** often *** ****, ********* ******** ******** ** the *****. *** **** ******* ** these ******, ******* ****** see ********** **** ********* ***** *** ***** *** ** ***** Surveillance *****.

Note **** ** ******** ********* ********** ****** *** ***/*** ******** *** ******* *** **** ******** **********. This test was performed to see maximum distance possible, but by violating standards you assume risk of potential future performance issues. Distances over 100m are not tested for longevity, interference issues, etc., which have been properly tested in <100m cables.

*** ***** ******* ****** cable **** **** *** 300'/100m *****, *** *** report: **** ** ****** *** Options: *****, *** ********* and *** ********.

PoE ** ****'

** *** *****, *** functioned **** **** * full *,***' *** ** cable. ********** * *** test ***** ** **** with *** ****** ** this ******, ** *** see **** ******* ******** was ****** *** ***** (44-57VDC), *** ******* *** the **** ** ******* drew ** *******, *********-********* distances.

**** **** *** ******* are ******** ** ******** voltage ** ****** ***** runs, **** *** ** 57V **, ** ***** to ********** *** ******* drop *** ** ********. These ******* **** ********** in **** ****, **** voltage ********** **** *** at ***' ** ** at *,***', ***** ** the ***** *****:

******* *** *******/******* ***** properly ********, ** **** unable ** ******** * link ** *,***', ****** due ** *********** ** data *******. ******** ***** were *** ********** ***** 800' *** ******* (*** *****).

Video ******** ** ***'

************, ** **** **** to *** ******** ********* at ***' ** *** camera ******, ************ *** ******(**-*********-*).

***** ******* ** **** length *** *******, *********-********* lengths *** ****** *********, seen ** *** ********** below. ** *** ** frame ****, **********, ** other ****** ** **** length, *** ** *****.

*******, **** **** **** was ******** ** **** one ******, **** ****** simply *** ********** (**** at ***'). ************, ****** resolutions *** ********** *** generally **** ****** ** experience ******, ** ********* limits *** ** ***** long ******* *** *******.

Reliable ** ****** ***** ** ***'

**** *******, ** **** able ** ******* ******* ******* without ***** ** ***' distance. **** ******** ******* options: ****, *****, ***, fixed, ***, ********** **, 802.3af *** ***.***. *** cameras ****** ** **** distance **** ** ******* pings *** ** ****** on ***** *******.

PC ** ** ***** ** ***'

** **** **** ** link *** *** ** 800' ******* ** **** Cat ** *** *, with ** ******* ***** and **** ********* ******* properly ******* *** ***. However, ****** **** **** limited, **** ***** * Mb/s, ****** **** *********** for **** ***** *** in **** *****.

Cat * **. *** **: ** **********

******* *** ****** **** gauge *** ****** *********, we *** ** ********* difference ******* *** * and ** ** *** tests. ** **** *****, Cat * ******* ***** pings **** *** ** at **** ********* (***'+), but ** ** **** did * ****** ** PC ******* ** *** 6 *** *** **.

Comments (38)

Try UNV. they say if you use UNV NVR and Camera they can guarantee up to 250m operation. I am not sure exactly what models support that though

All UNV (Uniview) products use special hardware and optimized algorithm to guarantee the performance of 950 feet PoE connection. Hope IPVM can test any UNV (Uniview) models regarding this feature.

Perhaps OT:

Where can one find Uniview i the US or in the LATAM (Latin America) countries? I have read some great things abou them Results seem to be rather superb.

OnVIF compliance or at least drivers for usual/popular VMS is a necessity.

I posted link to the linkedin profile of the UNV usa country manager on my original post however it seems to have been deleted by a moderator.

@IPVM. Any issues posting his details again? He is my competition so no benefits for me from doing that. Let me know.

This is a test of regular Ethernet. I don't want this to turn into a discussion on specific manufacturer proprietary implementations.

There's lot of proprietary equipment that allows for longer Ethernet runs.

6, I will email you offline with specific contact information for Uniview. It's not appropriate for this post.

I understand. Thanks for the clarification. :)

www.artilec.cl in Chile and Peru

Every network switch support this 250m connection will be a good news.
Otherwise it's just like analog connection. Completely waste of network cables in site.

Could you test Cat6a -v- Cat6 please

Great "what if" stuff. I wish I had more time to do things like this myself. Glad to have IPVM look into these interesting scenarios.

The problem is that these things might verry well work and sometimes they won't. There's no guarantee that it will work if you go behind limits.

That's the purpose of the standards: making sure it works reliably if you stick to them.

I have also seen longer than allowed lengths working just fine. I've also seen a lot of them fail, from time to time or all the time. That's the problem, you never know what it will do now and in the future

I've seen things work/not work, as well, and I agree it's incredibly risky to run overlength cables.

This is why we have this note in the report:

Note that we strongly recommend installers follow the TIA/EIA standard and observe the 100m distance limitation. This test was performed to see maximum distance possible, but by violating standards you assume risk of potential future performance issues. Distances over 100m are not tested for longevity, interference issues, etc., which have been properly tested in <100m cables.

What Brand of Cable were you using for the tests?

They are both cable matters, both are solid conductors (not stranded), the Cat6 is 23 AWG / 550MHz and the Cat5E is 24AWG / 350 MHz.

Note that we intentionally did not buy any of the bigger brands of cables (see Poll: Do You Buy Brand Name Cable?) as we wanted to make it a test of average or below average real world cable quality.

Great article! While we've all seen this in the field, it is great to see a reputable source verify some of what is seen in the field. I agree completely that it's generally not worth the risk. That said, there have been a few times where we have a 400' run and have decided to chance it without extenders.

Thanks for the test. The subject is very close to my heart, and wallet.

Undisclosed Vs Undisclosed Ethernet Challenge - Who Will Go The Distance?

Maybe had this research come out first I wouldn't have been so incredulous.

Did you use a cable verifier? It would be interesting to see what a high-end one would say.

BTW and IMHO, the biggest limitation and variable when getting out past 500' is something you can't control and varies by mfr.

Namely the twist rate of each pair. They're always different to reduce local crosstalk, which has the effect of making each pair a different total length. This length variation is left up to the mfr.

Different lengths of each pair means different timings, after some point the differences between pairs becomes so great that the interface can no longer keep the signals synced and the link fails.

This is one of the main things that Ethernet extenders either a)regenerate (if inline) or b) tolerate if at the ends, using their own prop methods.

We did not use a verifier.

Come to think of it a verifier might not provide much information, as opposed to a qualifier that would actually push packets and see how they do.

The verifier though is going to show FAIL right away on at least the length and probably most other metrics as well. And with these extreme lengths, it is probably legally required to notify the IEEE. ;)

John your tests implies that longer cable lengths work even though you threw in the caveat to follow industry standards. Our field experience says different when it comes to multiple cameras connected to the same POE switch. We had a junior sales engineer do exactly that and almost cost us a customer when cameras started dropping out after several months of working. The more cameras on a switch increases the draw and, in time, will experienced camera failures.

The problem is when an inexperienced installer, after reading a report like yours, ignores the standards and thinks that he can regularly exceed cable length will eventually have failures. The TIA/EIA standard is there for a reason and for you to even suggest that it can be done doesn't mean it should.

Speaking only for myself, Bruce, I'd have to disagree on your general point that IPVM would share responsibility of someone exceeding cable length specs. It is enough to through in there that people should "follow industry standard". Because that is a hard rule that the person doing the job should know. Someone doing a job and not knowing spec's should always be followed despite something being shown to work outside of specs, is poor training, knowledge or discipline on the technician/engineer side, not the fault of a website doing a test. I can show how you can install electrical lines without using safety gear, but it doesn't excuse someone who is supposed to be a properly trained and licensed electrician from not using safety equipment.

It's not IPVM fault if they show equipment can work beyond cable specs and someone uses that as excuse to always do it. They were told to follow specs and as a professional they should know better to do it.

Agreed. I think the article shows, "Hey everyone, in case you're curious, this works; but definitely shouldn't be your standard."

Fun article, thanks for sharing.

The problem is when an inexperienced installer, after reading a report like yours, ignores the standards and thinks that he can regularly exceed cable length will eventually have failures.

Ok, but the problem is that the information is out there regardless of IPVM, so it becomes more of a question of who responsibly educates them in such matters than if they can be kept in the dark forever.

There's always that tech around with a little more "knowledge" (and a lot more imagination to fill the gaps) eager to "explain" things to the impressionable newbie, that must be considered. Peer-to-peer pressure can be tough to resist.

And inexperienced techs are naturally curious about such things; remember yourself at such a point in your own career... Moreover, some questioning, and even a little experimentation (strictly in-house), is a good sign of an analytical mind and attitude, and something you should nurture.

Setting boundaries is key; And although they may not always agree with you, if they respect you, you can have confidence that you wishes will be heeded, when they're on their own and faced with the inevitable on-site temptation.

Because it's too easy for them if they are not properly schooled in the consequences, to just walk out of there today with everything working fine, but then 9 months down the line you get the shocking news...

So have that "talk" with your techs today, before somebody else does, and by all means support that with factual information from sources like IPVM.

You'll reap the benefits of a more open and productive relationship with your tech.

I'm glad they tested and posted. This won't change my answer to the question.

As a manufacturer, all I can tell them is we ONLY support a standard installation, using industry standards.

I know for a fact at 900' it doesn't work because I had a guy install a camera at that distance without understanding there is a distance limitation on Ethernet.

He felt we should have listed Ethernet distances on the product box.

Extending runs past standards, 100 meter rule is like driving with your feet. You can do it, but it's probably not a good idea.

It's like doing 69mph in a 60mph zone, it works until it doesn't

Ma'am, is this your current MAC address?

Lost in all this is that there is at least one company claiming that their gears is (perdon the pun) geared to exceed the 100 meters limitation.

The thing is we should (and likely will ) see this more often. The introduction of extenders to go past the 100 meter limitation is frustrating to say the least: These are not cheap and don't always "play nice" with switches.

We are also of the advice that IPVM in no way encourages >100 meter lengths. The discussion is a good one: some gears do work past the 100 meter limitation. If someone is naive and inexperienced enough to see the article has an endorsement it cannot be attributed to IPVM.

Thank you for doing the test, and including lots of links in the article. That makes for a good reference for things in the future.

Very interesting study/experiment.

As you rightly point out following the standards is the only way to go, by way of an example I recently discovered at a coal processing plant located in Australia, 4 IP PTZ cameras with CAT5e cable runs at 150m+ that were not working at all. These cameras had initially been working for a number of months then 1 by one they stopped.

I've seen this as well where a temp installation that marginally exceeded 100m (10m+) worked fine for a couple of months and then stopped completely. I'd be interested to figure out what process caused the failure by aging as the physical installation appeared fine. The cam/nvr combo worked fine with a short test jumper and identical new devices refused to work in the field. Had to install a field switch to shorten distance.

Judging from my personal experience and what some other members have been mentioning, I would like to request an update to this test with actual wattage draw numbers for the distances and grades of cable used.

Same as other people here who did not run into an immediate problem going past the max distance, but problems developed later. We've had a couple cases of cameras just occasionally dropping off for no good reason and they'd come up after a switch reboot done remotely in the office. We even replaced a switch and a camera in one instance.

We finally got a tech out who knew what they were doing and in one case the cable was around 360ft and the other around 400ft.

Thanks for the test.
BTW. Network latency already included in your test?
Camera frame rate remain the same after using 300M cable??
Long distance should be drop frame and increase latency in theory.



I'd like to see fluke cable test results for those long runs

If you violate the cable length spec you're in trouble.  Doesn't matter how many magic tools you use to test it.  One screw-up and you'll get to explain it to the customer. Get your cables "certified" (means you burned a grand on a second vendor with actual testing gear who came in, did a test, and delivered an actual report.)

I agree, Rod, but I think UND 9 was just asking out of curiosity, what the meter would say at the long run. Maybe things like impedance and voltage (POE).

there're much more than just impedance. I'd definitely recommend to use professional cable tester next time they conduct research like that.

Login to read this IPVM report.

Related Reports

Converged vs Dedicated Networks For Surveillance Tutorial on Feb 12, 2020
Use the existing network or deploy a new one? This is a critical choice in...
Remote Network Access for Video Surveillance Guide on Jul 27, 2020
Remotely accessing surveillance systems is key in 2020, with more and more...
Last Chance - Spring 2020 IP Networking Course - Register Now on May 06, 2020
This is the last chance to register for the only networking course designed...
Video Surveillance Cameras 101 on Feb 25, 2020
Cameras come in many shapes, sizes and specifications. This 101 examines the...
Video Surveillance Architecture 101 on Feb 18, 2020
Video surveillance can be designed and deployed in a number of ways. This 101...
NetApp Video Surveillance Profile on Mar 09, 2020
NetApp is increasing its efforts in video surveillance and told IPVM...
NetApp Presents Hybrid Cloud Video Archive on May 11, 2020
NetApp presented its hybrid S3 cloud video archive at the April 2020 IPVM New...
"Fever Camera" Online Show June 2020 - On-Demand Recordings on Jun 03, 2020
IPVM has successfully completed the world's first "Fever Camera" show....
Vehicle Gate Access Control Guide on Mar 19, 2020
Vehicle gate access control demands integrating various systems to keep...
Uniview Deep Learning Camera Tested on Jul 14, 2020
Uniview's intrusion analytics have performed poorly in our shootouts. Now,...
Hanwha Wisenet X Plus PTRZ Tested on Feb 14, 2020
Hanwha has released their PTRZ camera, the Wisenet X Plus XNV-6081Z, claiming...
Cast Presents PoE Perimeter Lighting on Apr 28, 2020
Cast Lighting presented its PoE powered Perimeter fence system during the...
Vivotek LPR Camera Tested on Apr 15, 2020
Vivotek has historically sold license plate capture cameras but not LPR. Now,...
TVT Temperature Measurement Terminal Tested on Jul 23, 2020
While Dahua and Hikvision get the most attention for China temp products,...
VSaaS 101 on Mar 25, 2020
Video Surveillance as a Service (VSaaS) is the common industry term for cloud...

Recent Reports

Dangerous Hikvision Fever Camera Showcased by Chilean City on Aug 07, 2020
Deploying a fever camera outdoors, in the rain, with no black body, is...
"Grand Slam" For Pelco's PE Firm, A Risk For Motorola on Aug 07, 2020
The word "Pelco" and "grand slam" have not been said together for many years....
FLIR Stock Falls, Admits 'Decelerating' Demand For Temperature Screening on Aug 07, 2020
Is the boom going to bust for temperature screening? FLIR disappointed...
VSaaS Will Hurt Integrators on Aug 06, 2020
VSaaS will hurt integrators, there is no question about that. How much...
Dogs For Coronavirus Screening Examined on Aug 06, 2020
While thermal temperature screening is the surveillance industry's most...
ADT Slides Back, Disappointing Results, Poor Commercial Performance on Aug 06, 2020
While ADT had an incredible start to the week, driven by the Google...
AHJ / Authority Having Jurisdiction Tutorial on Aug 06, 2020
One of the most powerful yet often underappreciated characters in all of the...
SIA Coaches Sellers on NDAA 889B Blacklist Workarounds on Aug 05, 2020
Last month SIA demanded that NDAA 899B "must be delayed". Now that they have...
ADI Returns To Growth, Back To 'Pre-COVID Levels' on Aug 05, 2020
While ADI was hit hard in April, with revenue declining 21%, the company's...
Exposing Fever Tablet Suppliers and 40+ Relabelers on Aug 05, 2020
IPVM has found 40+ USA and EU companies relabeling fever tablets designed,...
Indian Government Restricts PRC Manufacturers From Public Projects on Aug 04, 2020
In a move that mirrors the U.S. government’s ban on Dahua and Hikvision...
Directory of 201 "Fever" Camera Suppliers on Aug 04, 2020
This directory provides a list of "Fever" scanning thermal camera providers...
Face Masks Increase Face Recognition Errors Says NIST on Aug 04, 2020
COVID-19 has led to widespread facemask use, which as IPVM testing has shown...
Dahua Loses Australian Medical Device Approval on Aug 04, 2020
Dahua has cancelled its medical device registration after "discussions" with...
Google Invests in ADT, ADT Stock Soars on Aug 03, 2020
Google has announced a $450 million investment in the Florida-based security...