I think a big part of the "underwhelming" level of advancements and innovation is the industry's overall difficulty in cooperating on coming up with standardized intercommunication protocols and methodologies. ONVIF is taking way too long to advance. There still isn’t a standard for communication between access and video surveillance. Alarm? Those dinosaurs are evolving at the rate of alligators.
Winners & Losers Fall 2013
New product releases were terrible this fall. The biggest news was the debatable entry of Axis and Milestone into access control. But the biggest gains might be for Chinese manufacturers who are answering the call of integrator's number #1 complaint and delivering incumbent manufacturer's #1 problem - low cost products.
What would you choose?
Inside our Pro Member's section, we cover the key emerging trends for:
- Cameras: H.265 and 4K
- Analytics: ????
- VMS: Appliances and VSaaS (kidding)
Then we review the specific competitive advances and problems for:
- Arecont Vision
ONVIF is a huge success just with abysmal marketing. For cameras and VMSes, ONVIF has incredible, near universal adoption and it works pretty consistently now. There are obviously issues remaining with certain combinations and features, but it has a lot of practical benefits.
Now, as for access and video, that's trickier. PSIA prioritized that but they have weak support while ONVIF deprioritized it (it's now part of the C profile). However, now that Axis has gone into access control, I would be surprised if they did not drive ONVIF access / video harder.
ONVIF may work now, but I am not satisfied with the overall rate of advancement. It toook too long to get here with what we have. And passing camera side alarms through ONVIF is still iffy. I've heard (and seen) PTZ is still iffy. What about common indetifiers for high level analytics between cameras and VMS; person detected, vehicle detected, line crossed? My opinion we should have been there already. But that's just my opinion.
Too long compared to what? ONVIF started 5 years ago and now is supported by 4000 products in an industry famous for being proprietary and close minded.
Alarm/events and PTZs are the two most notable problems but those are advanced issues and are getting better with 2.2 / Profile S.
I have heard and would like verification but when you use ONVIF for different manufacturer of the cameras and the recorder that the bandwidth doubles. This appears to be another limitation using the ONVIF standard. Example: An ABC camera manufacturer with XYZ camera manufacturers recorder this scenario will double bandwidth.
I have not heard this complaint when dealing with the VMS manufacturers Milestone, Exacq, etc Does it work the same way?
Might be a good article suggestion to dissect ONVIF
I have never seen any difference in bandwidth between using ONVIF and direct integrations, and I've tested dozens of both in the past year. There are some cases in which a camera has a separate ONVIF profile which you have to set up, and it doesn't simply use the encoder settings seen elsewhere. But that's an exception, not the rule.
"I have heard and would like verification but when you use ONVIF for different manufacturer of the cameras and the recorder that the bandwidth doubles."
This sounds like the kind of FUD you hear from a salesguy with an inferior product.
So after reading this it is not helping me decide which brand of Camera is the best overall quality and reliability???
Yep, that's not the purpose of this report (which is focused on business trends).
Kevin, that said, we are happy to help you in selecting a camera. Start a discussion or contact us. Let us know what you want beyond quality and reliability - how important is cost? are there certain form factors you prefer? Where are the cameras going to go? all of this will help us provide you a more precise recommendation.