A comparison between analog and networked video surveillance systems.

Network video surveillance systems have been gaining in popularity in recent years, and with good reason. They’re generally less expensive, more flexible, and easier to use and install than their analog counterparts. But when comparing costs of just the network camera to an analog camera, one might come to a far different conclusion. It’s true: network cameras more expensive than analog models — but it’s the total cost of ownership that reveals the true savings.

A research project was conducted by Chris Humphrey Consulting, an independent research firm based in San Diego, CA, focusing on only measurable, hard costs for the total cost of ownership of network camera systems versus analog and DVR systems.

The structured research approach included step-by-step validation of a generic sample project by non-vendor industry participants, including security integrators, value-added resellers, and industry analysts. Definition of cost components, deployment scenarios, and assumptions were developed with, and scrutinized by, these study participants with the objective of making the research approach and study results as fair and unbiased as possible. In addition to interviews, an industrystandardized approach was used to collect cost data, which included development of an RFP (Request For Proposal), i.e., what an end user likely provides a system integrator to solicit a system proposal or project bid that would contain itemized costs components, and then soliciting responses or “project bids” to collect structured cost data.

The sample project was considered to be a “medium-sized” school surveillance system that offered no clear cost advantages for either the IP- or analog-based surveillance system. It was assumed that the facility was a single, pre-existing building. A system was defined and reviewed by study participants, and refined into a set of system requirements, operational assumptions, and individual cost elements. In order to make the comparison as unbiased as possible, the number of cameras for the installation was determined to be advantageous for neither the analog system nor the IP-based system. Since analog systems are typically multiples of the 16 inputs on a DVR input, it was important not to select 16, 32, or 48. At the same time, IP-based systems have an advantage at 17, 33, or 49. Therefore, 40 cameras was selected as a fair case for both system types, as well as a common system size, which was validated during the interviews.

CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS INCLUDED:
NUMBER OF CAMERAS
1. 30 indoor fixed dome cameras
2. 5 outdoor fixed dome cameras
3. 5 outdoor PTZ cameras
4. All cameras needed to be vandal-proof

RECORDING
1. 12 hours of recording a day
2. 4 fps continuous recording; 15 fps recording on alarm/video motion detection
3. CIF resolution
4. Retention of video for 12 days

WIRING
1. No pre-existing data, coax, or power wiring
2. Network switches (wiring closets) and/or multi-camera power supplies
3. Plenum airspace above all areas (for cabling, plenum wiring required)
4. Cat-5e adequate for data wiring
5. PoE switches can be located in storage area allowing for less than 250-foot PoE cable runs for network cameras
6. Coax will have to be a home run from cameras to DVR

MONITORING LOCATION AND EQUIPMENT PLACEMENT
1.Main network hub and camera viewing (location of monitor, server/ DVR) in administration offices

OTHER
1. No special illuminators required
2 .No audio surveillance required

Some assumptions were made about the specific cost elements for either an IP or analog surveillance system in a school facility. Some costs would be equivalent for either the IP or analog system, such as design fees, camera installation labor, system configuration, and fittings, fasteners, and other installation materials.

TABLE 1

RESULTS
Research participants provided detailed quotes based on the requirements. Overall, the average total cost for the IP system had a 3.4 percent lower total cost of ownership compared to the analog system — $61,382 vs. $63,481. The lowest cost IP system had a 25.4 percent lower TCO than lowest cost analog/DVR system. One reason for this variability is the wide flexibility using IP technology represented by using PoE, different cabling types and network and server platforms. In an analog system, there is very little flexibility; hence most quotes came in close to the same cost, which is quite typical for a mature market. The highest cost IP system had an 11.5 percent higher cost than the highest cost analog/ DVR system.

The cost categories between the two systems were quite different, as can be seen in Table 1.

The network cameras were half of the system cost in the IP-based system, while only a third of the cost in the Analog/DVR system. Also, the network cameras were 50% more expensive than their analog counterparts. Cabling is almost three times as expensive in the analog system compared to the IPbased system. The main reasons are that separate power cables have to be used, while PoE is used in the IP system. Separate control cabling is also needed to control analog PTZ cameras. And finally, the cost of installation, configuration and training is almost 50% higher in the analog system compared to the IP based system.

BREAKEVEN POINT
A general consensus around IP-based systems is that the larger the system, the more favorable the cost of the IP system will be compared to the analog. So what would be the breakeven point — for what system size is IP lower cost than analog, and does the difference increase as the size of the system increases?

Based on the research data and additional information, the cost as a function of the number of cameras was calculated. Beyond 32 cameras the IP-based system is lower cost, and between 16 and 32 cameras the cost is quite similar. In the sample school installation case above, the assumption was that no infrastructure was in place. In many buildings today, an IP infrastructure already exists, onto which the surveillance system can piggyback.

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
During the research portion of the study, several interview participants provided additional non-quantifiable observations and cost considerations that differentiated the two types of video surveillance systems that were not included in the total cost comparison. These factors were considered to be important baseline differences by the interview participants, which is why they are mentioned here:

1. Scalability is superior in IP-based systems, where one camera at a time can be added
2. Flexibility is greater in IP-based systems, when moving a camera means only moving a network drop if PoE is used
3. The image quality of network cameras is superior to analog
4. Megapixel cameras are beginning to be specified, which can only be addressed by network cameras
5. An IP infrastructure is often already in place, and can be used by the network video system
6. Analog coax cabling is much harder to troubleshoot than IP
7. System design costs typically included at no additional cost
8. The IP system can be remotely serviced, e.g., adjusted/diagnosed over the network
9. Brand-name PC servers used in IP systems often have superior warranty and service
10. IT equipment is likely to drop faster in price than analog

CONCLUSIONS
IP-based systems of 40 cameras have a lower total cost of ownership than analog-based systems. Based on a typical deployment scenario, the cost to acquire, install, and operate an IP-based system is 3.4 percent lower than an analog-based solution.

Thirty-two cameras is the breakeven point for IP systems versus analog. Based on common scenarios for costs scenarios, beyond 32 cameras the IP-based system is lower cost, and between 16 and 32 the cost is quite similar, even though slightly lower for analog systems.

If an IP infrastructure is already installed, the IP system is always lower cost. For any system size, IP system will always be lower cost if an IP infrastructure by means of cabling already exists.

Many non-quantifiable advantages for IP systems. Improved image quality, better maintenance and service, increased flexibility, and easier troubleshooting are just some of the advantages that exist but were not quantified. Additionally, IT equipment is expected to fall in price faster than analog CCTV equipment, making the comparison even more favorable in the future.

Fredrik Nilsson is general manager of Axis Communications, a provider of IP-based network video solutions that include network cameras and video servers for remote monitoring and security surveillance.

Got a comment? Contact us at AVT@nbmedia.com, and type the title of this article into the subject header.