Controlling the hype

Attend any major security exhibition or conference these days and you'll see most of the big network concerns – the Cisco Systems and IBMs of this world – rubbing shoulders with the 'traditional' security players. The more forward-thinking have been quick to jump on the bandwagon, 'solutions' selling rather than focusing on product features and providing training and ancillary support for preferred installers. All of this is indeed taking us down a more traditional IT route than would a typical security model, whether we like it or not.

But is IP really a panacea for all our security surveillance ills? Are those end users who've yet to embrace the IP revolution really being seriously disadvantaged?

One size doesn't fit all
First, let's get something very clear. IP edge devices (cameras, etc) are not going to suit every application. Retrofitting such devices onto existing analogue installations, for example, may be cost-prohibitive due to the additional equipment required over and above what already exists. If we were to take an analogue camera in situ, not only would this require installing an IP encoder to change the analogue signal to digital, it would still demand all of the other power and telemetry cabling to the camera.

Alternatively, the whole camera unit might be exchanged for an IP camera – which is very obviously a much cleaner solution. That said, it could be more expensive than an analogue equivalent. Where placing IP cameras onto an existing analogue system scores heavily is when a camera needs to be some distance from the recording media (digital or analogue) and the video data transmitted across a lengthy distance. Of course, with modern technology this could be a wireless connection, or one realised across the Internet on a Virtual Private Network.

That's some of today's reality, then, but IP surveillance would be an appropriate solution for the end user under many scenarios, in particular when a dedicated infrastructure is being installed inside a new building with a distributed network. In such cases, IP devices make perfect sense due to their capability (with certain models) to send video, telemetry and power, etc all down the one Category 5 Ethernet cable.

If we look back to the days of analogue, a similar installation would need a video coax cable, a power line to each camera and telemetry for PTZ, etc. It's clearly evident that in a new build project covering a large area, economies of scale would favour an IP infrastructure over an analogue equivalent. In addition, you can then run any data across that same IP infrastructure wherever bandwidth allows.

The management of data this brings is invaluable to any end user with a large system or multiple sites to manage. And with bandwidth becoming cheaper all the time, this is clearly the infrastructure of the future.

Knowledge is power
So where do we envisage the problems occurring? IP knowledge among end users in several key areas is probably poor. However, one suspects that, as is the case with digital recording, many customers are quite simply temporarily confused.

Where placing IP cameras onto an existing analogue system scores heavily is when a camera needs to be some distance from the recording media (digital or analogue) and the video data has to be transmitted across a lengthy distance

Many of the digital recording dilemmas that trouble customers are also relevant for IP devices/cameras. For instance, the different compression technologies available (and which one is most suitable for their application), or queries regarding whether the network can handle the volume of data and the implication this has for the other IT systems on the same infrastructure.

For those of you who haven't yet experienced the IP frenzy, you'll start to notice that the whole CCTV 'sales cycle' will begin to change – whether you're the end user or consultant. The same can be said for installers or vendors for much the same reason. Mainly that IP brings a whole new set of issues to the party. Issues that are within the domain of an IT Department whose constituent members are largely unaware of security and the implications it has for them.

Ultimately, we're all going to witness a drive towards an open solution, with a preference for end users to supply their own infrastructure, servers and storage devices over time.

The 'virtual IP matrix'
IP devices could be referred to as "just another new wave of technology", and it's likely that it will be commoditised in the future just as analogue devices are today. As stated, IP is the key to the future, particularly for new buildings and sites where a range of cameras are required per site (in addition to remote monitoring).

By way of an explanatory message, end users and consultants might like to consider one particular solution to the IP 'problem'. The SmartSight family of IP video server products – our very own concept for a 'virtual IP matrix'. In essence, any IP device may be attached to any IP storage facility on the network.

There is clearly a transition phase ahead of us all. At the moment, IP is not a panacea for all surveillance ills, but it may well be in the years to come. While there are plenty of sceptics out there, there's no doubt that IP points the way ahead. As technology advances, we see the convergence of more and more integrated solutions. And all of these technologies – whether building management, access control or indeed CCTV systems – are moving toward an IP platform (if indeed they're not there already).

As for the hype, maybe that's not such a bad thing either, just as long as there's a little bit of honesty from solutions providers as to what they're doing. We are definitely gravitating towards a single front end for managing all types of IP data and, from our own experiences at least, this is what is being demanded by the end user who's tired of multiple monitors and front end systems that demand constant service and maintenance, not to mention training.