HD analog vs ip camera (looking at this Qsee system)

A

AlpineWatch

Getting the hang of it
Jul 10, 2015
164
8
HD analog vs ip camera (Was Qsee, now Lorex)

Thought I had this stuff figured out. Thought it was:
Analog - old stuff (NTSC)
HD over BNC - Like IP but works over coax.
IP - IP/packet/ethernet stuff

But now I'm thinking that HD over BNC is still just analog.

So I'm confused.

Is HD over BNC just fancier NTSC composite or is the data digital but happens to be over coax (packetized serial data).

Right now I've been enjoying my Wifi webcams but looking for detail, especially at night, and video capture instead of just snapshots and came across this system.
http://www.costco.com/.product.824258.html

Price looks good and I'm sure a huge step above what I have now (dlink wifi cams)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HD-SDI is Digital, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_digital_interface

However this tech is really only used in:
1. Upgrading existing infrastructure from SD to HD without replacing wiring.
2. Low latency, ie Real Time display.. if the ~1s delay from IP is too much this can reduce it greatly.

Its also transmitting raw uncompressed video, so your NVR has to do all the work encoding the videos to store them.. due to this you cant get enough throughput to transmit 1080p, tops out at 720p or 1080i.

By default new HD Security camera installs should be IP, unless you have a good reason to go serial.. its hard to beat cat6 in future proofing, its going to handle 4k resolution and beyond with ease.. not to mention PoE, cheap cable and crimping tools.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: AlpineWatch
Pro's and con's to both IP and SDI as well as TVI

High end security is still done in real time without encoding, also the cost of SDI and TVI camera's are half the price of IP, also they work better in lower lighting conditions, the they can only replace older analogue camera using the RG59 at a max cable run of 105m without aditional equipment, (old analogue camera could run upto 350m).
As pointed out above the DVR does all of the work rather than the camera bur the end result is still very good.
Also no issues with regional coding to worry about.

Yes IP camera's do have higher resolution, and can work on much cheaper cabling, with options of wifi and can also be used without the need of an NVR, this time the camera does all the work but manufacturers like hikvision add regional coding to control the price in regions.

If your on a budget fit a TVI system, for more features and control fit an IP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: harleyfart and AlpineWatch
Thanks everyone! Didn't realize the latency with IP cameras was inherent to the technology. I have a FLIR FX camera that measures in ~ 4 seconds of delay.

For now I'm going to go with the Qsee package listed in the original post as technology keeps getting cheaper and what little I've seen of the images from these cameras it'll meet my needs.
 
AlpineWatch said:
Thanks everyone! Didn't realize the latency with IP cameras was inherent to the technology. I have a FLIR FX camera that measures in ~ 4 seconds of delay.

For now I'm going to go with the Qsee package listed in the original post as technology keeps getting cheaper and what little I've seen of the images from these cameras it'll meet my needs.
Click to expand...
Latency in a typical ip system is 1 second or less. Even 10 seconds would not make a difference in 99 percent of installs. The video still gets recorded.
If you are going to go analog, get this for 150 more. http://www.costco.com/Lorex-8-Chann...D-and-8-1080p-Cameras-.product.100218592.html
The problem is that when you want to upgrade in the future you will have to run new cable...I would suggest running ethernet now and using baluns like these
http://www.securitycameraking.com/cvi-ahd-tvi-video-balun-60210-prd1.html?pSearchQueryId=2856014
this way you can easily upgrade to ip. One of the biggest downside to hd over coax is having to homerun all the wiring to the DVR..with ip you can run the cameras to a switch an connect to any network connection..or run a single line down to the switch..
 
the latency with IP is due to the time it takes for the camera to encode/compress the video, the IP latency is typically ~1ms on a LAN.. the encoding delay seems to take ~1000ms+ depending on the camera..

serial latency is typically in factions of a microsecond, combined with the raw uncompressed video neither the camera or the display have to do any work dealing with compression.. so you get closer to a Live display without the delay.

I cant think of many reasons why the latency is a bad thing in the Security Industry, but if you were using the cameras in some sort of Industrial Automation the delay could be very problematic.. like detecting an accident and triggering a shutdown.
 
fenderman said:
If you are going to go analog, get this for 150 more. http://www.costco.com/Lorex-8-Chann...D-and-8-1080p-Cameras-.product.100218592.html
Click to expand...

What does this system have over the QSee one I listed?

I looked at that Lorex system last night and the Qsee had higher sensitivity at night with no illumination (0.01 vs 0.1) (+1 for Qsee) and I couldn't see a reason to spend the extra $150 on the Lorex. Figure if the Qsee has annoying flaws I can return it to Costco. I'll be 'bench' testing it before going up in the attic.
 
Thanks! One of the features of the FLIR FX camera is an intercom function. 4 seconds delay in each direction makes it useless. Not that I'm looking to use that function but why have it if the lag is that long.


Great picture but useless as a security camera as there is no way to capture video locally automatically.
 
The benefit of the lorex is double the resolution...generally the higher the resolution the worse the camera is in low light (Though the new hikvision 4mp cameras are proving to be reversing that trend)...
Regardless of the system you choose, run ethernet and use baluns or if you dont want to use baluns, run ethernet alongside the coax, so in the future you do have to do it again.
 
fenderman said:
The benefit of the lorex is double the resolution...generally the higher the resolution the worse the camera is in low light (Though the new hikvision 4mp cameras are proving to be reversing that trend)...
Click to expand...
Ah yes - 1080p, brain forgot that part being the difference.


Thanks everyone for your help.
 
Sorry to bump this thread.

Is there another forum that is better for non IP camera talk?

Or is talking about analog HD cameras okay here too?

Noob here and don't want to get on the wrong side of people.
 
FYI. I have been comparing the Costco Lorex and Q-see systems. I did notice after reading the user manual and Lorex website
that the Lorex cams are not ONVIF or Profile S compliant. I will probably buy the Q-see system.
 
fenderman said:
Latency in a typical ip system is 1 second or less. Even 10 seconds would not make a difference in 99 percent of installs. The video still gets recorded.
If you are going to go analog, get this for 150 more. http://www.costco.com/Lorex-8-Chann...D-and-8-1080p-Cameras-.product.100218592.html
The problem is that when you want to upgrade in the future you will have to run new cable...I would suggest running ethernet now and using baluns like these
http://www.securitycameraking.com/cvi-ahd-tvi-video-balun-60210-prd1.html?pSearchQueryId=2856014
this way you can easily upgrade to ip. One of the biggest downside to hd over coax is having to homerun all the wiring to the DVR..with ip you can run the cameras to a switch an connect to any network connection..or run a single line down to the switch..
Click to expand...

My boy got the very Lorex system mentioned above 2 weeks ago and was amazed at the quality of the video. One neighbor joined Costco and ordered a system 1 day later by mail order ( 2 hour drive to Costco) and 2 others are interested. The boy wanted the recorded info only to ID prowlers and vandals and did not use any internet type function. YMMV

Fenderman helped me with Lorex 1080p over coax info after 2 weeks of research at other places so you are at the right place and he is the right person.

Jim
 
xgsound said:
My boy got the very Lorex system mentioned above 2 weeks ago and was amazed at the quality of the video. One neighbor joined Costco and ordered a system 1 day later by mail order ( 2 hour drive to Costco) and 2 others are interested. The boy wanted the recorded info only to ID prowlers and vandals and did not use any internet type function. YMMV

Fenderman helped me with Lorex 1080p over coax info after 2 weeks of research at other places so you are at the right place and he is the right person.

Jim
Click to expand...
Thanks everyone. I am definitely taking the Qsee system back for these reasons:

- using a short BNC cable with real RG58 coax did not improve the contrast issues
- putting the cameras in the backyard in daylight, the image was still a bit soft, edges of things looked weird and if the edges were on a diagonal, they were blocky. It was like the cameras were not even 720p resolution, and the dynamic range of the scene was limited (dark areas were black, light areas too washed out.)
- In daylight the image was still 'noisy'. Don't know if it was compression artifacts or just a noisy sensor being used.

The Lorex system I looked at in Costco looked much better and very little noise. Will pick that HD-CVI system up next week.
 
Picked up the Lorex 1080p HD-CVI Costco setup (8 cameras).
Image quality is much improved over the 720p QSee system I returned, and not just in pixel count. The image overall is less noisy and I can actually say now it's sharp.
I have yet to give them a try outside but the limited inside use I did last night, the AGC and scene dynamic range is also much better.

Menus were better and more intuitive with the QSee system.

Disappointingly there is a small fan on the inside of the Lorex DVR - probably on the CPU. Hopefully the quality of the fan is better than small ones on PC's that seem to die early.
 
AlpineWatch said:
Picked up the Lorex 1080p HD-CVI Costco setup (8 cameras).
Image quality is much improved over the 720p QSee system I returned, and not just in pixel count. The image overall is less noisy and I can actually say now it's sharp.
I have yet to give them a try outside but the limited inside use I did last night, the AGC and scene dynamic range is also much better.

Menus were better and more intuitive with the QSee system.

Disappointingly there is a small fan on the inside of the Lorex DVR - probably on the CPU. Hopefully the quality of the fan is better than small ones on PC's that seem to die early.
Click to expand...

Hi Alpine,
Thanks for that review. Just to be sure. Are you saying you like the menu system on the QSee system better...?
 
JimandYen said:
Hi Alpine,
Thanks for that review. Just to be sure. Are you saying you like the menu system on the QSee system better...?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Choosing 'main menu' on the Qsee I was presented with a window with clearly named icons with text of all the choices I had, and each was separated by their global function.
It was completely intuitive where I needed to go to get to a particular function.

The Lorex system, I choose 'Main Menu' and I get a thin bar of icons, graphical only - not text, the layout of which doesn't make sense and where I think something should reside isn't so.

Both systems are clearly from the same manufacturer but the GUI on the QSee is much cleaner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom