A couple days ago I linked to an Axis study that set out to prove that the cost of IP surveillance is now less expensive than its analog counterpart.
Now there is a healthy debate over at IP Video Market Info about the validity of this study. Check it out:
Debating Axis’s IP vs Analog Cost Comparison
Some of the major sticking points are:
- The Axis’s study assumes that no surveillance equipment is currently being used (i.e., ‘greenfield’). A majority of organizations buying surveillance systems already have some cameras and cabling installed and a large portion of that infrastructure can and regularly is reused.
- For any given feature set, IP cameras always cost significantly more than analog. While a DVR costs more than PC plus VMS software, that increase in cost is less than the savings on the camera side.
- Is IP still worth it? Cost isn’t everything, a price comparison can still favor analog, and Megapixel IP camera resolution (a big IP advantage) was not mentioned.
The flexibility, scalability, and high quality images set IP cameras apart from analog. Remote access of live images from anywhere in the world including viewing video surveillance on your phone puts analog in the backseat, in my opinion.
Like any other kind of technology, over time, functionality continues to increase as the price goes down. There may be debate now over some marginal price differences but that surely will not last.
Join the conversation – what do you think?
A M Morawala
I agree with the truth that IP systems are still much more costly than analog. This is one reason why we are not being able to rapidly roll out full IP based surveillance in the Taj Group of Hotels. Second point, most facilities do have some surveillance systems, mostly older analog versions. These cannot be dumped. Hence a hybrid solution is the best suited. We have done this at the Taj flagship hotel in Mumbai.
Nathan Miloszewski
Thanks for sharing your experience. Hybrid solutions are great for adding features and longevity to your existing systems.