What is stopping the CCTV industry moving from analogue to digital, networked video surveillance systems? There aren’t many end users out there who’d quibble with the image clarity offered by digital cameras, and yet 95% of the systems in use across the UK are still based on analogue technology.
As with most aspects of security provision, the deciding factor appears to be cost. The perception is that analogue is cheaper, but is that really the case? What is the true value of switching from analogue to digital?
In a timely move, the industry’s first independent research into the cost of ‘going digital’ has been carried out by Simon Lambert (principal consultant with Lambert & Associates and a Council member of the Association of Security Consultants) in conjunction with digital CCTV concern and study sponsor IndigoVision. “While there has been a reasonable take-up of hybrid analogue/digital systems, the industry has always been sceptical about going fully digital,” said Lambert. “This Total Cost of Ownership survey should make end users sit up and take notice.”
In essence, the study has evaluated capital expenditure costs and on-going maintenance for CCTV systems across a variety of scenarios. It compares the average prices for analogue, hybrid and fully-networked live video system deployments over five and ten-year lifecycles, based on listings in publicly-available and widely-used CCTV distributors’ catalogues.
The study encompasses every type of installation – from a single-site application through to multi-site, multi-camera specifications used by the global corporations.
The research findings
The research findings make for extremely interesting reading. The study suggests that live networked video-based CCTV systems allow full frame rate (real time) viewing and recording at comparable or lower costs when compared with time lapse (analogue) technologies. In addition, given a full network deployment, capital expenditure and running costs (so dear to the end user’s heart) for hybrid analogue solutions using digital video recorders are found to be consistently more expensive than pure analogue or live networked video solutions.
In truth, analogue systems remain effective at the lower end of the market (ie for applications using less than 25 cameras on a single site, and one monitoring location based on time lapse CCTV). Anything beyond that and digital appears to be far more cost-effective.
Some of the example scenarios from the study serve to dispel a few myths, too. Imagine a single site corporate hq where the security manager and an appointed consultant have decided that 75 cameras will be needed to cover the main facility and its warehousing. The operational requirement dictates that recordings must capture four images per second. With entirely new and dedicated CCTV cabling, the live networked video solution is 25% cheaper over a ten-year period than any analogue set-up. That equates to a substantial saving of GB pound 900,000.
Then take an airport that needs 700 cameras to cover all areas, with viewing devices required across six different departments including: security, immigration, baggage handling and emergency services. All CCTV and associated cabling is newly-installed, with an average of 400 metres required per device connection.
In such an installation, the live networked video solution is nearly 60% cheaper than its analogue equivalent. The airport’s management team would save around GB pound 850,000 over a five-year period. Compelling evidence indeed.
Last, but not least, picture a utility company that’s responsible for no less than 200 disparate sites acting as satellites to its main hq. Each is equipped with a low bandwidth WAN (eg for ISDN connection) for its telemetry systems. There is one camera per site for alarm verification, with central recording and monitoring at hq. The initial capital expenditure of a live networked video solution here is around GB pound 350,000 lower than an equivalent analogue solution. Within the first five years running costs would be just over 70% lower, initiating a saving of GB pound 490,000.
Comparative Cost Model
A key by-product of the study has been the development of a CCTV Comparative Cost Model – allowing the security manager, IT manager, specifier and distributors to enter their own figures for elements such as cabling, maintenance, staffing costs and inter-site links (with the model defaulting to average market value if the end user doesn’t have a specific figure in mind).
IndigoVision is quick to point out that CCTV industry ‘rules of thumb’ have been used to simplify calculations, and to ensure “some resonance” with the real world. In addition, each element of the study and its calculations have been peer reviewed in some detail by independent consultants. That said, the findings do not represent a full CCTV project costing package that allows the user to calculate the actual installation cost of any CCTV scheme.
Peter Fry – director of the CCTV User Group and a participant at last May’s IFSEC debate focused on this research – told SMT: “This tool will help security managers make more informed decisions on their future security technology, and should turn out to be a great help to the industry in general.”
Julian Knight, director of surveillance and monitoring at IndigoVision, added: “We believe this model will radically alter the buying patterns of the industry. The technology case for live networked video, which has always been sound, is now backed with a clear commercial argument that opens the way for major IT and networking players to enter the security market”. Those of you who visited this year’s IFSEC Exhibition will know exactly what Knight is talking about.
