Troubleshooting Management Software Issues for Network Cameras

A complete IP video solution not only covers network cameras at the edge but also should account for software management at the back end. Alf Chang, a&s consultant and a former installer, examines how video management software affects operation

Net work video combines ha rdware and software . From the front-end cameras that capture images sent through the transmission devices and finally are saved to the back-end storage, a complete IP solution requires management software. Integrated platform management software, also referred to as central management sof tware or v ideo management software (VMS), deals with configuration, operations and maintenance. During a recent A&S test of 19 network cameras, integration with management software was part of our test criteria. However, actually setting up each camera with the VMS led to many surprises and unexpected discoveries. The 19 cameras tested were from 15 manufacturers, as each manufacturer could submit up to two camera models. All cameras underwent the same tests in a controlled environment, monitoring identical scenes of a moving train track and figurines.

We selected a VMS platform that was compatible with most network cameras. The architecture deployed matched Image A, a configuration that is not likely to be used for real-life installations. Each camera was not only connected to the master server for the VMS, but also had a local Web monitoring point. Thus, every camera connected to the VMS platform was displayed centrally, regardless of resolution: 720P, 1,080P, 2-megapixel, 5-megapixel or even 10-megapixel. As seen in Image B, a screen shot of the VMS platform shows it can handle cameras from multiple brands. With the right configuration, the software can manage countless camera inputs as well as different resolutions, proving its robustness.

The camera test was designed to measure camera performance, so testing each camera's responsiveness to different VMS tasks were not included. However, we were interested in understanding how open each camera manufacturer was, as real-life installations feature multiple camera brands.

Our camera test included a l ive demonstration, which did not give enough time to exhaustively cover VMS compatibility. However, we noticed hidden integration issues during setup, indicating technical issues. The amount of openness depends on both the VMS provider and the camera manufacturer, as not every camera will display properly in the VMS platform. In general, there is no VMS that perfectly displays all cameras 100 percent of the time. Interoperability is a lofty goal, but there are practical issues — namely license costs and product pricing — that make it easier said than done.

Megapixel Cameras and VMS
Integrating software and hardware is notoriously tricky. If the camera manufacturer has not kept up with the VMS provider's latest version or upgrades, their camera may not be properly supported. From our camera test, we could see that software upgrades affected how a camera displayed. Some camera features that were supported in the old version of the VMS were no longer compatible. This raises the question of whether the VMS should support all cameras or if cameras should conform to VMS integration standards.

Nearly all vendors started out confident their camera could connect to the VMS with no problem at all. By the time we had completed preliminary tests, some vendors begged us not to display their camera on the VMS platform. Apart from issues with backwards compatibility for different VMS versions, the cost of software licenses is another factor that affects interoperability.

Standards
While there are two major interoperability standards for IP video, ONVIF and PSIA have their limits. There is no way to integrate every camera's unique functions into a general standard. Apart from proprietary VMS platform agreements, it was interesting to note that nearly all the camera vendors preferred to join ONVIF. ONVIF's video specifications cover how to display cameras with Universal Plug and Play, Bonjour and other network protocols. Just getting the camera to display live video was good enough for most camera vendors to prefer ONVIF over PSIA. While this may seem illogical, as image correction features and PTZ controls will not be supported for most cameras, it maximizes processing resources. Rather than hogging computing power to support every last camera feature, the camera and management platform perform more efficiently by supporting live video alone. Both PSIA and ONVIF are incomplete standards; interoperability works on a rudimentary level but is far from perfect. The lack of completeness depends on how open hardware and software providers are, along with their willingness to share proprietary code.

Streaming
How well a camera is integrated with a third-party VMS has a direct effect on bit rate and frame rate. This was evident during testing, when some cameras on the local network monitoring points showed changes in bit rate and frame rate. Overcoming this problem is tied to how the management platform handles streaming a camera's input to multiple viewers or multicasting, which affects the camera's bit rate.

If the camera has enough processing power to support multistreaming, its bit rate and frame rate will not be affected by multicasting. Some vendors have not addressed this issue in their design, which is not obvious to most installers or users. If they do notice it, they may fruitlessly tweak the camera's image correction settings or switch to options for image flow priority.

As we can see, standards bodies PSIA and ONVIF are mainly dealing with frontend display issues for software and hardware interoperability. However, this process involves manufacturers who have very different solutions that do not all work the same way. Standardizing products does not always yield third-party interoperability, as detailed in our findings above. This was a noticeable discovery from our testing, showing software and hardware integration has a long way to go.

In the course of our test, setting up network cameras to connect to the VMS yielded some previously unknown surprises. Integration and compatibility for cameras and management platforms still have some kinks to work out. We hope our test results can offer installers and users a good reference for real-life deployments.

Applying VMS in Real Life
For users or installers who have never deployed VMS before, a management platform may seem overwhelmingly technical or tally up to an insurmountable expense. However, VMS does not have to be connected to the Internet to run. The pain point for deploying VMS is managing multiple systems together for maximum compatibility, while ensuring each system operates reliably and stably. For system compatibility, software providers must ensure the VMS design can work as a holistic solution with different network cameras, video servers, DVRs, NVRs and servers. Accomplishing this task requires a sufficiently robust platform, as well as requiring all networked video devices to use the same connection interface, regardless of brand. Along with the devices talking to each other, the VMS must deliver what the user needs to serve its purpose as an integrated platform.

Finally, processing power is a deciding factor in the VMS' reliability and stability. The VMS' dedicated server, software and selected networked cameras, video servers and storage devices affect the platform's core reliability during operation. If basic computing power is not considered, all the SDKs in the world cannot ensure stable operation.

Standardization is an on-going process. For management platforms, lofty dreams versus reality result in a clash of needs. PSIA and ONVIF share the same goal of interoperability; they differ in how they implement their standards but essentially play for the same team. Most VMS providers emphasize their private agreements with product manufacturers to give them an edge in differentiation, rather than being open to everyone. This results in a huge gap between VMS ideals and actual deployment, a fact that vendors cannot escape from.

Our camera test was designed to measure real-life camera performance. While we did notice some technical issues, the goal is not to pick on manufacturers but to find a better solution. We hope security innovation continues in a fair and transparent way. From our findings, we also hope installers can solve real-life problems.