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 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 front-end 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.