House monitoring - IP or AHD? What kind of recorder and cameras?

Monitoring of a two-story house and garden. There is a dedicated twisted pair for all planned camera mounting points. The maximum cable distances are 25 m. I know about networks and connecting hardware by Ethernet is not a problem.
All cameras should be at least HD (1080). It can be factory PoE but I can also use unused pairs of wires for power supply.
There will be 3-4 cameras outside. One must see well at night and recognize faces. Recognition of registration is welcome but I do not want expensive solutions for table recognition. Possible mounting of the illuminator in a different place. It does not have to be on the camera. Other outdoor cameras can be a price and quality compromise. The camera will be 3-8m away from the object, and some will be a dozen or so meters away.
In the middle of 2 cameras. I think dome? Also HD. No special requirements. One with 90 and 60 degrees of view.
The recorder should enable automated archiving on an external drive connected via a network or even USB.

IP will be better and more promising than AHD?
What recorder?
I am asking for the cheapest version, the route and the best price / quality ratio. What is worth paying for?
Buy in Poland or China?
For example, such a recorder seems to me to have a good price / quality ratio: HIKVISION DS-7608NI-E2 / 8P / A.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

One must see well at night and recognize faces.

Good, just do not forget to set up the "Intruzie stand in front of the camera and look at it, preferably from a distance of 1-1.5 meters".

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

Recognition of registration is welcome but I do not want expensive solutions for table recognition.

So do not count on it, especially if the camera is not in front of an oncoming vehicle, mounted at the appropriate height.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

The camera will be 3-8m away from the object, and some will be a dozen or so meters away.

A dozen or so - how many - 10? thirty? 50 meters?

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

The recorder should enable automated archiving on an external drive connected via a network or even USB.

It will archive on the disk mounted inside, if you have such requirements, do not count on budget solutions.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

IP will be better and more promising than AHD?

Why? AHD, CVI, TVI will be better quality than cheap IP, additionally solutions are still supported and modernized.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

What recorder?

It depends on which standard you choose, generally the most universal are hybrids.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

Buy in Poland or China?

If you want to have any support, etc., it's probably obvious that in the country.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

For example, such a recorder seems to me to have a good price / quality ratio: HIKVISION DS-7608NI-E2 / 8P / A.

Good company, look at TurboHD Hika.
And most importantly - give budget for the whole.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

I am asking for the cheapest version, the route and the best price / quality ratio. What is worth paying for?

9 years already with us and a friend did not realize that it is not a shop, but a technical forum ?. Just like a colleague wrote, please specify the budget first and suggest some hardware solutions that we would like to evaluate.
greetings

sosarek wrote:

Good, just do not forget to set up the "Intruzie stand in front of the camera and look at it, preferably from a distance of 1-1.5 meters".

The point is to register with quality sufficient for identification. My cheap camera for PLN 100 in a car can do it from several meters.

sosarek wrote:

So do not count on it, especially if the camera is not in front of an oncoming vehicle, mounted at the appropriate height.

Can not be compensated by the resolution, the approach to the driveway and the narrow viewing angle?

sosarek wrote:

A dozen or so - how many - 10? thirty? 50 meters?

Between 11 and 19. On average, 12-15.

sosarek wrote:

It will archive on the disk mounted inside, if you have such requirements, do not count on budget solutions.

So, for example, I have to hook up and copy once a week? There are no cheap backup options under ftp or simply copying the directory to a given network address? From what price does it start?

sosarek wrote:

Why? AHD, CVI, TVI will be better quality than cheap IP, additionally solutions are still supported and modernized.

Some producers have reportedly cease production of equipment for concentrates. Some cameras have identical prices for both versions.
Most of the articles I've read write that IP is the future, and AHD is legacy, backward compatibility with old cabling. If I do not have old cables then why go into old technologies?

sosarek wrote:

It depends on which standard you choose, generally the most universal are hybrids.

So buy a hybrid and connect both systems? I do not have any cameras yet. What can compatibility with me back? I will save on higher-end cameras?

sosarek wrote:

Good company, look at TurboHD Hika.
And most importantly - give budget for the whole.

There is no budget.
For example, the recorder for 1000 is the average option. If I have to spend more, I would have to know what I pay for.
These cameras are better, for example, 300-700, and cheaper, for example, 100-200 PLN.

Added after 4 [minutes]:

suworow wrote:

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

I am asking for the cheapest version, the route and the best price / quality ratio. What is worth paying for?

9 years already with us and a friend did not realize that it is not a shop, but a technical forum ?. Just like a colleague wrote, please specify the budget first and suggest some hardware solutions that we would like to evaluate.
greetings

As I already wrote 1000 for the recorder is the version from which I start. If it is to be more expensive then I would have to know why.
A good camera is several hundred, 300-700 PLN. I do not want more expensive ones. I prefer to wait a few years for new technologies. Cheap cameras are 100-200. So that with six cameras (two expensive and four cheap), the initial budget is 2,600 zlotys. It may change, for example, to 4000, but if I have to pay for something that in three years will be half cheaper, I prefer to buy cheaper and replace in three years.
Initially there will be a recorder and two cameras for the test. Then I'll buy more.
Maybe give me an idea of where to start and after the first experience I will know what I want?
I'm more inclined towards IP technology.

And a colleague of the sauce maker rightly directs his colleague to the technology of analogue high resolution, where for half the price (that is, within 300-700 PLN) we get quite decent cameras. You can know what arguments in the opinion of a colleague speak for IP?

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

The point is to register with quality sufficient for identification. My cheap camera for PLN 100 in a car can do it from several meters.

Especially in the balaclava and hood - people, a little more common sense.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

Can not be compensated by the resolution, the approach to the driveway and the narrow viewing angle?

Instead of an array after dark you will have a white rectangle.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

Between 11 and 19. On average, 12-15.

So definitely cameras with an adjustable lens (maybe with 3Mpx motozoom from Hika?).

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

So, for example, I have to hook up and copy once a week? There are no cheap backup options under ftp or simply copying the directory to a given network address? From what price does it start?

The recorder writes in a loop on the local disk, for 1000 PLN you can not buy anything that allows simultaneous backup on the network or on external media.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

Some producers have reportedly cease production of equipment for concentrates. Some cameras have identical prices for both versions.

I wonder who this bit of nonsense is - technologies are constantly being developed (even if 5Mpx is not a problem after the focus), cop to prices - they are completely different.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

Most of the articles I've read write that IP is the future, and AHD is legacy, backward compatibility with old cabling. If I do not have old cables then why go into old technologies?

Contrary to appearances, IP is developing slower than other technologies, and AHD, CVI, TVI, ba - even analogs you go through the twisted pair without any problems (video baluns / transformers are enough).

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

So buy a hybrid and connect both systems? I do not have any cameras yet. What can compatibility with me back? I will save on higher-end cameras?

Virtually all (not counting typical NVRs) are hybrids. It is not backward compatibility and support for many solutions - do not confuse.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

For example, the recorder for 1000 is the average option. If I have to spend more, I would have to know what I pay for.

For the quality.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

These cameras are better, for example, 300-700, and cheaper, for example, 100-200 PLN.

The better it is 600-900netto, what's cheaper and the budget you presented - I will comment this way "hahaha, stop joking."

See, for example, DS-7208HGHI-SH / A, DS-2CE56D1T-VFIR3
.

I compared the quality of analog and IP monitors live. Analogue clearly loses in terms of image quality at the same resolution, but there are no delays.
Recorders cost practically the same.
What is the reason for the worse quality of analog HD? Noise?

Is it true that the 720p cameras are better after dark? Current is in 2017?

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

I compared the quality of analog and IP monitors live. Analogue clearly loses in terms of image quality at the same resolution

Nonsense, how little ...

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

Is it true that the 720p cameras are better after dark?

The transducer used is very important, its sensitivity, conditions prevailing in a given place, etc.

I did not compare specific types of cameras, checking their prices and parameters. I used to provide an installer or user. I noticed that older people prefer analog - experience, and younger IP - openness to new technologies.
Unshielded UTP cat 5 cable for monitoring goes in parallel with 230 and 400V electrical wires. I'm afraid of interference.

I think that I will start with the purchase of the recorder and two cameras and then with the next experience. One external bullet is to guard the area and the car in front of the house at a distance of 6m. At night there is strong light from streetlights.
The second one is a dome or wall camera like an intercom mounted above the entrance door or next to them and looking straight ahead - recognition of the face from a distance of 40cm to 4m, etc. Placed under the roof, but the rain splashes will also be external.

The difference of PLN 300 between an analog or IP camera is not important to me. I do not want the financial argument to be decisive.
An important advantage of the IP recorder is that thanks to the smaller number of cables it can be more easily secured against theft.
Apart from its traditional role, monitoring is also intended to be fun and to learn. If a technology allows me more functions, it is also an advantage for me. For example, determining the area of motion detection, connecting with the alarm system, etc.

Thus, apart from financial aspects. Which Turbo HD or IP technology to choose in a similar price class PLN 1000 for the recorder, eg in the Hikvision offer?
Hybrid recorders have only one or two IP ports, and the rest analog. It's not exactly what I mean.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

I did not compare specific types of cameras, checking their prices and parameters. I used to provide an installer or user.

The parameters are the most important.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

I noticed that older people prefer analog - experience, and younger IP - openness to new technologies.

I am not afraid of over 15 years in the industry and new solutions, but IP is still being developed, it is not fully developed.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

Unshielded UTP cat 5 cable for monitoring goes in parallel with 230 and 400V electrical wires. I'm afraid of interference.

At what distance from these voltage cables? As for the disturbances - they can sometimes be eliminated in a simple way if they occur.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

The difference of PLN 300 between an analog or IP camera is not important to me. I do not want the financial argument to be decisive.

The difference between a good quality TVI and IP can be up to 3 times as much.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

An important advantage of the IP recorder is that thanks to the smaller number of cables it can be more easily secured against theft.

With other solutions, you have the same number of cables (one twisted pair of vision from one of the two cameras, the remaining ones have been powered.
By the way, the recorder is mounted in a place that is rather difficult to access, and not on the closet in the hallway

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

Apart from its traditional role, monitoring is also intended to be fun and to learn.

What, Solitaire?

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

If a technology allows me more functions, it is also an advantage for me. For example, determining the area of motion detection, connecting with the alarm system, etc.

The detection area for analog solutions is implemented from the recorder level, in the case of IP the case gets complicated. What to connect with the alarm system - no problem, only question how you imagine this integration (what tasks should be fulfilled).

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

Thus, apart from financial aspects. Which Turbo HD or IP technology to choose in a similar price class PLN 1000 for the recorder, eg in the Hikvision offer?

Apparently, the budget does not matter, but in advance you set up 1k for the recorder - TurboHD from Hika.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

Hybrid recorders have only one or two IP ports, and the rest analog. It's not exactly what I mean.

There are other solutions, but a lot more expensive.

UTP cables go in the same furrow contacting 230V on a length of up to 20 m.
An eight-channel analogue recorder has a minimum of 9 cables. The same IP recorder is two cables that can easily be moved to another location.
The monitoring is to be used to learn how to install and service monitoring, to form an opinion on its use.
Integration with the alarm system is, for example, sending a violation signal to the forbidden zone, that is, duplicating what the ordinary sensor does. Does it make sense? I have my doubts.
There are also IP recorders for 1200-3000. You write to suggest some equipment I suggest. Hikvision I saw in action and it's OK. Prices reasonable. PoE, I would prefer to have one at a time.
The budget does not matter in the sense that I can contribute to more expensive equipment if he offers something for me. I prefer to buy something more expensive which suits me, for example, at the expense of the fact that initially there will be fewer cameras.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

Hybrid recorders have only one or two IP ports, and the rest analog. It's not exactly what I mean.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

. PoE, I would prefer to have one at a time.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

The same IP recorder is two cables that can easily be moved to another location.

I admit that I read with increasing interest You can count on the development of these threads.
greetings

These hybrid recorders, whose parameters I read, were able to connect only one or two IP cameras and the rest hybrid. I misunderstood?
PoE I will make a separate switch, and I will not use the built-in recorder. To make it mobile and easy to secure. The IP cable goes to the power and ethernet cable. I forgot something?

Ok now better. From what he wrote earlier, it was possible to deduce that the number of IP cameras supported by the hybrid recorder depends on how many Ethernet ports he has. The issue of the number of cables explains the info that just puts a colleague put the switch in a different place than the recorder itself.
Back to the topic. IP technology offers a lot more possibilities, in many cases it facilitates wiring. The installer theoretically does not even need to know what are voltage drops, ground loop, etc. The fact that each device is an independent entity allows you to log in to each of them separately, easily add a second recorder, etc. But as the sauce maker says and problems that could not even be mentioned in analog systems. Equipment hangs, problems with motion detection. With one or two simple installations, you may not hit them, but when you do more, you start to deal with them. Examples? On the devices of one of the leading brands, with the recording of motion detection set, one day the registration simply stopped. In another place, after logging in from the mobile device, the auxiliary stream parameters changed ...
greetings

Additional functions "for fun and learning" as it was determined for IP and analogue recorders are the same. So the choice of technology in which you perform the monitoring depends only and exclusively on the cabling and the places where the devices are to be - cameras, recorder, power supplies and possibly for IP switches. For Analog, video signals from each camera must be made to the recorder, while in IP it is enough to collect the switch point and one cable to the recorder, which gives a little more flexibility if it is no longer able to provide cables.

suworow wrote:

And a colleague of the sauce maker rightly directs his colleague to the technology of analogue high resolution, where for half the price (that is, within 300-700 PLN) we get quite decent cameras. You can know what arguments in the opinion of a colleague speak for IP?

Time has shown that analog monitoring is a walking corpse. Two years have passed and analogue technology has almost been replaced by IP monitoring. It seems to me that distrust of IP results from the reluctance of installers to update knowledge about Ethernet and networks.
Fortunately, I did not listen to you and I went into IP technology.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

Time has shown that analog monitoring is a walking corpse

Two years ago a colleague wrote more or less the same

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

Some producers have reportedly cease production of equipment for concentrates. Some cameras have identical prices for both versions.
Most of the articles I've read write that IP is the future, and AHD is legacy, backward compatibility with old cabling. If I do not have old cables then why go into old technologies?

Only that these technologies seem to be slightly younger than IP technology

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

It seems to me that distrust of IP results from the reluctance of installers to update knowledge about Ethernet and networks.

So in a row:
We are talking about monitoring system on several cameras. The colleague tell me what a huge knowledge of the network you need to have to run such a system?
After which does a colleague claim that IP technology is newer than analog technologies of high-resolution video transmission?
What limitations would a colleague get beyond those we talked about two years ago if he had not chosen IP technology
Can a colleague cite information regarding the sale of particular types of systems?
greetings

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

It seems to me that distrust of IP results from the reluctance of installers to update knowledge about Ethernet and networks.

You probably think that analog CCTV installers are darker and can not set IP addresses, redirections, etc. However, you must admit that before the IP cameras appeared, they were long analog CCTV and surprisingly there was a network and redirection and there was no P2P clouds set with one click.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

Time has shown that analog monitoring is a walking corpse. Two years have passed and analogue technology has almost been replaced by IP monitoring. It seems to me that distrust of IP results from the reluctance of installers to update knowledge about Ethernet and networks.

Time has shown that analog monitoring is developing. Initially AHD, then introduced CVI and TVI. Time has also shown that in the analogue one can play high resolution image, which, using high quality transducers, competes with IP cameras calmly.

As for the reluctance, the installer is indifferent to what he hangs, worse with the client as he sees the costs. The other thing is the efficiency of the network using a preview of 16 IP cameras, and in the remote version "outside" it is a championship, I skip geniuses who want to let this through GSM because the operator miracles in LTE promises.

Just look at the number of camera offers on Allegro:
https://allegro.pl/kategoria/telewizja-przemy...37?bmatch=baseline-n-cl-eyesa-bp-ele-1-1-0619
IP 11865
the remaining together 15272/7 category = 2181 on average.

Same sorting but looking for the word Hikvision.
IP 3094
The rest of 2965.

Dahua
2541 IP,
1951 other technologies.

IP is the most comprehensive. The same on other sites. Most IP cameras from different manufacturers will work together, which can hardly be said about different analog standards.
Signal processing options are another advantage of IP. With analogues, you are doomed to recorders and average solutions or to one camera manufacturer. IP means freedom in the selection of producers and advanced methods of image analysis at an affordable price.

Analog technology is a corpse.

marek216 wrote:

As for the reluctance, the installer is indifferent to what he hangs, worse with the client as he sees the costs. The other thing is the efficiency of the network using a preview of 16 IP cameras, and in the remote version "outside" it is a championship, I skip geniuses who want to let this through GSM because the operator miracles in LTE promises.

As to the indifference is the will of IP - I make a quicker plug-in, the twisted-up twisted pairs of tricks and attached to the switch look neater.
Performance is ok, I have not noticed problems with 16 cameras, and even at 30.
I also have no problems with viewing via GSM - and so one camera is displayed on a single preview at once.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

Most IP cameras from different manufacturers will work together, which can hardly be said about different analog standards.

There are hybrids - they work.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

With analogues, you are doomed to recorders and average solutions or to one camera manufacturer.

No. There is something like this with IP - one hardware manufacturer is indicated.

Jan_Werbinski wrote:

IP means freedom in the selection of producers and advanced methods of image analysis at an affordable price.

The first part, unfortunately, is not true, the second part is so ...

Traditional IP has worked well for me. All the equipment helped me choose EC System Krakow and it works flawlessly. I didn't know much about all these differences between systems, but the gentlemen explained everything and presented a favorable offer.
.

Moderated By suworow:

Gentlemen, respect your potential clients a little. Think about it, whether with such an entry as above, you do not achieve the effect completely opposite to the assumed one. Three entries, three ordinary pathetic surreptitious ads
https://www.elektroda.pl/rtvforum/topic3052628.html#18391460
https://www.elektroda.pl/rtvforum/topic3336365.html#18391476
https://www.elektroda.pl/rtvforum/topic3052628.html#18391460
To save you more shame, I block this account.

I have little resistance to writing in this topic, because you can treat me as a technical ignorant; I will also opt for an IP system although (or maybe because) CCTV is a bit of a magic for me. I am planning a small system, rather an economic version for a recreational plot. I mainly want to know if there was any uncontrolled interference in the plot (in particular, whether there were any fishing from the pond). There is approx. 30 m between the house and the pond in a straight line and I have 230V (YKY 3x2,5) and currently unused UTP cat. 5 approx. 40 mb in the ground, cables at a distance of 10..15 cm from each other). YKY goes only up to 40 W aerator in the pond (continuous operation in the winter season), but an additional 1.5 kW watering pump will be connected securely). I do not know if I should expect any interference (it remains to be seen in the wash). I plan to mount one camera at the pond, and in time maybe the other on the opposite side of this small pond, distance to this