IP Camera into NVR or router POE and why?

As the title says, I see IP cameras being plugged into the NVR ports and this whole concept of 8/16 port NVR.
 
Now besides the incoming bandwidth issue on that port, I cant see any reason why they need to be directly connected to the NVR?
 
Why cant I treat the camera like any other device on the network and *tell* them where to find the NVR.
 
If the uplink port is a gig port, I dont think bandwidth should be an issue with 4-6 1080p cameras.
 
I havent played with IP cameras much but am planning to order one (dahua).
 
Is there no setting on the camera for where the NVR is and its an hardcoded assumption that the two are directly connected.
 
But its still IP traffic which needs to be analyzed by the stack on the NVR before it understands that this is info coming from the cameras or someone requesting my webpage.
 
The only thing I can think of is that there is no way to tell the camera where the NVR server is and hence directly connected.
 
What am I missing here?

Generally speaking, you provide the NVR with a list of IP addresses that are the cameras... not the other way around. Additionally, there shouldn't be a requirement to connect cameras directly to the NVR unless that NVR also supplies a particular power source to the cameras as well - particularly if it isn't standard POE.

Now besides the incoming bandwidth issue on that port, I cant see any reason why they need to be directly connected to the NVR?

Click to expand...

An IP camera doesn't need to be directly connected.  BUT; if that feature is available then a direct connect in with a separate network interface out would allow you to manage all of your cameras via the NVR and would offset the bandwidth utilized to physically separate network (?).  A managed switch would provide you with a separate VLAN and granular per port tweaking but it doesn't change what the CPU in the switch can do or what the backplane capacity of the switch is.
 
It doesn't matter too much anyways on streaming HD out a WAN link because the bottleneck will be your ISP connection; IE: my upstream bandwidth is way lower than my downstream - say watching your HD IP cameras on a desktop in your office.
 
Here's a quote for the Comcast provisioned internet connection tiers:
 

Select Areas

•Performance: 20000 kbps / 4000 kbps ( DOCSIS 3.0 tier Upgrade)

•Performance: 25000 kbps / 5000 kbps ( DOCSIS 3.0 tier Upgrade)

•Blast: 50000 kbps / 10000 kbps ( DOCSIS 3.0 tier Upgrade)

•Blast: 50000 kbps / 15000 kbps ( DOCSIS 3.0 tier Upgrade)

•Extreme 105: 105000 kbps / 20000 kbps ( DOCSIS 3.0 tier )

•Extreme 305: 305000 kbps / 65000 kbps ( Fiber To The Home / FTTH tier )

Click to expand...

 
My personal preference is to utilize the NVR as a reverse proxy and means to manage all of the cameras and means of access from the LAN to the WAN via one configured in the firewall IP rather than the six cameras.  All of the new HD cameras I am playing with provides you with two HD streams and I personally utilize the two streams per camera. 

Why cant I treat the camera like any other device on the network and *tell* them where to find the NVR.

Click to expand...

 
You can do that too.  Multiple 1080 HD (1080=1920X1080 pixel size and 720=1280X720)  streaming at say 30 frames per second X 2 per camera  X 4-6 IP cameras does start to utilize a bit of bandwidth.
 
6 1080 / 30 FPS cameras streaming bandwidth would be:  72.0 Mbps (12.0 Mbps per camera) - 7 days of storage would be 2.7 Tb.
 
The above numbers are way higher than streaming SD analog cameras.  That said I stream HD at a much slower FPS rate like 5-10 FPS. 
 
I've been playing a bit with GSurf with is the "free" application that comes from Grandstream.  There is a search function to find all of the "Grandstream" MFG'd / OS'd IP cameras.  The end result of the search provides a camera name, IP, MAC, FW Revision.  I can edit each camera via the software and "enroll" it to the NVR application.  Takes less than 5 minutes versus going to each camera's web interface.  The application though doesn't see non Grandstream IP cams, like many of the propietary software/hardware NVRs.  You can even bring up a camera that has SIP/Speaker/Microphone and do a two way conversation with person on the other side of the camera.

Makes sense. Thanks for correcting me on that! Programming the NVR with camera IPs and not the other way around.
 
So I am looking at this product from Dahua http://www.dahuasecurity.com/products/nvr3404v-p3408v-p3416v-p-238.html
 
Why do they have 4/8/16 port versions? Are the 4 port version crippled in some way that they cannot handle to process the bit rate for more than 4 cameras? And 16 port has a much beefier processor and memory.
 
If the difference is just the physical ports in the back, then who cares! I can just go with 4 port 4 bay version and call it a day!
 
If the camera uses a non-std PoE , isnt that much easily handled by using a seprate switch with a PoE injector?
 
The beauty of IP is that nothing needs to be directly connected. If done right, it can be switched/routed to its destination. We seem to be loosing that advantage by directly plugging this thing into the NVR!

pete_c said:

An IP camera doesn't need to be directly connected.  BUT; if that feature is available then a direct connect in with a separate network interface out would allow you to manage all of your cameras via the NVR and would offset the bandwidth utilized to separate network.
 
You can do that too.  Multiple 1080 HD (1080=1920X1080 pixel size and 720=1280X720)  streaming at say 30 frames per second X 2 per camera  X 4-6 IP cameras does start to utilize a bit of bandwidth.
 
6 1080 / 30 FPS cameras streaming bandwidth would be:  72.0 Mbps (12.0 Mbps per camera) - 7 days of storage would be 2.7 Tb.

Click to expand...

 
THANK YOU so much with these numbers. That definitely puts things in perspective. I am planning for 32Tb storage with 6 cameras (1080p 30fps). If I set them up on motion detect, I think it should be enough to store data for a month.
 
I can live with reviewing stuff once a month and making space for new data.
 
Can you please look at the NVR link I provided and explain/*guess* why do they 4/8/16 port versions.
 
I will be a building a complete parallel network for security stuff (Alarm, cameras etc), my normal network is way too chatty !

Still trying to wrap my head around this! Are you saying that NVR will behave differently if the cameras are locally connected vs not! What do you mean by "allow you to manage all of cameras via NVR"? That would mean that they DID hardcode some stuff when doing the software!
 
I am with you on the network bandwidth issue, but if its a completely separate network, all the traffic will be JUST camera and alarm traffic, I think I should be okay.
 
I have VPN setup INTO my network from outside so I don't have to open any holes. Once I am in, its like I am on my LAN and can access everything!
 
 

pete_c said:

An IP camera doesn't need to be directly connected.  BUT; if that feature is available then a direct connect in with a separate network interface out would allow you to manage all of your cameras via the NVR and would offset the bandwidth utilized to separate network. 
 
My personal preference is to utilize the NVR as a reverse proxy and means to manage all of the cameras and means of access from the LAN to the WAN via one configured in the firewall
IP rather than the six cameras.  All of the new HD cameras I am playing with provides you with two HD streams and I personally utilize the two streams per camera. 

Click to expand...

pete_c said:

You can do that too.  Multiple 1080 HD (1080=1920X1080 pixel size and 720=1280X720)  streaming at say 30 frames per second X 2 per camera  X 4-6 IP cameras does start to utilize a bit of bandwidth.
 
6 1080 / 30 FPS cameras streaming bandwidth would be:  72.0 Mbps (12.0 Mbps per camera) - 7 days of storage would be 2.7 Tb.

Click to expand...

Running the numbers some more, 72Mbps is JUST 9MBps... thats not much! It doesnt even saturate a 100M connection (real life 11.2MBps) forget about gig network!
 
So if the link between NVR and switch is a gig and all the cameras go into this switch, I think it should be okay.
 
Comments?

Can you please look at the NVR link I provided and explain/*guess* why do they 4/8/16 port versions.

Click to expand...

 
Looks like it could be a power per port supplied to each POE connection?  (best guess).  Suggested for the cams I am using is 2 amps of power per camera and I just have them plugged into Tycon POE switches (big and small) with my touchscreens that are POE powered.  Non standard POE is just that.  I have already "toasted" a couple of cameras because of this issue.
 
Yup faster CPU and more memory more simultaneous fast streaming of multiple window views et al type stuff.  Typically the software is firmware and embedded.
 

What do you mean by "allow you to manage all of cameras via NVR"?

Click to expand...

 
Its way easier to have one view of all of the cameras management features than say 6 views or browser windows opened.
 
Not too long ago there was a CT user whom wanted to view live his HD cameras at his vacation home in the mountains with a very small bandwidth internet connection.  The HD stream was really bad; pixelation and freezing most of the time even at 5FPS.

Today I have a bunch of XBMC boxes which stream HD video live or recorded wherever in the house, streaming radio, et al. 
 
It does start to add up after a bit.
 
You shouldn't have any issues.  Here I have been slowly migrating to managed Gb switches for this or for that and mostly because the price has dropped considerably lately.

pete_c said:

Yup faster CPU and more memory more simultaneous fast streaming of multiple window views et al type stuff.  Typically the software is firmware and embedded.
 
 
Its way easier to have one view of all of the cameras management features than say 6 views or browser windows opened.

Click to expand...

That could be a problem! Let me google some more and see if I can find inside screen shots of this box or see what the CPU is.
 
From the spec sheet at the page I linked, all the 3 versions (4/8/16) have the same line item in description. Dual-core embedded processor.
 
STILL not understanding, why does the NVR care if the camera is locally connected or somewhere on the network? Okay, asking a different way, why does it need to know? *dont mean to irritate you with the same question over and over* but if it is what you are saying, the sw screwed up and did some hardcoding! If thats the case I can skip Dahua NVR and just focus on their cameras. Look elsewhere for NVRs.
 
I am not saying that I will be connecting to each of the cameras individually. I will be trying to use the same integrated NVR view that you are talking about except that none of the cameras would be directly connected to the NVR ports, they would be elsewhere on the LAN.

pete_c said:

Today I have a bunch of XBMC boxes which stream HD video live or recorded wherever in the house, streaming radio, et al. 
 
It does start to add up after a bit.
 
You shouldn't have any issues.  Here I have been slowly migrating to managed Gb switches for this or for that and mostly because the price has dropped considerably lately.

Click to expand...

Very similar setup here! Just add chromecast to the mix

STILL not understanding, why does the NVR care if the camera is locally connected or somewhere on the network?

Click to expand...

 
The NVR probably doesn't.  The view of the NVR would be the same whether directly or indirectly connected.  Typically every stream is recording 24/7.  The alarm events saved are a piece before the alarm event and afterwards that get and that is typically what you save.  Well that is what I see on my ZM box.  I then just compile each camera's alarm events to provide me with a day's worth of events that I can see in a few minutes.  
 
IE: while you watch or not watch the streams there is a lot going on in the backround.  The load on the CPU increases say if you are watching all 6 cameras in real time while in the backround the events are saved.
 
Having the ports on the NVR be POE gives the end user and or installer a more plug n play installation resembling something like the old analog BNC CCTV recorders used to have.  All in kit of sorts. with only one cable from the NVR to your network? 
 
Say for example a CCTV installer is installing your 6 camera POE system plus the NVR.  He doesn't have to concern himself with more port capacity, switches or POE injectors or a POE switch making his work plug n play and you a happy customer as you will see the results of what the installer has done immediately after he / she has installed the system.  That and the installer doesn't have to utilize your patch panels or POE switches.  One mismatched POE wire can really mess up some equipment.  Who's fault would it be; the installer or the homeowner?  Some folks only want to invest in an all in one system just for CCTV and nothing else.
 
Its easier sometimes to run cable and terminate it versus trying to correct/repair/check some cabling.  I have had to deal with that on cables that I installed some 10 years ago thinking that all was OK when in fact it wasn't.  I was using analog cams and switched from using the RG-6 and siamese cables to pure cat5e baluns with video and power and its worked fine for the last 5 years.  I didn't know anything was wrong with my cabling until I got more granular checking it.  The last one I installed I didn't really bother to spend much time checking it.  I just reterminated both ends and tested it fine right afterwards.
 
There many parts to the residential network. 
 
The ISP's today do provide a combo modem, VOIP box, networks switch, firewall router and wireless access point in one box. 
 
Not sure what would happen if you plugged in the power side of a POE cable with injector to the network port on the ISP's box?
 
Lately; even if you rent their box; ISP's charge a service fee; truck roll fee and even the price of another box.
 
Here my preference is to use my own purchased stuff over the ISP's rented stuff; alway have though.

Thank You for the detailed response and the insight! I just wanted to make sure there were no assumptions based on what you have seen in IP camera world.
 
I was kinda surprised to find out that they were being plugged into NVR which is not what I was planning, and hence the question!

You are welcome.  
 
Your questions help me learn more about my stuff.

The reason why these new NVR's are coming out with ports like this is to simply get market penetration....Analog is far from dead, but IP keeps changing the quality, bandwidth and cost of the units and some of the cheaper units, while at a premium to analog, are very competitive, especially when you're talking a small install with the majority of the cameras never approaching the 100m cable limit (still not a hard number in the real world, but I'm not going into that discussion here).
 
It allows a relatively unexperienced installer to basically plug and play some IP cameras into the magic box, have no power supply and do little, if any, network configuration for the cameras. The normal model for an NVR requires bandwith and the backbone to support the streams back to the NVR. The majority of the cameras we use can support up to 20 individual streams, and while the majority of the NVR's use 1 or 2 (codecs notwithstanding) when you start putting remote viewing, decoders and what have you....it is what it is for multicasting. These magic boxes and kits mean the installer and the end users don't have to deal with the network onsite (if any) or supplying hardware to facilitate these cameras (at least for this install, looking towards future, who knows).
 
Pete, your calc sounds somewhat off in my head....does that include any compression or codec?