Who is doing motion detection? the camera or the NVR

[aster1x]

I have been in contact with one person at Hikvison, in regards to the interface / UI in their range of software and requested an event marker within the timeline of recordings, he told me that he would speak to R&D to see if it could be included. Maybe if enough people pointed out these issues to Hikvision support then something might change...?

In the NVR native interface the motion detected events are logged sseparately and you can jump very quickly from even to event by watching the related video as well. I do not remember if they also display a marker in the timeline as well (I also do not have diret access to the NVR as it has been deployed in the final secured cabinet). So your request is almost implemented somehow. That's why I mentioned to you before that if you are not seeing the native NVR interface, you are missing a lot of things whch have been imlemented in the NVR native interface but not in the web interface.

The comforting feeling is that some HIK developers somewhere (US, or china??) are releasing some software somehow. In the last 8-10 months they have released some 10 firmware versions. Well this is better than some other companies who have released .... nothing!!! Even the bigger surveilance companies are not releasing more than a couple of firmwares per year. I would prefer however their releases to be better organised, documented and communicated to their customers and more synchronised (functionally wise) across their product line.

 

[vimes]

I didn't go into too much detail but basically if I have set each of my cameras for motion detection recording I find that the odd motion recording is either missed our clipped. Settings make no difference to that. So I maintain the triggers for such an event but also now consider full 24/7 recording. If you do that you will notice that the yellow blocks showing the motion detection recordings in the time line of the browser is now a solid blue. The motion triggers are still being flagged as they can be searched for and found within the 4200 client or the NVR itself. But they can no longer be seen in the web client.
I asked if that solid blue bar showing the continuous recording could have the yellow blocks imposed over it as the motion detection triggers are flagged.


I posted about it here....

http://www.cctvforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=42166

 

[catseyenu]

Why do you say this? AFAIK the camera firmware version 5.2.0 has less features than version 5.1.6. Beginning with the NVR version 2.3.8 (note the chang ein the background image of the NVR native interace and the reorganisation of the menu items) they have introduced different motion detection video quality parameters that do not exist as a stream in the camera firmwares andin version 2.3.9 beta and onwards they have introduced the Virtual Host feature in order to acces the camera interface without rewiring the camera connection. I believe the virtual host was the most important improvement as far as remote management is concerned. Therefore NVR firmwares from 2.3.8 and onwards ignore completely all the best of the features in the latest camera firmwares.

Therefore why do you say that the newer NVR firmware requires the latest camera 5.2 firmware? Which feature of the camera is utilised functionally from the latest NVR firmwares?

P.S. I used very briefly the camera firmwares 5.1.0 up to 5.1.6 because I jumped very quickly to the camera firmware 5.1.6 from the original 5.0.2 (and from what I am reading, there is no useful feature in 5.2.0). Also I jumped from the NVR firmware 2.3.7 December 2013 edition to the 2.3.8 briefly and then to 2.3.9 beta.

Correct me if I am wrong...
Virtual host was introduced in NVR firmware 2.39.
The release notes on NVR firmware 2.39 state that it requires camera firmware 5.20.
As congruence between camera and NVR interoperability continues I am assuming firmware compatibility requirements are a trend that will continue.

 

[dr.]

@dr.
Well I was wathing the live view scene and it was in the highest quality as specified in the main stream, even during the motion scene. However when I downloaded the scene file from the NVR and played it back wih VLC, I noticed that when the motion was detected the whole scene quality changed at the "motion detection quality parameters" set IN the NVR. That means that the NVR is not opeating just as a "dump" NAS but it does some processing as well, contrary to your initial statement that an NVR is just a NAS. Now if th NVR does this for all cameras, this sums up to some additional processing.

Therefore my curiosity is to understand who is doing what in order to understand better the limits of the capabilities of the system and solve problems.

In any case thank you for your comments.

I didn't say it wouldn't change during VLC playback, did it change as the event happened?

1. Open internet browser to view live feed and settings on camera directly, not through the client.
2. Trigger motion.
3. Did the settings your were watching change on the camera?

I'll even pretend that the settings change for every single motion event (insane idea for a product that can't screw up capturing video), does that even mean what you want it to? IMHO, no. Changing a setting =/= CPU processing. NAS devices can do ftp, ssh, samba, nfs, raid, etc. All your statements have been suggesting that the NVR is doing motion anaylsis, video processing, etc, etc which just isn't true. That's done in camera.

 

[aster1x]

Correct me if I am wrong...
Virtual host was introduced in NVR firmware 2.39.
The release notes on NVR firmware 2.39 state that it requires camera firmware 5.20.
As congruence between camera and NVR interoperability continues I am assuming firmware compatibility requirements are a trend that will continue.

Correct, the virtual host apeared in 2.3.9.
The release notes of NVR firmware 2.3.9 mention "compatibility" with IP cameras and firmwares and not "requirement".

So my question still stands.

Has anyone seen a new feature in NVR firmware 2.3.9 that exists in the camera firmwares 5.1.6 and later AND it does not exist in NVR firmware 2.3.8?