There is a misconception that a megapixel IP camera is much more expensive than a conventional one. However, in order to correctly assess the true cost, it is worth taking into account the price of not a single camera, but the entire video surveillance system. A holistic view of value, comparing it with the acquired benefits, will reveal economic benefits and profitability.
Megapixel cameras provide superior image quality compared to analog cameras and standard definition digital cameras. They are also a proven solution for greater cost-effectiveness of video surveillance. For comparison, analog and digital cameras of standard definition can cost less, but they are much more expensive if you consider the costs of the entire system. The truth is that analog and conventional digital cameras cannot provide high quality, and therefore have a lower return on investment.
Buying a result, not just a camera.
When the end user buys a camera for video surveillance, what he really gets is the ability to watch video, which really helps to solve the tasks. He needs cameras that can recognize a person and license plates. The end consumer also needs cameras that monitor activity in retail stores, banks, companies, government agencies, or at border points, airports, and ports. They acquire the capabilities and functions provided by cameras. If you calculate the price of an analog or VGA camera relative to their functionality, it becomes clear that megapixel cameras provide much greater economic efficiency than lower resolution cameras.
A camera with a resolution of 1.0 megapixels or more receives more information than with a lower resolution. An excellent image turns into profitability. If you take into account the concept of “pixels per meter” (which requires that you have a certain number of pixels for the normal display of one square meter), it becomes obvious that higher resolution is equivalent to the ability to capture large areas. For example, when earlier it took 10 cameras with a standard resolution to capture the parking lot, now this problem can be solved using 3-4 correctly placed cameras with a resolution of 3.0 megapixels or even one panoramic one, depending on the task.
Higher resolution per unit value.
Using approximate prices and the number of pixels as a quantitative measure of resolution, it can be easily demonstrated that megapixel cameras provide a higher resolution per unit cost compared to analog or VGA cameras. Understanding the relationship between resolution and money spent, you can easily calculate how many cameras are suitable for the task. Based on the concept of "pixels per meter", you can find out how many pixels you need to display a certain area. The ratio of resolution to the generated costs makes it clear which camera (or group of cameras) can provide the required number of pixels most cost-effectively.
The cost of a surveillance system compared to the cost of a camera.
When analyzing the number of devices of the new video surveillance system, a broad view of the cost of the entire system becomes useful. The total cost of the system is obviously a better measure than the cost of one element of the system. The cost of one element should not be the reason to abandon new technologies because of the high cost, without taking into account cost compensation with greater functionality and efficiency. In the case of megapixel cameras, saving factors include lower installation costs due to fewer cameras to be installed, elimination of mechanical telemetry (PTZ) and fewer workers required. Using fewer cameras to cover larger areas also translates into savings in infrastructure costs, such as cable, mounts, etc., which increases the return on investment.
Thus, analog cameras provide the worst quality, which means they are the least cost-effective cameras you can buy. When choosing between a conventional analog camera and a camera with a resolution of 1.0 megapixels or more, give preference to better quality and the best price, choosing a megapixel camera as the most cost-effective.