WestPoint · Video software · Axis Camera Station Pro
Camera Station Pro is the video software from Axis, the house that makes the cameras. With cameras, audio, intercoms and door controllers from the same brand you get a system with very few pieces and one telephone number to ring. What has to be known first is how far it goes, and even the manufacturer says it.
The scene where it clicks straight away: one building, a hundred cameras, two doors, an intercom at the gate, speakers for spoken alerts, and nobody with any appetite for a server room.
On a project that size the problem is not recording: it is that the normal thing is three different systems —video from one, access from another, public address from a third— and two integrations that have to be maintained every time somebody updates something.
Here all of that is the same program. The door is not an integrated panel: it is an item in the system, with its card holder and its schedule inside. The intercom rings in the same client where the camera is watched. The speaker is triggered from the same rule. That does not bring the price of the metal down: it brings down the project hours and the faults at the boundaries.
And what marks out its ground, said up front: this is a platform for a building or a few premises. For an installation of thousands of cameras with federation and a shift-manned control room, the manufacturer itself will take you to a platform from another house, and it says so. A manufacturer that warns you when its software is not for you is a piece of data, and it is worth using rather than arguing with.
Few pieces, and that is its virtue. But there are five things that decide the sizing and one that decides the ceiling.
This is the platform on this list where going with a single brand gains most. So you have to be exact about what is left out.
What you gain: the camera is not a peripheral, it is part of the system. Its events arrive with what it has understood, its configuration is touched from the same place, and the firmware, the passwords and the certificates of the whole estate are managed with the house tools. Anyone who has renewed the credentials of a hundred and fifty cameras from four brands knows what that is worth.
And you gain something almost nobody puts in the column: this brand allows third-party programs to be installed INSIDE the camera. That brings in specialised analytics —an unusual count, a sector-specific detection— with no analytics server and no fee per analysed channel. It is a route the open platforms do not have, because they depend on whichever camera they are given.
What you lose: the day a camera from another house comes in —a thermal one, a lens this brand does not make, a building bought with cameras already in— it comes in over ONVIF. It is viewed and recorded. Its events do not arrive, its on-board programs do not arrive, its firmware is not managed from here and a good part of its configuration stays in its own browser.
Put another way: everything that makes this platform convenient is what does not apply to the other maker's camera. It is not that it works worse; it is that half the product goes unused on that camera, and the operator notices when they look for it and it does not come up like the others.
And how far the third-party support really goes: it exists, and what it guarantees is image and recording. Which functions travel on the exact model and with the exact firmware is checked on a test rig, and if it has not been checked the honest answer is «I do not know yet». What will not do is promising it off the list.
The other side of going with one brand is commercial and not technical, and it turns up in year four: you depend on one catalogue, on some delivery times and on some prices. When a model is discontinued and the replacement costs a third more, there is no second quotation. That is not a reason not to do it; it is a line that goes in the record of the decision.
Per device: each camera, each intercom and each controller consumes its licence, and an encoder with four analogue cameras consumes four, not one. The brand's recorders come with the software and a number of licences inside, and that changes the sum on a medium-sized installation enough to be worth looking at.
And here comes a warning that matters more than on any other of the twenty: this manufacturer has moved its licence model. What was true three years ago is not necessarily what is true today, and there are different conditions depending on the country. So we do not write it here: what we do is ask for it in writing for your case —what the licence includes, whether there is an annual fee, and what happens to the versions the day you stop paying it— and put it in the quotation with the figure in front of you.
What is left outside the licence and grows on its own: the storage, the Windows the server lives on and the metal. And the chain of versions, which on a platform so tied to its cameras squeezes harder: the new cameras ask for new software, the new software asks for an operating system that is still supported, and that staircase is climbed whole or not at all.
The scenario to see coming is the usual one and here it arrives through the side door: you go in with one building, it goes well, and three years later there are four more premises and somebody asks for a control room with shifts. That is not extending licences: it is another conversation. We ask what the installation is going to look like in three years even when it is awkward.
It has the most clearly defined profile of these six, and that makes the conversation easy in both directions.
You are going to put in cameras from this brand and you want doors, audio and intercoms in the same program: offices, schools, clinics, industrial units, medium-sized public buildings. If you have a single systems administrator and want one piece instead of three. And if you are interested in putting analytics inside the camera rather than setting up a server for it.
You have a large estate from another brand that is not going to be changed: you pay for a platform and leave out almost everything that makes it convenient. If many premises have to be federated with central administration and specification-grade auditing. If you need a large catalogue of third-party integrations. Or if house policy forbids depending on one supplier for hardware and software at the same time.
Whoever has one building today and says they are going to have ten. It can make perfect sense to start here and change platform when the time comes —the cameras stay, which is the expensive part—, but that move has to be written down today, with its cost, rather than discovered as a problem. Deciding it in time is cheap.
Here the value is not in installing, which is straightforward. It is in deciding the ceiling and in the part that is not video.
Of these six it is the easiest to leave in the client's hands, and that is a buying argument that rarely gets put in the table.
Here there is a route the others do not have, and also the same ceiling as all of them. Both things, in order.
As standard, what you would expect: motion detection by zones, which is geometry —pixels changing inside a rectangle— and the reason a shift fills up with alerts when it rains or the light changes. Plus collecting the events the cameras generate on their own, which with this brand is a fair number.
What can be added, and it is its own route: programs that run INSIDE the camera. Counting, line crossing, loitering, abandoned object, number plates, and sector-specific analytics made by third parties. No analytics server is needed and no fee per analysed channel, and the alert reaches the software as one more event that a rule can be made from.
The price of that, which is not money: each program inside a camera is one more manufacturer with its own version, and it has to be squared with the camera firmware and with the software version. Two suppliers in the same system is coordination work, and either the integrator does it or nobody does.
The ceiling, the same as in almost all video software and without going round it: these are rules about shapes and about classifications. You describe a zone, a crossing or a time and that gets watched. It covers most of what gets asked for. What it does not reach is understanding the situation: that two people are arguing, that a worker is doing something unsafe that does not consist of crossing a line, that what is on screen is odd even though it breaks no rule.
And since what follows is a recommendation with an interested party in it, it is declared first: in the same house there is IRIS Neural, the NVMS from Infinity Neural, the other company in the group. It is our product. If we did not say so, everything above would be worth less.
On many installations they live together: Camera Station governs cameras, doors, audio, recording and permissions, which is what the client has already paid for; IRIS brings the understanding of the scene. And if what is needed is two zones, a line and a count, your cameras already do that: then this is enough and there is nothing to buy.
If you are torn between the software from your camera manufacturer and an open platform, the question is not which has more functions: it is whether you want the convenience solved out of the factory or the freedom to choose the camera. The index has all twenty against that criterion.
Get started
It is the question that decides whether this platform lasts you three years or ten. Tell us how many cameras there are, how many doors, whether you want audio or intercoms, how many premises and what brand what is already in is. With that we tell you whether this fits you, which licences have to be counted and at what point you would have to change platform. If it is more than you need, we will tell you.
