Why does surveillance video always seem to be the lowest quality?

[mooglekit]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist
and no, i dont work for the mob, it was a facetious remark about being lucky that crooks know the cams are there. it is our biggest argument over the cost of the systems. if you get a picture of someone in a mask, what good does it do? apply the funds to intrusion switches and comms to dial out alarms when they do happen. much better spent.

I can agree with that. Seems to me cameras are much more "reactive" than "preventative." If you can prevent poeple from causing the trouble in the first place, rather than trying to use a camera image to track them down after the fact, you'll be much better off.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: gwrober

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: gwrober
Any good sites to learn from?

No idea. You could try to find something on Panasonic's and Sony's site. I believe they rule this arena.

Thx - I'll check 'em out.....:thumbsup:

ive used these before, great picture

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wc...14471&surfModel=WV-NP1004&displayTab=F

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: BigJ
At some of the bigger stores, surveillance is top notch. At one of the big box home improvement stores, the cameras have the capability of zooming in to read the serial number on a dollar bill a cashier is handling. People involved in loss prevention can do just that when they review the footage stored if they're so inclined.

But these cameras are not HD capable. They are just high quality cameras with a good zoom.

I believe they are very high resolution. One of the loss prevention people has shown me from the video feed from a normal camera in the store (not zooming in with camera) and enhancing the image to read shirt lettering, words on pieces of paper, all sorts of stuff. If they're doing it without zooming, it has to be a pretty high resolution, no?

I doubt it. I think that if you look into it, you'd find they are not even close to HD resolution. 4 or 500 lines is the most I've heard of for surveillance cameras.

 

[cKGunslinger]

As I'm sure has been mentioned, it's because there are 24 hours in a day. Now, if the crime and other "interesting occurrences" would kindly pre-schedule their happenings, I guess they could set up some 10 minute HD cameras just for you.

"dumbass fvckhead geekazoid clown?" Cute. :roll:

 

[everman]

Why not record 24hrs worth of high quality video, then later compress than down to a much smaller file size? If anything does happen then you may have high quality video available with little extra cost in long term storage.

 

[Skotty]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Skotty
Definitely need some higher quality cameras. I have a surveillance system for my house and would like to buy better cameras for it, but high resolution CCTV cameras are hard to find. The ones I have are something like 420x300 (don't remember exactly). Which means you need a pretty close picture for a face to be recognizable.

Storage isn't really a problem for digital video systems. I can store about a weeks worth of cruddy video from my 2 cameras with only an 80 GB hard drive. That's with cameras running about 22 hours a day, 7 days a week. With 500 GB hard drives being affordable these days, storage is not an issue, even if you use high resolution cameras.


Anyone know where to get some high resolution CCTV cameras with changable or vari-focal lenses?

Why are you discounting the huge bandwidth increase and storage space necessary to record HD feeds as suggested by the OP? Do you realize the difference between the resolution you are using and 720p, for instance? It's probably close to 10x the bandwidth.

10x the storage space would only require 800 GB for a weeks worth of storage with my setup. Of course, some stores have a lot more than 2 cameras. As for bandwidth, I assume we are talking what the hardware is capable of delivering/receiving? That's a good question.

 

[gwrober]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist
the camera side is the part i know the least about. the radio comms and dvr side is more my area, along with adding the video as an activeX object in a scada system or other integrated project. we can do this with basic DF1 serial radios, as well as up to MDS mercury ethernet radios. the bandwidth is shared with our normal comms between sites, and is also downloadable via thumb drive onsite. we have set up a few of these sites for water systems across arizona, and some cities go much farther with their security. one city has 11 foot microwave sensors for intrusion, it senses the blood flow in a corporeal being. i thought that was overkill personally, but they had the budget so they got them. im pretty sure they saved the cost in copper already, since other places are getting hit and stripped for salvage by crooks all over the place out here.

and no, i dont work for the mob, it was a facetious remark about being lucky that crooks know the cams are there. it is our biggest argument over the cost of the systems. if you get a picture of someone in a mask, what good does it do? apply the funds to intrusion switches and comms to dial out alarms when they do happen. much better spent.

What kind of hardware setups do you use, for 24hr DVR? I'm sure the systems you're using are hardened and dedicated...

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Skotty
10x the storage space would only require 800 GB for a weeks worth of storage with my setup. Of course, some stores have a lot more than 2 cameras. As for bandwidth, I assume we are talking what the hardware is capable of delivering/receiving? That's a good question.

I did not work out the math but a 30 frame/sec 24/7 recording of HD video would chew up A LOT more than 800GB per week.

But also consider the cost of a HD surveillance camera and that it would appeal mainly to companies who employ multiple cameras (hundreds or even thousands across multiple locations). All that data needs to be saved onto a local network and many times even streamed to other locations across the Internet or a private line. It would quickly become a logistical nightmare. Even dealing with NTSC quality can be a problem is you are transmitting it over the Internet.

Sure, you could set up your own HD camera and provide 1 HD feed and pretty easily save the data with some decently fast storage. But start adding requirements typical in a more high-end installation and you can quickly see why HD is not really practical at this point in time.

 

[Chadder007]

Yeah, I got blasted for this because I couldn't pull a CSI one time on a guys low arse quality video of someone stealing equipment. LOL

 

[SSP]

Thanks to network TV, we now have the technology to see the reflection off of someone's eyes. No need for expensive cameras.

 

[mercanucaribe]

HD? it's not even standard NTSC AFAIK. You can make out a face fine on a TV show, even zoomed out, but not surveillance tape. It shouldn't be hard to record 640x480 on a hard drive in DIVX format.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
Yeah, I got blasted for this because I couldn't pull a CSI one time on a guys low arse quality video of someone stealing equipment. LOL

Dude, all you gotta do is:

Zoom in here.
Enhance.
Clean that up some.
Zoom.
Enhance.
Rotate the image in 3D space.
Zoom.
Enhance.
Remove that wall blocking the view.
Zoom.
Enhance.

Tada! You now have an HD image and a 3D model of the suspect's face, all from a grainy 160pixel blur in a dark room!

 

[miri]

.

 

[mobobuff]

To store and archive that much footage you'd need a hard drive roughly the size of Rhode Island.

And that's a fact.

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: mobobuff
To store and archive that much footage you'd need a hard drive roughly the size of Rhode Island.

And that's a fact.

it doesnt have to be HD, just better than the super crappy resolution that always seems to play on newsreels.

anyway just delete the video weekly if nothing occurs

 

[mugs]

A lot of places still use VHS for storage, they reuse the same tapes for years so their quality is significantly degraded, and they sometimes put 4 video feeds on the same tape