Monday, 20 July 2009
Town Centre CCTV ... crime hot spots or scenes of crime
This blogging lark really does require a strong level of commitment, and despite the fact that many have suggested that Doktor Jon should have been committed years ago, life and the world of CCTV seem to conspire against updating these occasional musings, on anything more than a sporadic basis.
Immediately after this post it will be back to the usual five hundred lines of, " I must make an effort to blog more often", but for now, here's the latest in a long line of glimpses behind the stories, that really should be making the news.
So what is it that's raised the Dok's ire in this instant?
Well after years of trying to encourage CCTV system designers to adopt a more "holistic approach" to deployment, the inescapable fact is that time and again, Public Space Surveillance is still being commissioned in the time dishonoured style of a remote control camera on a pole, watched by a person in front of a screen.
Do I have a significant problem with this? ... well yes I do if it's not the appropriate technique for the location, and the range and scale of problems that it's inevitably required to address.
For the benefit of those new to the world of CCTV, "Active" remote controlled cameras are really most appropriately used for active roles, such as Site Management or Incident Monitoring, provided of course the incident has been spotted in the first place (and as a subject for discussion, that could quite easily fill an entire chapter or two on its own).
Fixed and optimised "Passive" cameras are ideally suited for Evidential Recording, and to a lesser and perhaps secondary degree, the often stated objective of Deterrence, or as politicians so often prefer to describe it, "reducing the fear of crime ... and reducing the causes of crime" .
Which conveniently brings me on to a recent case of how not to decide which CCTV is most appropriate, for an apparent need.
Let me take you back to an incident which occurred last Halloween, where a shop owner was viciously mugged in a relatively laid back area of North London known as Temple Fortune. The location of the attack was at the northern end of a long straight shopping parade, which is somewhat unique in having a diverse and cosmopolitan selection of retail and leisure outlets, arranged over a distance of perhaps 1.1 ish miles (a bit short of 2 kilometres) from end to end.
On the fateful night of the attack, the female victim was violently assaulted in the street, and her car driven off by the perpetrators, who made their escape whilst the family's pet dog sat cowering in the back of the vehicle.
Now it perhaps goes without saying that there was no PSS camera system in place, and of course no privately operated CCTV cameras within 100 metres of the incident.
So now fast forward eight months, and on the back of a 1,000+ signature petition presented by local residents and traders to the London Borough of Barnet, the case for CCTV in Temple Fortune was rushed before the council's ruling cabinet committee.
In the documents presented to the meeting, it was stated that in the sixth month period between July and December 2008, 100 crimes had been recorded locally, as such designating the location as an obvious crime hot spot, something which given the scale of local concern, must be fast tracked through the system for urgent attention.
To address the unease of all and their dog, it was agreed by the committee that FIVE remote control CCTV cameras would be positioned along the length of the shopping parade, at the magnificent cost to the ratepayers of £ 150,000.
Great news indeed for all the locals; traders are mightily happy, terrified residents can sleep safe in their beds at night, the council have demonstrated that they really have their finger on the pulse with this one, and the overstretched boys and girls in blue are soon to have an all seeing high tech tool, supposedly guaranteed to help make their lot a much happier one.
So why is the Dok less than delirious at what appears on the face of it to be a more than happy outcome for all?
Well if we look at the council's own map showing a 'Global' non specific crime audit for the area, it doesn't actually present 100 crime incidents locally, but rather no more than a couple of dozen that had been recorded within the approved CCTV zone, although of course, they would in no way have been guaranteed to have been picked up by the proposed new surveillance system. As we all know, remote control cameras can only ever look in one direction at one time, so which one is the right one ...?
Without wishing to state the obvious, a couple of dozen incidents equates to roughly one crime per week during the stated period; as crime hot spots go, it's not exactly sizzling.
Then there's the small matter of the location of the cameras; spaced out as they are at significant distances from each other, the likelyhood is only a very small percentage of the area will actually be recorded in anything approaching a useful level of detail, and certainly the chances of capturing suspects at anything approaching the recommended levels of clarity laid down by the Home Office Scientific Development Branch, are too small to even bother trying to calculate.
Now if the truth be told, the location of last years car jacking is in excess of 250 metres away from the nearest camera, or to put it another way, if the crime were repeated post CCTV installation, there would be no possibility whatsoever of recording the incident, with the proposed system.
Had the local authority taken the trouble to examine the unique features and requirements of this popular shopping area, a more intelligent approach may have suggested that a properly deployed and operated community based "SafetyNet" type CCTV installation, would almost certainly be significantly more effective for both Forensic Surveillance and Crime Reduction purposes.
Given that it may well have cost perhaps £ 75 - 100k less than the approved project, and it does start to raise questions about how and why funding is blindly spent, on schemes which are on the face of it questionable at best, and from this side of the table at least, more akin to an ineffectual and expensive drain on very limited resources.
Politics aside, if there is a need for CCTV that's fine, but at the very least, some concerted effort should always be made to establish the extent of the need, and the most appropriate and affordable means by which to satisfy the desire.
On a happier note, I'm delighted to report that the car jacked doggie was quickly returned to his distraught owner, who despite her recent pyrrhic victory in the council chamber, may not actually receive the longterm level of technological protection, which some media reports would have us believe.
An interesting although almost certainly less than unique example, of how the age old approach to public space surveillance, is well overdue for a serious rethink, if progress is ever going to be made.
Labels: CCTV, Closed Circuit Television, crime reduction, Forensic Surveillance, PSS cameras, security cameras
Sunday, 5 April 2009
The art of CCTV resolution, or reading between the lines?
Just prior to the G20 summit here in London, this CCTV news story caught my eye on www.guardian.co.uk.
Now I'm quite used to reading 'strange but true' stories about the mad things people do with video surveillance cameras, but this piece really did stand out simply because it's daftness could so easily have been mistaken for an April fool joke, and by all accounts, many indeed thought that it was.
The background is very simple; Londons Westminster City Council have invested £ 15 million ( about US$ 20m or € 15.5m ) in a "state of the art" mesh network enabled video surveillance system, using re-deployable dome cameras that are mostly fixed to street lights.
At this point, I should perhaps mention that they've been happily using them for quite some time now, that is until the civil servants at the Department of Transport decided that with some new legislation coming into effect on the 1st of April, the cameras were no longer compliant and so would have to be switched off.
So that's about 60 street surveillance cameras deemed to be unfit, and condemned to be switched off, on the very day that all the worlds top brass buttons roll into town, amid one of the largest security operations ever seen in the capitol.
All makes sense so far ...? Well no actually, there was something rather odd about this story, repeated as it was across numerous news and media organisations; so I decided to do a bit of research to try and find out what all the fuss was about.
Now the first thing I discovered was the new legislation related specifically to the use of CCTV cameras, in order to issue Penalty Charge Notices (PCN's) for traffic violations. Now unless I'm misreading the situation, the cameras were ordered to be turned off, simply because they were deemed to be non compliant with the specification laid down for cameras, intended to be used for policing vehicle offences.
I could be wrong here, but it doesn't actually follow that if the cameras cannot be used for issuing PCN's, then they can't in the meantime be used for something else, such as Public Space Surveillance, where no such mandatory specification actually exists.
So at this point, it becomes clear that the cameras could in theory continue to be used for street monitoring / public safety, but they cannot be used lawfully for issuing tickets, or what according to the great British public, is euphamistically termed "revenue generation".
That then conveniently brings me on to the next point of contention, which actually relates to the new legislation introduced by the Department of Transport.
The entire basis of the argument is over the difference in image resolution between 4CIF (in this case, the councils cameras that are imaging at 702 x 576 pixels), and the stated requirement in the DfT documentation which is a minimum of D1 ( 720 x 576 pixels).
Now there's actually a number of quite seriously daft issues here.
Firstly, the actual difference between 4CIF and D1 may only be in the order of about 2.5% in practical terms, but in the real world, there isn't an engineer alive that could visually tell the two standards apart if the pictures were presented for viewing in isolation.
That said, there is a glaringly obvious mistake in attempting to relate image quality in relation to resolution, by simply stating the requirements in pixels. That is an absolute no, no in my world, for reasons I won't bore you with at this point.
The correct way to lay a standard for resolution, is by stating a requirement for both vertical and horizontal resolution, measured in "lines", with perhaps a + / - 10% to allow for what goes on in the real world.
For example, if the camera, transmission system and recorder are all optimised for D1 quality, the lens may be within spec at 2.10 pm on a monday afternoon, but twelve hours later, as the iris opens to allow night coverage, the resolution produced by the lens could easily drop 10 - 20%, so in theory making the entire system underperform, and therefore prove to be unfit for purpose according to the minimum specification.
Likewise, atmospheric grime deposited on the cameras dome or window, could quickly reduce the resolution by anything up to 30 percent or more, which in itself presents an interesting situation for anyone wishing to challenge the legality of PCN's issued using a CCTV system, which may well be unwittingly, unlawful in nature.
Despite numerous attempts to find a reference in the documentation, it would appear that unlike the widescale use of 'speed guns' which are used for tackling motorists travelling over the speed limit, there doesn't appear to be any mandatory calibration process required, to ensure that the CCTV cameras are operating 'on spec', most of the time.
There isn't even a statutory requirement for regularly cleaning the camera's to maintain quality; it simply states that a camera should be kept clean to help maintain the image performance.
I suppose the bottom line is, the difference between 4CIF and D1 may only be a couple of percent in terms of potential resolution, but the difference between using notional pixels and actual resolved 'lines' as a measure of image resolution, is quite literally worlds apart.
Labels: CCTV, CCTV News, Closed Circuit Television, Department for Transport, DfT, IP Video, PCN, security cameras, traffic cameras, traffic monitoring, video surveillance, Westminster City Council
Happy new CCTV year .... again!!
Well that just goes to prove it .... I said way back in January that my new year's resolution was going to be a concerted attempt to spend far more time blogging about CCTV and the meaning of life.
So what do I do?, well not a lot to be honest, until that is I discovered quite by accident that last week was yet another New Year celebration, this time in Iran.
Having promised in the new year to post more stories about video surveillance, now at last I can actually fulfil my obligations, albeit that I'm probably about three months later than perhaps I should be.
Oh well, the brain is willing but the body is otherwise occupied; that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.
Anyway, if you come across any interesting CCTV or IP Video related news stories, why not drop me a line and I'll make sure they get seen by a wider audience.
In the meantime, if you happen to know any of the words to Auld Lang Syne ....
Labels: CCTV, CCTV News, Closed Circuit Television, IP Video, security cameras, video surveillance
Saturday, 22 November 2008
The latest CCTV news offerings from around the globe
After a few weeks of catching up on loads of things that needed to be caught up on, it's now time to get back to the business of CCTV blogging, although quite how one eventually becomes a security camera blogmeister, or indeed an appreciative bloginista, is still something of a complete mystery to me.
And you know what .... you'd be absolutely right!
Every week, I scan through over 200 published stories from around the globe, and the most unusual are distilled down into what I hope proves to be an interesting and palatable mix of CCTV insights - which you can read if you're so inclined on this page.
I'm also very fortunate to have lots of Press Releases sent through to me, from many of the Industry's leading and most respected players, although somewhat bizarrely, many of the company's that actually spend the most on publicity, are the ones that don't even bother to avail themselves of my free news service on the main site; what's it they say about pleasing some of the people, some of the time ....
Anyway, if you want to read all the latest from companies like Altronix, AVT, Bosch, Controlware, Dallmeier, Dedicated Micros, DVTel, Fluidmesh, ioimage, IndigoVision, OnSSI, Pelco, Verint, and Videotec for starters, that's just what's come in during the last couple of weeks - for a complete list of the most recent press releases, have a look at this page.
And of course if you do happen to come across any interesting CCTV / IP Video related newsy stuff which you'd like to share, why not drop me a line and I'd be happy to present it to a wider audience.
Labels: CCTV, CCTV News, Closed Circuit Television, IP Video, security cameras, video surveillance
Wednesday, 29 October 2008
The future for CCTV ... Mega Pixels or Mega problems?
Apologies in advance for the somewhat sensationalist heading to this blog post, but I've been pondering recently the accelerating transition from conventional analogue (frequently described as legacy) CCTV cameras, towards 'how did we ever manage without them' digital models.
You'll perhaps have to forgive me for being ever so slightly flippant with that last comment, but as time and again I come across apparent CCTV "experts" promoting the quantum leap into the wonderful world of MegaPixel technology, as perhaps the best thing since crimp connectors, the realisation for me that things may not be quite so hunky dory has come as a bit of a shock.
Increasingly I find the suggestion that fitting extremely wide angle lenses as a possible killer application for MegaPixel cameras, unfortunately overlooks a glaringly obvious problem with what should be in the great scheme of things, a revolution in imaging technology.
For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the concept of MegaPixel imaging, the theory is actually very simple, so I'll likewise try and explain the issues as straightforwardly as possible.
An everyday standard analogue or IP Video camera may produce an image resolution (horizontal res.) of let's say for arguments sake, perhaps 480 lines.
Now a jobbing 2 MegaPixel camera can normally produce a resolution which is roughly four times that of our conventional example, so unlike a normal camera, the MegaPixel image is actually sufficiently sharp to allow a digital electronic zoom function to be used. This will allow the operator to examine a selected area of the picture for more detailed examination, without having to use the standard approach of increasing magnification with an optical zoom lens.
So far so good, but then recently I've noticed a growing tendency for some practitioners to promote the idea that the MP cameras are so sharp, you can easily fit an ultra wide angle or even borderline fisheye type lens, to cover extremely large areas with just the one camera.
Now this practice may seem o.k. on paper, but then the realities of trying to be all things to all men suddenly becomes somewhat less attractive, when the disadvantages are carefully considered.
Firstly, if you compare the performance of a normal camera fitted with a "standard" lens, against a 2MP camera fitted with an ultra wide angle optic, whilst the latter may cover a much greater area (and at a significantly greater cost), if you zoom in electronically to pick out a face from the crowd, the actual size of the persons head at a set distance, may well be equivalent to ... or dare I suggest even less than, the normal set up - so in this simple example, apart from covering a much wider area, the technical quality advantage presented by a much higher resolution camera, is to all intents and purposes completely lost.
Now the next problem relates to the difference between the two lenses.
With a "standard" lens, a person can move away from the camera a few metres, and the reduction in their head image size on screen will in general terms be minimal. However, with the MegaPixel camera, if it's fitted with an ultra wide angle optic (i.e. a very short focal length lens), any movement away from the camera will result in a very rapid reduction in the size of the person on screen.
So, in order to provide an equivalent size image, a greater degree of digital zoom would be required, which will effectively cause a reduction in image quality (probably through increased "pixellation"); so regrettably, in a purely practical sense, as a technical solution it may actually be far less effective for providing those vital evidential quality images.
This may all sound a bit strange compared to what many would have us believe, but the bottom line as with any video imaging technology, is that the more you ask a camera to do, then generally speaking the less efficient it becomes.
It would be a shame if all the potential quality improvements that are inherent using MegaPixel systems, were thrown away in the rush to adopt the technology in any situation whether optimised or not.
That said, if ever there were a clear case for the uninitiated of caveat emptor (buyer beware), then this would be as good an example as I could reasonably think of ....
Labels: CCTV, Closed Circuit Television, IP Video, Lenses, Mega Pixel Cameras, security cameras, video surveillance
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
So the French have decided to polish up their CCTV act
The UK may be regarded by many as the epicenter of the CCTV universe, but when compared to our freres across the channel, I'm reminded that there may only be a 22 mile strip of water that separates England from France, but in terms of deploying video surveillance in the capitol cities, we're practically living on separate planets.
Following a visit to our shores by Monsieur Sarkozy roughly a year ago, the President was heard to remark about his admiration for the significant and impressive level of surveillance, currently experienced by those people living in London.
Although traditionally, citizens of the republique have been spared the delights of widescale video surveillance monitoring, all that is set to change big time, with the announcement that Paris will receive a further thousand or so Public Space security cameras, within the next two years.
According to this news piece in the Telegraph, cameras are to be installed where they are needed most, which somewhat optimistically assumes that once installed, the political and operational pressures for expansion will somehow be contained through the power of the people.
Far more likely is the scenario that the proposed 44 million Euro investment as described in Le Figaro will provide the pump priming foundation for a far more expansive and no doubt expensive foray, into wide ranging video surveillance throughout the city.
Whether the rapid adoption of city wide video monitoring is actually going to meet the needs of the good citizens of Paris, is perhaps something only the authorities can decide in the fullness of time.
That said, given the proposed expenditure for what is in effect a relative small and no doubt less than efficient 'active' surveillance scheme, this does tend to suggest that whilst Londons past enthusiastic adoption of this technology may well provide a compelling basis for comparison, in practice our less than perfect experiences may not be quite so readily acknowledged, by those who are clearly on a mission to impress.
Bon chance mes amis!!
Labels: CCTV, Closed Circuit Television, paris, security cameras, television circuit ferme, video surveillance
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
A little CCTV knowledge is a dangerous thing
As part of the daily work on my main CCTV information website ( http://www.doktorjon.co.uk ), I generally go through a couple of hundred or so Closed Circuit TV related news stories, in what passes for an average week.
Now it doesn't really take that much imagination to accept that apart from the numerous "video surveillance coming to smalltown" stories, being supplemented by a never ending procession of "state of the art" products that will revolutionise CCTV as it is today, every now and again a story will pop up that is ever so slightly out of the norm, although not necessarily for the most obvious of reasons.
So it is with this apparently innocuous news piece from the UK's Telegraph.co.uk.
The writer having picked up on some industry chatter about British Standard BS8418 having a negative effect on many older "legacy" CCTV systems, has somewhat inconveniently extrapolated what is in practice a relatively small problem, and elevated it into the realms of borderline video surveillance armageddon.
The story relates to the suggestion that the new British Standard for remotely monitored CCTV, in other words, systems that are mostly connected to Central (monitoring) Stations, will only guarantee a police response if the sites security camera equipment fully complies with the latest standard.
Unfortunately, whilst the number of cameras being remotely monitored here in the UK, is only a tiny percentage of the overall numbers in use, the article rather confusingly implies that failure to comply may have far wider and more serious consequences for surveillance systems in general.
The one thing we can say with certainty about CCTV, is that very few users have that much interest in the subject, and of those even fewer have a strong grasp of the basics. Where journalists are perhaps innocently inclined towards grabbing sensationalist claims, and then running off towards the horizon leaving a trail of confusion behind them, it certainly doesn't help to clarify an already misunderstood situation.
This article is by no means unique in it's dearth of factual clarity, but then reporting what's wrong is almost always more readable, than maintaining complete and total accuracy in what they write.
Labels: BS8418, CCTV, Closed Circuit Television, security cameras, video surveillance
Thursday, 2 October 2008
How good are your CCTV cameras ...?
After more years than I can remember of advising clients about their problem CCTV, it occurred to me that given the widescale issues with so many poorly set up cameras, I really ought to look at doing something positive to help address the situation.
Well here we are at the 1st of October (erm, that was a couple of hours ago), and after months of planning, ok so it was really only a few weeks, I've now officially launched my new VIPER service.
The idea is actually very simple; if I'm sent a half decent JPEG image from a CCTV or IP Video camera, I can then produce a detailed "Video Image Performance Evaluation Report", which will identify how well the unit is performing, and whether the images produced would be considered as acceptable for possible court use.
The report also highlights key improvements that can be made to improve the picture quality, and consequently the cameras overall operational efficiency.
It remains to be seen how well received it proves to be, but for those interested in finding out a bit more, there's an introductory page about VIPER on my main site.
Labels: CCTV, Closed Circuit Television, Forensic Surveillance, security cameras, video evidence, video surveillance, VIPER
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]