Jump to content
Security Installer Community

Cctv Format


Jim

Recommended Posts

i cant see how your theory can work alan. Assuming we are talking about pal not ip cams, the lens choice is as if not more important. following your theory i could use 1 yello cam with a 2.6mm lens and cover all of level one.

I think a better way would be like the fire regs and have as you say classes/grades. but it would need to say that a certain class say class 1 would need recognition on all door ways and say crowd control (5%) in ALL general areas, id in bars etc.

but it would be a bigger reg than 5839.

the only way real world i think it can work is to have proper specs that detail the requirement of the system. just like it is now for approved companies.

hi RB,

did not intend to write a complete thesis, but trust me - could if asked ;) (waits for rush to fit extra hard drives to the server).

imho if the trade go's for an enforced system it will be dragged down to the same unfathomable level of confusion intruder alarms have suffered, where we let alone the client is often left floundering for a simple explanation as to what they are getting and the level of protection actually given. most give up at the point of insurance acceptance (who often don't really have a clue), and just ask most clients they simply won't have a clue that there are grades and Grade 1 is the lowest and why it is different to the other grades and how.

on this point, i was earlier challenged on the order of grades, alarms go G1 - G4 in ascending order meaning G4 is highest, so just think about that for a moment - anyone care to say they deliberately go out to buy Grade 3 apples or clothes instead of grade 1? - common sense decree's for clarity Grade 1 should be the highest standard and that is what j/p is entitled to think if using the norms of English phraseology, so do you still think i'm daft to say these alarm grades confuse the public?

like it or not we have to accept there is no black magic to fitting most camera's, and so there will always be room for the privateer and the various standards they apply. if the pro co's want to be distinguished in a meaningful way we then need a simple code indicator as to the type of surveillance the system offers either as a whole or where needed each individual camera offers.

exactely how this standard would be derived is open to suggestion and debate. having such standards in place would assist in visiting an existing system installed by others to take it over, stating it is a of a certain level, you will then easier be able to inform the client you intent to increase or maintain it.

regs

alan

If you think education is difficult, try being stupid!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Redbull,

Just so that I understand your point, why the distinction between PAL and IP cameras?

Ilkie

ilkie only to prevent the megapixel argument, no setup intended lol

Arf

So from a future proof std point of view and we want to mamke a higher grade that what is currently available how would we do that?

Fire will go the same way come harmonisation.

But id agree maybe the word 'grade' was poorly choosen, maybe catagory would be better.

Any chnage to any reg causes confusion but Ill save that for another thread on another day. Have a read of the current regs (NSI ones granted) and beleive it or not there is an EN reg for cctv.

securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse

Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might be interested to hear that my company (ClearView Communications) has developed an "anyformat player" which decodes all analogue multiplex tape formats and most digital CCTV formats. We're up to around 450 codecs so far. The system auto-detects the appropriate format for viewing. It also corrects some of the poorer manufacturers players by (for example retrieving the time/date from the metadata and putting it back into the video picture). We've developed a single player interface for replaying different CCTV formats. The product is primarily used by police forces to simplify CCTV replay.

Paul Main

ClearView Communications Ltd

Robjohns Road Chelmsford

Essex CM1 3AG

Telephone: 01245 214104

Fax: 01245 214101

paul.main@clearview-communications.com

www.clearview-communications.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of categorising or classifying CCTV installations is actually relatively simple, but in a practical sense something of a red herring.

If we forget the customer for a moment; the suggestion that perhaps fifteen to twenty years ago CCTV was intended to be a deterrent to crime, has now very much fallen by the wayside, simply because the volume of cameras installed (and the fact that the majority are not 'fit for a useful purpose'), means that criminals now benefit from what scientists describe as "habituation".

In other words, you get so used to something being present, that it no longer affects or modifies your behaviour.

Now the key point is that if a small system is naively profiled for the customers narrow requirements, any supplementary operational objectives are invariably ignored. So using the example of catching a shoplifter in a retail unit, the CCTV may well spot the individual stuffing a frozen chicken down the front of their trousers, but as we all know, with the wrong set up it's going to be next to useless at helping to identify the 'perp', at least without the benefit of thermal imaging.

Consider then that murderers, rapists and terrorists are just as likely to visit their local corner shop for a bottle of milk, so if the vital 'identification' images that the police urgently require are not available, then somebody somewhere, or indeed their family, may have to suffer the consequences of a less than ideal installation.

Devising standards for CCTV has already started albeit to a very limited degree with Licensed Premises in certain parts of the country. This will further develop in coming years, to try and ensure that whatever is supplied fits the bill, but certainly the examples I've seen so far are very much less than what I would consider acceptable. As an exercise is it rocket science? ... nah!

It's quite possible to categorise applications till the cows come home (and really not that difficult to do), but in practice a performance driven standard is actually far more important IMHO.

Now what if we consider, three possible scenarios ....

Firstly, we do nothing at all and hope that the quality of recordings from video surveillance systems, doesn't get any worse, and hopefully over a period of time with gradually improving equipment and falling prices, may actually improve to some limited degree.

Secondly, as an industry or at least part of it, we explore ways of raising standards, so that recognition is given to jobs that are done well, and this will hopefully over a period of time, design out many of the opportunities for cowboy installations.

Finally, we keep all our bits crossed and hope that the legislation that will be brought in, will allow licensing to be obtained after an appropriate level of intensive training and certification, which by my reckoning may well cost installers thousands of pounds to achieve. If you think that sounds laughable, just have a think about how much it costs to achieve 'CORGI' accreditation, to fit a gas appliance.

If you think the last suggestion is fanciful, it's perhaps worth considering that the 'powers that be' are seriously intent on developing video surveillance as a powerful forensic investigative tool, with at least if not more so, the same level of intensive development over the next few years as that applied to DNA analysis.

End users may have relatively mixed expectations at the moment, but that is something which is set to change, either by persuasion, or perhaps eventually legislation.

My concern isn't just about how the objective of improving standards is achieved, but rather how long it's going to take ... and by which route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RJBsec

In the case of intruder alarm systems the customer covering the cost of what is requied is enforced to a large degree by the insurers for cover, ACPO for response and the inspectorates for limiting the 'cowboy' factor; however the situation is quite different with the majority of CCTV fitted today.

Whilst there are indeed some requirements laid down for the likes of pubs and clubs (and rightly so) it is a whole different ball game for such as the corner shop, the community hall, the small workshop and the private house. Enforcing standards of equipment and thereby increasing the cost to the end user, (who may well be perfectly happy with results that are less than 'forensic' quality because they suit his requirements/budget), is in my view an unlikely scenario, which would serve to reduce the number of instances of small CCTV installations, which wold be a shame as they do remain a local deterrent whilst being a useful tool for the user and possibly of value to the authorities as a by-product.

Scenario 1 - Workshop unit broken into, intruders steal and flee, police arrive and issue crime number.

Scenario 2 - As above but small local CCTV system identifies how many involved, type of vehicle used, maybe some specifics.

Scenario 2 wasn't bourne out of a requirement for expensive kit, (had it been it probably wouldn't have been installed), yet it provided some useful and maybe vital information as a bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest anguscanplay

golden goose time

a CCTV system cannot and will not "identify..." every perp. never mind a single one simple as, due to the limitations of the device -

at least not till someone developes a auto focus, auto tracking, see in the dark and through a hoodie 360 degree camera that runs automatically and can track hundreds of people at once

my own feeling is WE as an industry should be moving away from making such wild promises and selling systems purely on the basis of " local observation / area monitoring..." instead

No ones yet been able to answer my original question to the O/P - what % of succesful identification without realtime viewing?

Angus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angus we all have system that achive very high % of id, those are the systems id'ing a known issue, if you know the problem than you can design a system, just like with intruder, you wouldnt use a

securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse

Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest anguscanplay
Angus we all have system that achive very high % of id, those are the systems id'ing a known issue, if you know the problem than you can design a system, just like with intruder, you wouldnt use a
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RJBsec
No ones yet been able to answer my original question to the O/P - what % of succesful identification without realtime viewing?

Angus

It happens!

post-17425-1211795378_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest anguscanplay
Can't remember but he was convicted.

right, so it proves cctv works...

at protecting CCTV - ROFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"imho if the trade go's for an enforced system it will be dragged down to the same unfathomable level of confusion intruder alarms have suffered, where we let alone the client is often left floundering for a simple explanation as to what they are getting and the level of protection actually given. most give up at the point of insurance acceptance (who often don't really have a clue), and just ask most clients they simply won't have a clue that there are grades and Grade 1 is the lowest and why it is different to the other grades and how"

To cut out any confusion, I would suggest the following apply to any recorded CCTV installed in public places, areas where the public are invited (covers retail/public buildings/petrol station/transport etc) and systems where the cameras record views of public areas:-

System will be planned to meet all current regulations/legislation

Risk assessment of the site should be undertaken leading to the creation of the operational requirement document

Each system to include a camera (or cameras) that provide identification size/resolution images or individuals/vehicles in accordance with Home Office Guidelines.

Recording system should meet requirements for image retention and evidence distribution in manner acceptable to the Criminal Justice System

System should be handed over with a log book with system documentation and with training of the end user provided (existing DPA requirement)

A regular maintenance routine implemented and review of cameras (again existing DPA requirement)

The installer should be licensed for installation of CCTV (already planned via SIA) and the Information Commissioner should extend DPA notification of CCTV to liciense each system (now hinted at by the Conservative Party see Tory Party & CCTV).

The trend in the EU is for licensing of public space CCTV and this may well be adopted (or imposed depending on your viewpoint) in the UK.

Meanwhile, given the new Consumer Protection Regulations (the duty for companies not to trade unfairly and to avoid misleading statements or omissions) and it's the intention that the proposed CCTV system will not provide evidential images for prosecution (as detailed in the guidelines), this should be put in writing, or Trading Standards may well get involved if the Police inform the end user that their CCTV system does not produce useful evidence.

Ilkie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"imho if the trade go's for an enforced system it will be dragged down to the same unfathomable level of confusion intruder alarms have suffered, where we let alone the client is often left floundering for a simple explanation as to what they are getting and the level of protection actually given. most give up at the point of insurance acceptance (who often don't really have a clue), and just ask most clients they simply won't have a clue that there are grades and Grade 1 is the lowest and why it is different to the other grades and how"

To cut out any confusion, I would suggest the following apply to any recorded CCTV installed in public places, areas where the public are invited (covers retail/public buildings/petrol station/transport etc) and systems where the cameras record views of public areas:-

System will be planned to meet all current regulations/legislation

Risk assessment of the site should be undertaken leading to the creation of the operational requirement document

Each system to include a camera (or cameras) that provide identification size/resolution images or individuals/vehicles in accordance with Home Office Guidelines.

Recording system should meet requirements for image retention and evidence distribution in manner acceptable to the Criminal Justice System

System should be handed over with a log book with system documentation and with training of the end user provided (existing DPA requirement)

A regular maintenance routine implemented and review of cameras (again existing DPA requirement)

The installer should be licensed for installation of CCTV (already planned via SIA) and the Information Commissioner should extend DPA notification of CCTV to liciense each system (now hinted at by the Conservative Party see Tory Party & CCTV).

The trend in the EU is for licensing of public space CCTV and this may well be adopted (or imposed depending on your viewpoint) in the UK.

Meanwhile, given the new Consumer Protection Regulations (the duty for companies not to trade unfairly and to avoid misleading statements or omissions) and it's the intention that the proposed CCTV system will not provide evidential images for prosecution (as detailed in the guidelines), this should be put in writing, or Trading Standards may well get involved if the Police inform the end user that their CCTV system does not produce useful evidence.

Ilkie

Or they could let the BS5839 commitee do it and it will be pretty much spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or they could let the BS5839 commitee do it and it will be pretty much spot on.

Thought BS5839 was Fire detection and fire alarm systems for buildings and Code of practice for the design, installation, commissioning, and maintenance of voice alarm systems.

Are they now looking at public space CCTV?

Ilkie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought BS5839 was Fire detection and fire alarm systems for buildings and Code of practice for the design, installation, commissioning, and maintenance of voice alarm systems.

Are they now looking at public space CCTV?

Ilkie

No.

My point was it is a written standard that is clear to follow so if it works for one disipline it can work for others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chorlton, fire detection design ie all escape routes etc. Escape routes are easy to define, chnage of level all final exits etc.... but cctv is different. I agree that 5839 is a pretty well written std but so are many british standards

securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse

Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest anguscanplay
Each system to include a camera (or cameras) that provide identification size/resolution images or individuals/vehicles in accordance with Home Office Guidelines.

Ilkie

and how are you going to do that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest anguscanplay
What all CCTV professionals should be designing and installing to:-

Home Office Operational Performance Manual - Is Your CCTV System Fit for Purpose?

Ilkie

you miss the point Ilkie, like the words to the old Queen song go " now I`m here .......

now I`m there ........" so how you gonna meet ID regs when my drives 20mtrs long and 6 mtrs wide ? cause as I remember it the depth of field on an average camera is something like 0.6 mtrs at 1.6 mtrs from the camera ? so thats one of your criterea straight out of the window

now dont get me wrong I`m not anti CCTV, I just feel the emphasis has been on the wrong aspect of it - it invariably doesnt capture a usable image of a criminal but what it does provide is verification of what happened

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest anguscanplay
As i have said before gus, this i dont agree with, as a rule we do. But then we dont do 'budget' cctv.

er, compared to the stuff we fit yes you do

(well maybe you dont but you also know we dont do budget either and such a low blow is really beneath you) - but using YOUR dome as an example are you seriously claiming you`d be able to make an ID across the road at the barbers? now, at 21.43, when the one on the lefts wearing a hoodie ? of course not. The value of that system is when someone is watching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

beneath me lol

I also mean system, not camera. A dome on patrol is giving overview, other cams (statics) give you your id at pinch points, ie door ways, gates, vehicle entrances, ped gates. we have 4 megapixels covering our site as well as the demo dome. I see your point angus but i feel your being anti cctv when in the right places on the right gear with the right design it is very very effective. But I also agree that live or remote monitoring is the best.

securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse

Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.