Cctv Specifications: An Interesting Reading

[uski]

Hi,

This afternoon I found this article, about the specifications of CCTV cameras:

http://www.cctv-focus.com/cctvfocus37_unravel.pdf

I have found it very interesting and I wanted to share the link (I hope I am allowed to put this link here !)

uski

[Doktor Jon]

Hi uski,

Thanks for posting the article.

I wouldn't for one moment disagree with the sentiments expressed in the writing, in fact I've been known to voice similar opinions about the CCTV industry on many an occasion myself

That said, for an article to have relevance to the majority that work in the CCTV industry, I wouldn't mind betting that it may have been a good start to somewhat simplify some of the engineering concepts into a version that everyone could understand. I personally found it very heavy reading , and this was mostly stuff that I was learning way back in the 1970's.

I really don't want to appear picky (although this is definitely going to make me sound like a total smart a**e), but there are one or two key fundamental points which have been totally omitted, and certainly in terms of the optical references to lenses, there are a number of statements of fact which are quite simply wrong or misleading.

Overall, it's a very useful article, but I can't help wondering how many members are actually going to have the patience to read it all the way through, and indeed how many will spot the less than deliberate mistakes.

If it gets a debate going then it will have provided a very useful contribution to the subject of poor picture quality. Somehow, I doubt that will be the case

[Joe Harris]

Uski - for sharing the info - always useful to read up as much as possible, even if the information must be corraberated by other sources on occasion.

Doktor Jon - I must say I was very impressed by your own website and the information contained therein. I found all the articles to be a very enjoyable read and would recommend all people interested in cctv to take a visit.

More needs to be done to highlight some of the gaps in peoples understanding of successful & legal implementation of cctv systems, particularly with our current high level of usage coupled with the fact that yet more forces will require verication systems along the lines of cctv imaging.

Well done to you both.

[cutwitt]

So the gist of it is - low light performance of cctv cameras is grossly exaggerated and recorded resolutions are often so low that face recognition of suspects is not possible.

No news there then.

An interesting article but one guilty of the same exaggeration it criticizes

[uski]

I think that cameras such as the Axis 223M are interesting (2MP, IR sentitivity for low-light operation), but they are still far too expensive to be used commonly !

[RussS]

Guys, guys. You all know that on some points you are all correct, and so is the article. But, we've all overlooked one most important issue. PEOPLE! What is the main reason for TECH advance in CCTV? People! It's like this, technically, you're only going to be able to get a picture that is so good. But, doesn't the quality of the picture depend on the one that does the veiwing? - At the center of this issue lies this; the quality of the end result is not completely dependant on the quality of the product it-self, but more so on the quality of the installation of that product. Wrapped around that, is the realistic expectations of the end user. - The end user expectations are what drives the cctv industry. You guy's know this. We've all had the client that wants a camera to cover his driveway. We being experienced field techs/ etc. know what he needs. But, what he needs is rarely what he expects. In his mind, the cctv system will be like watching a television show. First he'll see a car in his driveway, then the little director in the camera will know he'll want a close up of the driver, then an extra tight shot of license plate. The little director will the advise the car and the driver to remain still so the client can observe even smallest detail. Now the client is happy the cctv manufacturers are happy the boss is happy because he has made a mint, and all is right with the world. EXCEPT for the installer! Because he is the only one that knows that this is fiction! He knows he needs to bring the end users expectations back to reality. Once that is accomplished, the tech is hero, in the eyes of the boss, the end user, the manufacturer, etc. The client will forget the name of the equipment but NOT the name of the installer. <this is a two edged sword. - Russ

[arfur mo]

hi all,

i'm going to 'king arfer' this article, the 'King' is well peeved at it's content, and i have had a bottle of red wine, so hang on to your hat's -:

The security industry is capable of providing good CCTV

surveillance using current existing technologies to provide

clear, high quality pictures throughout. This regretfully is

not the state of affairs and the security industry should only

blame itself for the unacceptable quality of CCTV pictures

and recordings we see, which are very often a direct result

of the published hype and plain wrong CCTV specifications.

This path taken by the security and CCTV industry, was and

is, self-destructive and it must be changed.

sorry nothing persnal, but what a totally sanctimonious, ill informed load of old clap trap, any and i mean any who quote a decent kit and installation, will invairibly be way above the cheapy rubbish used in 'cheaper' quotes that are out there.

go quote excellent kit, and get told your way to dear, so quote 'budget' and the results are demonstrated in that sanctimonious article and it's the pro industries fault. not a word about DIY or happy IT guy installs, nbot a word about 'department budgets' and nothing about kit bought of Ebay or second hand.

i'm so mad, i might just track down that doughnutt author, and have a little 'arfur' word in his/her ear about commercial markets, might even invite to our paintball day

regs

alan

[james.wilson]

sorry nothing persnal, but what a totally sanctimonious, ill informed load of old clap trap, any and i mean any who quote a decent kit and installation, will invairibly be way above the cheapy rubbish used in 'cheaper' quotes that are out there.

go quote excellent kit, and get told your way to dear, so quote 'budget' and the results are demonstrated in that sanctimonious article realmad.gif and it's the pro industries fault. not a word about DIY or happy IT guy installs, nbot a word about 'department budgets' and nothing about kit bought of Ebay or second hand.

i'm so mad, i might just track down that doughnutt author, and have a little 'arfur' word in his/her ear about commercial markets, hmm.gif might even invite to our paintball day stab.gif

OMG there really is a first time for everything

.

.

.

.

QFA!!!

lol

[arfur mo]

and i'm still

ggrrrrrrrr!

regs

alan

[Doktor Jon]

Guys, guys. You all know that on some points you are all correct, and so is the article. But, we've all overlooked one most important issue. PEOPLE! What is the main reason for TECH advance in CCTV? People! It's like this, technically, you're only going to be able to get a picture that is so good.

But, doesn't the quality of the picture depend on the one that does the veiwing?

In a word RussS .... No.

I have no idea what the Video Surveillance market is like in Missouri, but here in the U.K., many "clients" haven't got a clue what they need, what they want, why they want it, and what it should look like when completed. Even those that demonstrate a good working knowledge of the technical aspects of applying CCTV / IP Video, they rarely if ever have the insight to address the requirements for successful System Profiling.

For a CCTV / IP Video system to be effective, it must not only be designed, procured and installed correctly, but it must vitally address the 'operational requirements' of the site, and in my experience that rarely happens, simply due to one glaringly obvious factor, and that is ... lack of knowledge.

You can produce an absolutely fantastic image on screen / record, but if that is not what the system is about, then money has been wasted in using inappropriate technology. Where quality images are required, they are often easily achievable within budget, but may not be so easy to sell as an alternative package, so cr*p is an inevitable consequence of complacent ignorance.

I sincerely hope that arfur doesn't blow a gasket, but I have to agree with the points that he made " The security industry is capable of providing good CCTV surveillance using current existing technologies to provide clear, high quality pictures throughout. This regretfully is not the state of affairs and the security industry should only blame itself for the unacceptable quality of CCTV pictures and recordings we see, which are very often a direct result of the published hype and plain wrong CCTV specifications. This path taken by the security and CCTV industry, was and is, self-destructive and it must be changed "

To be fair, I don't think the CCTV Industry can really be held solely to blame, and rather than looking back at what has previously been done badly, I am actively looking forward, to see what can be done to try and address the current situation.

Incidentally, apologies to The Tech Guy ... thank you so much for your very kind words, and I'm sorry I didn't spot your post sooner