Cctv Format

[Guest RJBsec]

bet you`ve got a salad spinner in the back of one of your cupboards, fact is from reading whats posted here the "customer wants CCTV..." but thats not what he`s getting, at best he`s getting a facsimile of what a CCTV system should be

Way I see it is if we don`t get our act together someone else is going to "force..." us to

Of course he's getting a CCTV system, may not be anpr or face recognition - just like the 32" LCD, it's not as impressive as the 72" plasma but it still does a reasonable imitation so that he doesn't miss 'Rogue Traders'.

[Guest anguscanplay]

Of course he's getting a CCTV system, may not be anpr or face recognition - just like the 32" LCD, it's not as impressive as the 72" plasma but it still does a reasonable imitation so that he doesn't miss 'Rogue Traders'.

you didnt bother to read the rest of the topic? "a reasonable imitation ..." give me strength

[ilkie]

the above i'm giving credit where credit due as a very good post, especially for me the last few lines which encapsulates my much of my view.

it's no good berating this or that cctv system as rubbish because it did not get faces in a robbery, if the owner did not want to spend 1k per camera just to watch the crisp stand for shop lifters, naturally he is on budget so by buying cheaper he can buy more camera's so he can see more of his stock to prevent loss, so in a loss prevention sense this truly presents a better value than having less of desirable high end camera's.

work that down to the dvr quality and the same economics's model fits, so DM is replaced by say a Q316 (with full respect to SQ).

i think you can discuss quality issues into the ground, but end of the day the cost is a big factor with most clients, and we all like a big bang for our buck. i don't hold that instalers of cheap systems makes thm cowboys, as long as it is installed properly.

so like said above if the police know it was 4 blokes and 3 girls in the gang who drove off in a transit not a mecede's, but did not get anyones face looked like, it still has a lot of valued if not more than a single crisp facial recognition or one prior unkown bandit.

regs

alan

Alan, I would like to take a different slant on the issue which sort of agrees with some of your posting.

Cost is not the prime criteria for judging effectiveness of a CCTV System.

It is the care and planning of the system which maximises 'the bang for the buck'.

Just to install cameras with wide angle lenses without considering risk or the operational requirement is the take the money and run approach, which is likely to disappoint.

Those that assess the requirement, plan the most effective layout of the system, undertake careful selection of the equipment knowing the requirements for producing evidence and full understanding of the legislation are the true professionals in the CCTV trade.

Properly selected, budget equipment may well be fit for purpose.

Also knowing when CCTV should not be installed is also important.

I am sure that those here that are professional intruder alarm specialists (which I am not) can recall instances when an intruder alarm should not have been installed or occassions when the budget did not stretch to a system which met the risk level.

Ilkie

[james.wilson]

Way I see it is if we don`t get our act together someone else is going to "force..." us to

And when has it been any different?

I am sure that those here that are professional intruder alarm specialists (which I am not) can recall instances when an intruder alarm should not have been installed or occassions when the budget did not stretch to a system which met the risk level.

Ilkie, i wouldnt go so far as to say regulaly but i would say often. ie Risk assesment says G3, customer wants G2. All you can do is advise. Same with CCTV you may think a reg cam is essential... customer only has 10k budget (say) so says everythink less the reg cam for 10k please. You have recommended a reg cam, it complies without, so you install without.

Same as the alarm, RA says G3, client wants G1 Audible only, wont budge, you document and install a G1.

Cant see any other way around, as long as it is fully complaint and we have advised in writing then i cant see an issue. Does your Car garage demand you have a bigger engine in your car or they wont sell you one cos you have a caravan?

James

And gus i feel that you have the anti cctv mantra in your head and are not listening to the debate unless it ends on the route you want. I get your point, really i do, no really.

[Guest RJBsec]

you didnt bother to read the rest of the topic? "a reasonable imitation ..." give me strength

No I never quite understand things as well as you angus, I can only talk from my years of experience, I don't have your youthful self-assurance.

[Guest anguscanplay]

And gus i feel that you have the anti cctv mantra in your head and are not listening to the debate unless it ends on the route you want. I get your point, really i do, no really.

I`m listening mate (even without the dog LOL) but it sounds like the true pro`s are preaching the same thing as I am - budget CCTV works as a comfort blanket

[james.wilson]

agreed gus, but i get the feeling that your saying even well designed cctv with the right lens's in the right places on the right gear, still isnt good enough in your eyes and that it shouldnt be installed until a camera can provide dna evidence everywhere in its field of view, regardless of range.

[ilkie]

"Same as the alarm, RA says G3, client wants G1 Audible only, wont budge, you document and install a G1.

Cant see any other way around, as long as it is fully complaint and we have advised in writing then i cant see an issue. "

Sorry James, I have little knowledge of Intruder Alarm regulation compliance so I am asking this in good faith.

Do the Authorities accept that a system whose RA indicates a G3 system is required, is installed in full compliance if it is installed as G1? (forget the thing about putting advise in writing for a moment, I am concerned about system performance here and the installed system in this this instance will still only perform to G1 standards)

If so why do the RA in the first place, one might as well ask the Client to decide the level installed?

Ilkie

[Guest anguscanplay]

agreed gus, but i get the feeling that your saying even well designed cctv with the right lens's in the right places on the right gear, still isnt good enough in your eyes and that it shouldnt be installed until a camera can provide dna evidence everywhere in its field of view, regardless of range.

nah thats too Dr Who even for me

[james.wilson]

Do the Authorities accept that a system whose RA indicates a G3 system is required, is installed in full compliance if it is installed as G1? (forget the thing about putting advise in writing for a moment, I am concerned about system performance here and the installed system in this this instance will still only perform to G1 standards)

no they wouldnt if the ra says G3 then it should have a G3, but like with cars if i went in to buy a car and told what i do and what i expected and they said its a 60k A8 or nothing mate, id be a bit miffed as i cant afford that.

If i asked you ilke, i want a cctv system to provide facial recognition of my drive area, and i have