Cctv Format

[james.wilson]

ilkie

I think its unfair to lay the blame of equipment cost at installers.

[ilkie]

ilkie

I think its unfair to lay the blame of equipment cost at installers.

Sorry mate, but very often the installer chooses the kit based on price in an attempt to win a job, this in turn drives the demand for lower and lower cost DVRs.

Where in the design process (certainly in many schemes we see) is the consideration of providing video that is remotely useful in the event of an incident, let alone whether the images can be downloaded and replayed by the criminal justice system (who are in theory, at least the ultimate end user).

The answer, educate the purchaser and the install trade.

Ilkie

[Cubit]

ilkie

I think its unfair to lay the blame of equipment cost at installers.

Ok, so who might you be hinting at then. ??

[james.wilson]

lol

Im basically saying that if a client was given the choice of another piece of software and a

[billythebellbox]

all comes down to whant been paid for the job & who's done it,

Not only do you have to identify how many different DVR models are out there,

if it been done by a proper firm, read it off the written spec?

On a forum with someone in a similar line of work and he was up to around 300.

a couple of thousand sounds more like it? set out your stall as an "expert" then moan you don't know what have the products are

[digitalwitness]

Hi Jim,

As stated by billythebellbox most decent DVRs download the viewer software while exporting footage, this viewer software includes a Codec (which is proprietory) to decode the compression agorithm used to compress the footage in the first place.

I am aware of a machine called a "Cube" which is used by our police force to playback footage and is preloaded with many of the codecs, I have not seen this machine nor know its origins.

In our work we perform many downloads, hard disk cloning, etc. for our police force and have never had an issue playing back a download with or without automatically downloaded players so I do not believe the issue will be as big as you may think after all there are far more brands than manufacturers.

If you have trouble playing back any footage I suggest requesting help with that specific issue, in my experience you will not require very often,

Best Of luck

[Doktor Jon]

For far too long the manufacturers of this type of equipment have ignored what is good for the end user.

The trade has not helped by installing kit with limited longevity and little back-up, mainly on the basis of cost.

Generally speaking, Ilkie's comments are absolutely correct.

As we all know, there is no standardisation in terms of DVR design, and certainly from what I've heard anecdotally from experts that work in the field of Forensic Video Analysis, there are in excess of 1000 different compression / codec varients detailed on databases available to law enforcement officers.

That doesn't mean I don't occasionally get requests to try and help identify the odd ones that are not listed.

In practice, there are indeed system / software packages that are used to recover evidential recordings, but in general terms, the problems tend to occur with OEM and more obscure directly sourced recorders, rather than the "household name" models that are better supported by both the manufacturers and their distributors.

Unfortunately many of the issues surrounding Evidential Quality Recordings are naively affected by cost limitations, and one way or another, this situation cannot continue as it has.

In an ideal world I'd like to see some consensus from Installers as to a selection of 'approvable' DVR's that will produce the goods if set up correctly. Whether this could be achieved voluntarily ... I just don't know.

Will some other interested parties make moves towards addressing this issue within the next year or two; well I'm not a betting man, but if I was ..

[arfur mo]

...................

Unfortunately many of the issues surrounding Evidential Quality Recordings are naively affected by cost limitations, and one way or another, this situation cannot continue as it has.

In an ideal world I'd like to see some consensus from Installers as to a selection of 'approvable' DVR's that will produce the goods if set up correctly. Whether this could be achieved voluntarily ... I just don't know.

Will some other interested parties make moves towards addressing this issue within the next year or two; well I'm not a betting man, but if I was ..

Hi Dr Jon,

the theory of all using high end is wonderful dream imo - but just that i fear, because it will never happen without stringent legislation.

going the voluntary route you might get a conscientious percentage sign up, but rea world there will be a much bigger percentage offering lower cost 'budget' kit nipping in and taking many of the sales.

high end obviously gets sold or the likes of DM and Adpro would not survive, but compare unit on unit turnover the cheapies far out sell them for volume. market forces are the simple reason - and some say "the ignorance of the buyer to the real facts".

hmmm!, maybe and obviously on many, but that is assuming every camera is installed for security reasons, many are for reassurance, convenience like checking if the staff are smoking outside to often. when something nasty happens the recordings are called for, disappointment is aired at the quality, but the use they were originally intended for is often surpassed when you look into it deeper.

with cctv we often know the kit is poor quality, but suffices well for the intended use so it is 'acceptable', like baby monitoring camera's sold in retail chains, never going to be broadcast quality in a million years, but you know baby has not fell out of the cot and is still in the bedroom, but if baby gets stolen you can't then expect facial recognition quality of these cheap camera's plugged into a domestic vcr, because that was not the intended purpose of use.

when it comes to the purpose built systems many i'd agree are shockingly poor quality, but then what was the figure budgeted by the buyer? so you can't lay it all at the door of the installer or the manufacturer's for that matter

regs

alan

[ilkie]

Hi Dr Jon,

the theory of all using high end is wonderful dream imo - but just that i fear, because it will never happen without stringent legislation.

going the voluntary route you might get a conscientious percentage sign up, but rea world there will be a much bigger percentage offering lower cost 'budget' kit nipping in and taking many of the sales.

high end obviously gets sold or the likes of DM and Adpro would not survive, but compare unit on unit turnover the cheapies far out sell them for volume. market forces are the simple reason - and some say "the ignorance of the buyer to the real facts".

hmmm!, maybe and obviously on many, but that is assuming every camera is installed for security reasons, many are for reassurance, convenience like checking if the staff are smoking outside to often. when something nasty happens the recordings are called for, disappointment is aired at the quality, but the use they were originally intended for is often surpassed when you look into it deeper.

with cctv we often know the kit is poor quality, but suffices well for the intended use so it is 'acceptable', like baby monitoring camera's sold in retail chains, never going to be broadcast quality in a million years, but you know baby has not fell out of the cot and is still in the bedroom, but if baby gets stolen you can't then expect facial recognition quality of these cheap camera's plugged into a domestic vcr, because that was not the intended purpose of use.

when it comes to the purpose built systems many i'd agree are shockingly poor quality, but then what was the figure budgeted by the buyer? so you can't lay it all at the door of the installer or the manufacturer's for that matter

regs

alan

Alan, I agree with what you are saying.

However we as an industry (CCTV) are heading towards a real problem when it comes to digital recording and despite market forces we should be attempting to raise quality levels and provide a more seamless interface to the agencies that need to use the output of the systems we install.

If we take the analogy of the intruder alarm industry, standards are in place to ensure that only qualified companies install with kit specified to pre-defined levels of operation.

The reason that IFSEC did not have zillions of intruder panels from the far east at tuppence each is because there is a very limited market for this in the UK, this due to the National Standards that we see endlessly debated on this forum.

Now we know that the the alarm sector standards are not perfect, but they weed out a large proportion of those fitting alarms that are not fit for purpose.

Legislation for CCTV is likely to come, as will licensing of the security installation companies (and individuals?).

As a professional in the field you recognise that some systems installed are of shockingly poor quality, and as it is the installers (who buy the DVRs) who should have a strong voice in selecting kit that meets the some sort of quality standard, reducing the market for those that don't.

It could be considered that any CCTV system that can be considered to be fit for purpose leaves the end user subject to prosecution under the Data Protection Act with whatever implications there are thereafter for the installer. (residential work exempt).

This means that the repercussions of getting a CCTV System Design wrong are far greater than the risks in incorrect design in the rest of the security industry.

Ilkie

[james.wilson]

reading Ilkie and Arfurs posts, I can only assume i misunderstand them, especially your arfur.

Are you suggesting some sort of approval system, where the company is held accountable for what it has risk assesed, designed and installed, with regular inspections and a certification system?