Cctv Format

[arfur mo]

Right, so the choice is walk away or fit kit you know before you start will not do the job (ie fit for purpose)?

Ilkie

not as clear cut as that though ilkie,

if it's that bad then walk away, should suss that in the 1st few minutes if its worth the time for a survey.

'fit for purpose' has to meet what it was designed to do within the constraints of clients budget, if you go into your local newsagents to sell a cctv system you know full well one day that might be needed to identify an armed robber, but try as you might he won't budge on the budget so won't go for the better camaera's and the amount you suggest.

so what o you do? fit a kit which is a compromise but fit it well, or walk away and let the local electrician or fire brigade officer do it as bunce?

all down to having it in writing, cover you ar$e and cover it again keeping you conscience clear at the same time. you can't force the client to go with the most suitable kit (in your view) - they have the right to stick with their own views (how ever flawed) against your best advice.

i often see specs (usually by architechs - bless them) of cameras with a wonderous array of abilities - to watch a waste bin area where a fairly basic unit would do as well for 1/3 of the cost.

so as a swing of discussion, what do you do if the client ask's for more than is really required? - sell it or advise him its ott and walk away if they don't listen?

regs

alan

[sjonley]

Hiya

Can you guys help me please?

There seems to be a distinct lack of one compatible format throughout the CCTV industry, I work for a firm that trawls through many hours of footage attempting to identify offenders. Unfortunately not all the footage is viewable due to incompatibility issues.

It has been decided that we will use a laptop and install every format known to man (assuming there aren

[ilkie]

"so as a swing of discussion, what do you do if the client ask's for more than is really required? - sell it or advise him its ott and walk away if they don't listen?"

Good Question, Alan.

In this case, as the the system meets (exceeds) the requirement for fit for purpose the Client can have whatever he wants (providing they can pay for it!).

"'fit for purpose' has to meet what it was designed to do within the constraints of clients budget, if you go into your local newsagents to sell a cctv system you know full well one day that might be needed to identify an armed robber, but try as you might he won't budge on the budget so won't go for the better cameras and the amount you suggest.

so what o you do? fit a kit which is a compromise but fit it well, or walk away and let the local electrician or fire brigade officer do it as bunce?"

This is where I take issue. If the budget does not stretch to a CCTV system that can be considered as fit for purpose (DPA) we would advise that the budget should be either reviewed or spent on other security items eg phyisical.

Taking it out of the security arena it's like the end user instructing a gas fitter that he cannot afford to have a gas boiler installed in a manner that meets the regs so can the installer cut corners, but the installer can 'protect' himself (cover your ar$e) by put it in writing that the system installed does not comply.

Ilkie

[james.wilson]

Good point and in a Utopian society it might work.

How would you suggest this was made to work?

[Guest anguscanplay]

Taking it out of the security arena it's like the end user instructing a gas fitter that he cannot afford to have a gas boiler installed in a manner that meets the regs so can the installer cut corners, but the installer can 'protect' himself (cover your ar$e) by put it in writing that the system installed does not comply.

Ilkie

nothing like at all, to keep on a copper pipe scenario the nearest equivalent would be having smaller radiators, not been able to circumvent regs by "covering your //.B.W.F.//....."

[arfur mo]

..............Good Question, Alan.

In this case, as the the system meets (exceeds) the requirement for fit for purpose the Client can have whatever he wants (providing they can pay for it!).

more the moral issue i was placing into question here, bit like intruder you get invited to quote after a break in. old couple lost their purse and telly. not a major loss in the real world but distresing for them and the family, who now want them fully protected. so the demand is "i want every window and door covered", well as a pro you know right off they don't really want to spend the 5 k that would take and would be way out of context with the risk and the recent loss.

i'd hope we all would calm them down and offer a well designed trap protection system, but then when working for my last company i attended an old lady who had been upgraded to a CPA6 with 4 door contacts and she could not use it, the keyboard confused and also she was to frail to press it properly.

when we do our survey we should also look at the persons capability to operate the system suggested, no good having the billy bee's system if they can't operate it, makes it less than usless. as like expensive ill fitting shoes eventually they given up on but won't throw them away (just ask my wife).

...........This is where I take issue. If the budget does not stretch to a CCTV system that can be considered as fit for purpose (DPA) we would advise that the budget should be either reviewed or spent on other security items eg phyisical.

Taking it out of the security arena it's like the end user instructing a gas fitter that he cannot afford to have a gas boiler installed in a manner that meets the regs so can the installer cut corners, but the installer can 'protect' himself (cover your ar$e) by put it in writing that the system installed does not comply.

Ilkie

i think angus's reply was a very good one, i'm attempting to get at this newsagent is concerned over loses from pilfering or shop lifting by school kids, don't rerally want to spend the money but know will reduce this element, so wants the system to be aimed at this perspective. armed robbery is an obvious risk to us, but they will possibly lose more to shoplifters in a year on year cost bases.

that being the case, when the police use the recordings they will not get what they want for facial recognition of an assailant, but will get the pilferer or shop lifter.

thats why i say it's not so cut and dried to knock any system as not being 'fit for purpose' without knowing what its original purpose was. this is why i said a a grading system like for the quality of carpets or flooring etc would greately clarify the purpose and so value of it.

i don't think it need draconian enforcement other than for high risk installations like banks etc, lets face it we can't really even achieve that in intruder, and if we go that route we will only encourage the diy market as intruder has already done.

but say we had a common code even down to individual camera's like Green = convenience camera's, yellow = car park monitoring, Orange for shoplifting )Pink for cosmetics ) a red for personal risk camera's and so on, i don't mean to actually paint the camera's and needs fleshing out, but has got to be a good idea imo to remove much of the mystery that dogs cctv.

regs

alan

[arfur mo]

nothing like at all, to keep on a copper pipe scenario the nearest equivalent would be having smaller radiators, not been able to circumvent regs by "covering your //.B.W.F.//....."

or using conduit

(from old thread protecting a cable joke folks)

regs

alan

[billythebellbox]

but say we had a common code........yellow = car park monitoring,

yes because all car park are identical with identical lighting

[james.wilson]

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.

[ilkie]

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.

Redbull,

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

Ilkie