Cctv Format

[ilkie]

and how are you going to do that ?

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

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

Ilkie

[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

[james.wilson]

it invariably doesnt capture a usable image of a criminal

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

[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.

[james.wilson]

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.

[TSS]

IMO

BS5839 is prescriptive and states a predetermined level of detection after a risk assesment [usually by others] has been carried out.

The EN suite of standards asks the security system designer to define the level of detection based on [usually] their own risk assesment. This leaves a rather large amount of subjectivity for the system designer.

IMO it would be nigh on impossible to write a prescriptive requirement / standard to cover all eventualities.

Granted there are a number of pretty good sets of guidelines for specific applications

[Guest anguscanplay]

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.

not anti CCTV as such just the way its been sold in the past, even our resident cctv guru Ilkie has problems with his definition of what a system should acomplish so what chance does Mr. I Wanta Cam ( to cover my car pitch ) stand.Maybe the new consumer protection laws will sort the wheat from the chaff

[Chorlton]

not anti CCTV as such just the way its been sold in the past, even our resident cctv guru Ilkie has problems with his definition of what a system should acomplish so what chance does Mr. I Wanta Cam ( to cover my car pitch ) stand.Maybe the new consumer protection laws will sort the wheat from the chaff

Yeah you'll have to say it's for "entertainment purposes only" angus just like the witches have to.

[Doktor Jon]

...... 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

I'm just curious where that 0.6 metre figure comes from ...?

What imager format, lens focal length, aperture setting ..... ?

Unless I've been studying the wrong principles of optics for the last thirty something years, then depth of field really should not be an issue for the primary recognition zone on a 20 metre driveway. IMHO It's eminently do-able provided the camera is tasked to fulfil a specific purpose.

It's interesting reading a range of opinions on the merits of CCTV in all it's various guises, but one overwhelming problem is unfortunately the end user clients

One of the reasons I stopped doing regular installation work, was the almost constant frustration of being told "we ain't bothered" whenever I pointed out a specific risk that needed to be addressed by the CCTV system.

Now hands up who's never come across that one before

It's bad enough when there's a bit of petty pilfering going on, but when your clients have been on the receiving end of terrorist attacks, it does begin to drive home the futility of trying to change the world, when the world doesn't want to be changed.

There's lots that can be done to improve things, but first there has to be a will for things to improve.

End users need to be informed about what it is they are buying. If consumer protection laws are to make any difference at all, then there needs to be a greater level of understanding between the client and the installer, and specifically a better flow of information as to what the systems can and will achieve.

Installers don't pick up a reputation along with a bag of crimp connectors, it has to be earned, and if that means telling a potential client that what they are asking for is a complete non starter, I somewhat embarrassingly subscribe to the philosophy that it's better to refuse a job, rather than take it on and then have to accept the clients stated objectives, as naive and misguided as they often are.

I'd agree wholeheartedly with many of the comments made previously; CCTV can be extremely effective if it is applied correctly, there are already documents (like for example the Home Office one mentioned by Ilkie) that can help to get a system design on track, and whilst it is 'challenging' to develop application profiles for installers and end users to use as a basis for designing a workable system, it may be difficult but it's most certainly not impossible.

As for the benefits of 'active' or 'passive' systems, it is somewhat simplistic to say that one is better than another.

It should be the operational objectives which solely dictate which approach, or combination of technology and techniques, is most appropriate for any given situation.

[billythebellbox]

Unless I've been studying the wrong principles of optics for the last thirty something years,

liver shot?