Effectiveness of Security Cameras

[knotquiteawake]

Where i work we have about 60 some odd security cameras displayed on 4 LCDs.
http://imageserver4.textamerica.com/user.images.x/5/IMG_442505/_0406/T520060406020604206.jpg
Because of the amount of other things i have to do while on duty i'm not watching them all the time, and its really boring watching them all the time. However they all are (or should be) being recorded on DVRs. The dorm entrance cameras have proven to be very effective to seeing who has come into the building. However because the parking lot cameras are PTZ (pan tilt zoom) their footage is much less effective at times.

I've taken on the responsibility of setting all the camera patterns on the system to make them as effective as possible but its still difficult to decide what should be covered. I can either have it zoomed in and moving along the rows of cars, or backed out watching the whole lot. I generally set up a mix of the two but because there is a lot of ground to cover and at night the camera takes longer to focus things get missed easily.

Anyone else had similar experiances with camera systems?

also as a side note, don't ever do business with HCI camera systems, it seems to be one of the biggest mistakes we've made in a long time.

[HotelSecurity]

If you have cameras they should be monitored 24 hours a day. The 2 airport hotels I work for are side-by-side. The parking lots adjoin. We have lots of thefts of & from cars. At one time one lot had cameras. The other didn't. The cameras were only recorded. We had the same number of thefts at both lots. The only difference was at the lot with cameras we had a record of it happening. This never helped arrest anyone though.

[N. A. Corbier]

Cameras are good for documentation of criminal or safety issues. Sometimes, they're good for real-time image capture, as well. Having people watch cameras for a 8 hour shift, unaided by sensing software, is pointless. They will zone out and miss things.

If you have a good DVR setup, see if the camera multiplexer can do things like determine "out of bounds" or threshold movement, things in areas that shouldn't be, etc.

This helps do more than document the issue, it helps detect it in real time.

[Crinsol]

Just to clarify, you have 60 cameras and only 4 monitors? Also, it looks like your two top monitors are mounted a bit too high.

I hope the DVRs are good because about the only thing you can expect from a system like that is evidence.

Some people just have no business being in the security industry.

[Bill Warnock]

Just to clarify, you have 60 cameras and only 4 monitors? Also, it looks like your two top monitors are mounted a bit too high.

I hope the DVRs are good because about the only thing you can expect from a system like that is evidence.

Some people just have no business being in the security industry.
Crinsol, I think you got it pegged just right, to me this is a disaster in the making. My hope is he same as yours.
Hopefully someone will come to their senses and ask for help from either Charlie or Tim.
Charlie, Tim, is to late for help or can some cost effective changes be made.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[ycaso77]

We have over 200 cameras "monitored" at the central alarm station. As the operators also monitor several other alarm systems, dispatch, run access systems, etc. its almost impossible to actually watch any cameras. If a call comes in the cctv is useful to record and/or track activity but mostly its for after the fact evidence. Cameras assigned to sensitive areas are viewed right in front of the officers- the rest are a wall of monitors you couldn't watch if you tried. Several bldgs, have stand alone cctv systems but still face the same problem. Unless you have officers assigned to solely monitor CCTV its a difficult task, add in boredom and sensory overload and you're back to square one.
One recent addition that has helped is motion activated cameras- they only come up when movement is detected so you know something is happening. You can set the parameters to monitor an entire area, one side of a hallway, a piece of artwork or a doorway. Still testing them but so far working out better than we ever expected.

[Mr. Security]

All of our cameras are monitored. The whole idea is to be proactive and immediately investigate any suspicious activity.

[Mr. Security]

Where i work we have about 60 some odd security cameras displayed on 4 LCDs.....

Displaying a picture of your security monitoring station on the WWW could be considered a security breach by some employers and clients. :(

[knotquiteawake]

its visible from inside public areas, and even from outside at night since you can see right through the windows and main sliding doors... its not very secret. Also, its not necessarily a company but the Campus Safety it fully part of the university and as such no policy like that exists that i know of.

now, if i were posting camera footage or still images of stuff from the DVRs than i would be in a different boat.

[knotquiteawake]

besides, i didn't even show you the secret multiplexes! oops! forget i just said that.

[Big Bulldog]

Displaying a picture of your security monitoring station on the WWW could be considered a security breach by some employers and clients. :(

Amen to that! My officers would be seeking new employment if they were caught doing that!

[knotquiteawake]

anyways, now that i 'edited' the picture for 'confidential' content, back to what i started this thread about...

[IB107]

I have seen 3 different setups

one was live feed no recording device - b & w cameras

two was colored cameras, with a vcr recorder with "daily" tapes one for mondays, tuesday, weds, thurs,fri, sat,sun - etc the only problem with this setup up is overtime the tapes wear out and you get old footage botched over new footage, or lots of breaks in the recorded info, or pic quailty is bouncy

three was dvr, dvrs are great as all the info is digital recorded and easy to pull up although a bit more expensive you get more for the buck :P data that will not deterate as easliy etc....

i would love to see every cctv system use dvrs but some ppl say they cost far to much cash, and would rather have the choppy videos or none at all...

[aphilpot]

In our hospital we have 31 cams covering every entry/exit point as well as strategic locations throughout the facility to monitor traffic. Our entire property (including five parking lots) are also covered by programmed PZT cams. The long term care centre that is attached by a tunnel link has five cams that are monitored in our central office at the hospital.

Everything is captured on DVR for future investigation. We have assisted local law enforcement with solving domestic disputes, car thefts/vandalism, thefts of hospital or staff property (in and on the property) an arson across the street and a bank robber who entered the facilty after holding up a Credit Union in the area.

We are also able to respond to investigate disturbances and suspicious activity/person(s) we witness on CCTV.

We have applied to the local Health Authority for an upgrade ($70,000) that we hope to have approved this budget year.

[Mr. Security]

I would like to see some type of software that is able to detect unusual activity and alert the CCTV operator to the appropriate camera. Having many cameras will usually help when investigating an incident after it has occurred. However, being able to zoom in on suspicious activity as it happens is always preferred.

[GCMC Security]

You can set some camera systems to 'zoom in' on a camera with motion. One hospital we do in this area does this between 1900 and 0700 I think or soemthing like that. The monitor is set to watch most of the cameras and when there is movement on one it makes it full screen. Sometimes you can get false alarms on that as well if there is a tree nearby and its a windy day or such

[john_harrington]

Before you lynch this poor guy, the first thing that needs to be determined is what you are using the cameras for. If you are using them for surveillance there is virtually no way an officer can monitor more than a few at a time and even then they may miss something so the # of monitors is somewhat moot. Cameras being used for post incident assessment need only be recorded and don't need to be displayed at all.

Personally, I prefer integrated security management systems that cause CCTV actions upon alarm. Depending on $$, you may want to consider video analytics for critical areas or PIDS (perimeter).

I have never been in a college dispatch area where the dispatcher had much time to stare at CCTV monitors.

[Naz]

There was a Havard study on how the ability of a person to pick up movements on a screen decreases dramatically with time...go figure. I am in process of having software developed for cameras one of the features is the zooming in to the disturbance area (a certain threshold amount of movement relating to the amount of pixels disturbed which raises an alarm -- video analytics?) on motion detect or when a predetermined no pass zone is broken (PDIS perimeter?)....also the camera view will be highlighted to draw attention to that camera (also will have a preset for the camera view to become full screen, half screen or stay the same in the situation that an even occurs. If there are any other useful features that would make this camera "management/security" software a better tool please share

PS. How does a camera define and detect suspicious or unusual activity?...one of the ways would be setting cameras to detect motion and raise an alarm (be it internal and/or external) when there is not supposed to be motion ie at night or even when an object goes missing. There is some advanced software out there (check out Milestone software) but pricy for the average consumer:D

[Rooney]

PTZ cameras are great for being able to move in on a particular area while at a manned station. But, when you have them on tour you lose alot of the area unless it is in a wide view. With most DVR's now motion detection is standard and can be adjusted to, area of screen to detect, threshold of motion. I have installed systems to handle the area due to PTZ loss.
This is how:
1. Install fixed cameras with wide views in area PTZ covers.
2. Program motion for certain areas within view to trigger alarm output.
3. Program PTZ to take the alarm input and go to a preset position based on the motion area.

It works well for capturing video of a large area like parking lots etc.. The wide cameras give you a full view of the area and the PTZ is used to give a detailed view of the motion area.

There are also quite a few hardware products out now for video analytics. Some will send an alarm if a person stops at a certain area or someone leaves a package or something and walks away.

Here is one company that I have used their products successfuly,
http://www.clarityvi.com/
There are many more companies now offering intelligent surveillance products that have been proven to reduce the man hours spent staring at a screen. Manned stations are good for locations with many cameras where the viewer does not get as bored but without intelligent systems alot of incidences can and do get missed in real-time.

[Naz]

That is some great info :) Also it seems that the software provided by Clarity Vision is quite advanced and will look into it further....I wonder how affordable it is for the average business/property owner.

Any comment on the feasibility sending the information from a 6-10 camera location to a remote server (say @ 15 frames/s at medium resolution and medium compression) . I still think its the better solution over the DVR anyday! Its just this dammed bandwidth issue thats killing me. :mad: :(

[SecTrainer]

CCTV is used for 5 purposes - or combinations of purposes:

1. Perceived deterrence factor of highly-visible cameras (and sometimes fake cameras).

2. Surveillance and initial detection of trespass or other undesirable activity by visitors, employees or intruders.

3. Alarm assessment.

4. Post-incident evidence and analysis.

5. Employee supervision, asset/process oversight, safety and other management purposes that are not directly related to security.

Of these five purposes, while recognizing that there are exceptions, #1 is probably the most questionable. #2 is probably the most common, and also the most abused and frequently ill-conceived, often being driven by cost/profit motives that override any thought of good implementations.

By their design, especially considering the "properties" of the human beings who interact with the system, CCTV is best suited for purposes #3 and #4. Again, there are exceptions. #5 is not of interest here.

I should note here that I'm assuming that the CCTV system has been properly selected, installed, adjusted and maintained by CCTV professionals for the specific venue as well as the specific purpose where it is installed, just to take that issue off the table. In fact, however, this is a poor assumption because many, many systems - some might even say most - fall short in some or even all of these areas. I have seen very few systems that could be rated "good" in every single one of these parameters. (How many times do you see a camera that is focused on the asset being protected instead of the approach routes to that asset? How many times are images of such poor quality to start with, or sometimes stored at such low frame rates or small byte size, distorted by storage compression methods, etc. that they're practically useless? How many times is the focal length or some other characteristic of the camera simply all wrong for the application? How many times is the area lighting for which the camera depends either burned out or turned off? It's amazing in many such cases how a bit more thought and/or a relatively few more dollars would have made the difference.)

As a general rule, it has been proven repeatedly that human beings make poor detection systems, whether in person (patrol, etc.) or by using a CCTV system as their "remote eyes". There are many reasons for this, of course, but you can sum them up by calling them "human inattention, fatigue and fallibility factors". Studies have shown that mental fatigue can begin to cause measurable deterioration in the recognition of an adverse event after as little as 15 minutes of monitoring! Because of this simple reality, I would never install CCTV for primary detection/surveillance purposes unless I had absolutely no alternative (meaning that there is no sensor-based detection system that is applicable to the situation or asset). The blackjack tables or cash rooms of a casino come to mind, but even casinos will use electronic detection systems in any other part of their operations where they reasonably can do so.

"Intelligent" CCTV systems are coming along, and these can provide some detection capabilities. However, there are a variety of approaches to this idea and none of them are really well-enough developed yet that I would rely on them exclusively for detection in high-criticality venues. (Cameras that kick on when they receive a signal that has been initiated by activation of a motion or other detector are not properly considered "intelligent" systems, incidentally - the detection was elsewhere. Intelligent systems use algorithms such as pattern recognition, etc. to directly recognize that an adverse condition exists without or only in conjunction with other sensor input.)

The above applies just to the CCTV system itself. I've also seen the most abysmal - really, ignorant - ergonomic designs being used in monitoring centers where everything from the monitors themselves to the backlighting to the chairs and even the ambient temperature, much less the shift schedules, etc. seemed to have been deliberately chosen to work against the optimal performance of the people working there. It doesn't take many of these factors to add up to little or no monitoring at all.

[john_harrington]

Nice write-up sectrainer- I agree with all of your statements!

John