San Francisco security cameras ineffective due to poor framerates

We're not huge fans of overzealous security camera deployment, but if you're going to spend taxpayer money deploying nannycams, at least make sure they're capturing more than one frame every two seconds -- the rate at which San Francisco's $900,000 system is running. A study of the city's 68 cameras found that the system has only led to one arrest in two and a half years of operation, and the main reason for the failure is uselessly slow video -- which is grainy, to boot. Compare that to Chicago's much-hated (but effective) system, which runs at 30fps, and it's obvious why the president of San Francisco's Police Commission said the city was "throwing money away." There's no word on how or when the issue might be resolved, but the city is due to review the system and issue a determination soon. Check the read link for a video of the system in (in)action.

[Thanks, Paul B.]

[James @ Jan 28th 2008 6:33PM]

"Want to see me run around the plaza?"

"Want to see me do it again?"

[Stephen Levinson @ Jan 28th 2008 11:17PM]

Hahaha good spongebob reference!

[octoberasian @ Jan 29th 2008 12:41AM]

Awesome comment! I love that Spongebob reference.

[nVidiot @ Jan 28th 2008 6:35PM]

I was robbed at gunpoint at a cash machine a few years ago.

I was a little upset to find out that it:

1) Took over a month for the cops to get the footage from the machine
2) The "footage" consisted of 6 or 7 tiny grainy stills. They got a picture of my face, and a picture of the gun.

In general it was a bad experience. Aside from the getting robbed part, all the cops did was ask me like 5 times "are you SURE they had a gun?" like I was lying or something.

[CaliforniaKid @ Jan 29th 2008 12:10AM]

Didn't the cops ask, "What you were wearing?" Maybe you were ASKING to be robbed.

[AJ @ Jan 29th 2008 4:12PM]

Or maybe you weren't clear enough when you said, "They had a gun." lol XD

[kamen @ Jan 28th 2008 6:36PM]

$900,000 for 68 cameras? That seems a little bit high.... The technology just isn't there yet. New revisions of DVRs are coming out on a quarterly basis and they are fixing major deficiencies of their predecessors. The stuff works, but not as well as it should. Especially in the storage capacity and reliability departments.

Side note: I bet Chicago spent 10 X the money SF spent.

-Kamen
http:www.kamenlee.com

[cyrus.nelson @ Jan 28th 2008 9:24PM]

$900,000 for a citywide system sounds high to you? I work in the digital video security industry, and that sounds low to me. The infrastructure alone for video to stream to a central location city-wide would cost a fortune. I guess thats why they only get 2 spf.

[david @ Jan 28th 2008 9:39PM]

This is probably obvious to everyone but me, but doesn't that come out to more than $13k per camera? I understand the infrastructure is expensive, and I'm no expert, but I'd certainly be re-thinking things if $13k was only getting me images/video like that...

[z0phi3l @ Jan 28th 2008 6:37PM]

Sucks to live in San Fran, looks like your taxes are going up again

[IndiaTech @ Jan 29th 2008 4:24AM]

Aawww. You are jealous aren't you?

[Flashpoint @ Jan 28th 2008 6:38PM]

San Francisco?

The best the video cameras at the PENTAGON could do on 9/11 was this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bX_8FHEuHGU

So similar to the JFK Assassination...just enough to let you know SOMETHING hit it, but not enough footage or resolution to show you WHAT and HOW...

[Kyrra @ Jan 28th 2008 6:49PM]

Never saw that video. Thanks for sharing.

[Gus @ Jan 28th 2008 7:04PM]

"SOMETHING hit it, but not enough footage or resolution to show you WHAT and HOW..."

Hmm... Maybe it was a hijacked Boeing 757 hijacked by a bunch of pissed off Muslims.

As for how...maybe the plane was flown...into... the building... Nah, can't be.

[letstakeawalk @ Jan 28th 2008 7:50PM]

What frame rate would you recommend to capture a clear image of an object moving at over 500mph?

[Palmtree3000 @ Jan 28th 2008 9:52PM]

http://xkcd.com/258/

Now go away.

[Robert @ Jan 28th 2008 6:45PM]

What a colossal waste of money. The infamous 9/11 camera shot at one frame per second.

[Robert @ Jan 29th 2008 6:55AM]

What a colossal waste of money. The infamous 9/11 Pentagon camera shot at one frame per second.

[Eldiablo @ Jan 28th 2008 6:47PM]

Come to England, home of the CCTV! Where you can be tracked pretty much from when you leave your home in the morning, to when you arrive back in the evening (provided you stick to conurbation areas or major roads).

[Geoffrey @ Jan 28th 2008 6:58PM]

As a security consultant here in the SF Bay Area, this is truly sad since we are always trying to promote the importance of security.

My question is what is the infrastructure? Is it communicating via wireless or is it through fiber? If it is hardwired, then the head desperately needs to be upgraded.

Regarding the grainy picture, not much you can do about it if they are deploying analog cameras (max 540 TVL). Using IP cameras would allow them so many more opportunities (not to mention resolution), but can they get a network connection from these cameras?

[Flashpoint @ Jan 28th 2008 7:07PM]

This is the Digital age. We need no less than digital cameras patrolling our streets.

[rp @ Jan 28th 2008 8:11PM]

Wasn't San Fran gonna do the citywide WiFi thing but then it got canned? There's your answer, if they do it.

[Kosmonova @ Jan 28th 2008 8:20PM]

True, but wireless video is typically point to point on a bridge and not necessary a WAP for wifi due to the bandwidth requirements for video.

Then again, with the frame rate so low, it probably only requires 1MB/s anyway.

[Kosmonova @ Jan 28th 2008 7:00PM]

Correction - "then the head-END desperately needs to be upgraded"

Sorry about that.

[Flashpoint @ Jan 28th 2008 7:08PM]

You are reffered to as "SHEEPple"

[whatishalo? @ Jan 28th 2008 7:04PM]

Maybe they are worried about j-walkers only? If you check the frames, you can clearly see a pedestrian so watchout S.F. peds...no j-walking!

[m @ Jan 28th 2008 7:45PM]

SF peds already know that, because the city has an incredibly high number of pedestrian fatalities. as for the SFPD, i don't think they worry about anything except what's for dinner. they don't even solve murders.

[letstakeawalk @ Jan 28th 2008 7:52PM]

I got a ticket while crossing a street in SF. The old hippy who gave it to me told me it was because I had a nice smile...

[Yankees368 @ Jan 28th 2008 7:05PM]

I would love to see how the police security cameras here in Buffalo and in NYC look.

[David @ Jan 29th 2008 2:09PM]

Police Cheif: "Alright lets watch it again"

Police Tech: "Yes sir."

Police Cheif: "No go back a frame I think I saw something"

Police Tech: "Yes sir."

Police Cheif: "No that is to far!!"

Police Tech: "But there is nothing in between sir."

Police Cheif: "Oh...........bring me a dounut."

Police Tech: "Yes sir."

[sinai @ Jan 28th 2008 7:48PM]

all kidding aside, it takes an enormous amount of resources to keep track of video footage 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. that's 62208000 frames per month at 24fps.

even at an anemic 2fps, that's still 5184000 pictures a month. at 320x240 resolution in 16 bit color and that's 6370099200000 bytes a month.

[John @ Jan 28th 2008 10:05PM]

While your maths may be correct, that is a pathetic reason for installing a useless security camera system.

[Jagster @ Jan 28th 2008 11:42PM]

Your math is pointless because video is stored more efficiently than that. For example, a 2 hour 1080P HD-DVD movie (that's equal to 27 individual 320x240 frames combined) fits on less than 30GB disk. So what if the city needs to burn up 12 HD-DVD's or a 500GB HDD per month to get a full 24fps. Gee, a year's supply of 500GB drives would cost them a whole $1000. Mind you, it's fairly easy and relatively cheap to build petabyte RAID sets in a data center these days so they have no excuse when it comes to storage.

[sinai @ Jan 29th 2008 12:27PM]

i don't think 2fps cameras have the ability for compression.

furthermore, that $1000/month is today's numbers, not when SF procured them, oh a few years ago.

[MEAT! @ Jan 28th 2008 7:49PM]

Perhaps they can have a buffer of 30fps video that lasts for, say, three days. After that time period the software selects frames at one second intervals and discards the rest. The end result is plenty of storage space and efficiency, but serious incidents could still be analyzed in high quality--assuming the cops can access the camera within the high-quality time period.

[Heff @ Jan 28th 2008 7:59PM]

This is the kind of story you post AFTER you fix the cameras. In the meantime...

VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

[MickeyMoo @ Jan 28th 2008 8:45PM]

These cams are for cracked out hoods with a high crime rate, the "red light runner" cams are on a different system, they have a flash and are triggered by running red lights. They work remarkably well (unfortunately if you like VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOM, fortunately if you're one of the hundreds of people almost run over by asshats) Ever seen an old lady run over by someone who couldn't be bothered to stop at a red light? I have. Keep your VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOM in Danville or San Remote where it belongs.

[m @ Jan 28th 2008 9:52PM]

this kind of camera isn't for catching speeding motorists. those use still cameras on motion triggers, and they work just fine. this is for keeping an eye out for drug deals and shootings. the mission district, where this is, isn't the city's safest.

[Dennis @ Jan 28th 2008 7:52PM]

wait wait wait....
1 frame every 2 seconds?
isn't that called a slideshow?

[Kosmonova @ Jan 28th 2008 8:23PM]

Not necessarily. Almost all DVRs or NVRs use MPEG-4 encoding now so they are storing the raw video. Some of the newer models are trying to incorporate H.264 as well for even better compression, while others have developed their own (for example Tyco/American Dynamics NVRs use ACC compression).

[Bill @ Jan 28th 2008 8:45PM]

Friggin' SF... they do everything bass ackwards. I should know, I lived there for 10 years. The reason these cameras are so shitty is probably because they started writing the spec 15 years ago and then when they finally went to bid, the specified tech was WAY outdated.

Idiots!

[Dennis @ Jan 29th 2008 5:01AM]

apparently ur spelling is bass ackwards as well!
haha jk

[Jon @ Jan 28th 2008 9:58PM]

Most of these CCTVs are useless. I once had my phone stolen from a restaurant to be told by the police lady that the camera recorded like 2-3 frames per second and in greyscale.

[letstakeawalk @ Jan 29th 2008 1:55AM]

Your phone disappeared in 0.33-0.50 seconds? Wow. I'd like to meet that thief.

[steve @ Jan 28th 2008 10:09PM]

Here's an idea: How about giving tax credits towards citizens for setting up a web cam? Identify interested corners with camera specs and broadband specs. Just specify that camera uptime of a certain minimal % to qualify for credit. Probably allow two slots / location for different citizens to avoid single points of failure

Then, all you need is a downstream pipe large enough for 68 location. Probably an OC3 (probably 3-4k/month) would be enough.

[Zombie Flanders @ Jan 28th 2008 10:10PM]

Alright Chicago! Oh yeah! We're better!

...oh wait

[VedicHymn @ Jan 29th 2008 1:04AM]

The cameras in Chicago are much hated? Really? I've got no complaints.

[karmaghost @ Jan 29th 2008 2:57PM]

That's what happens when you contract out work like this to the lowest bidder.

[JACOB @ Jan 29th 2008 3:25PM]

i can buy a webcam cheaper than that and it would work a ton better!

[demarr @ Jan 30th 2008 1:42AM]

I hate chicago for that very reason.... I was driving today and all of a sudden you see flash, flash , flash..... and i look over and guess what a camara.. like dang some body just got a ticket... but they can never catch a robbery on those things hmmm....