San Francisco security cameras ineffective due to poor framerates
By Nilay Patel 
posted January 28th 2008 6:26PM
posted January 28th 2008 6:26PM
[Thanks, Paul B.]
posted January 28th 2008 6:26PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
"Want to see me run around the plaza?"
"Want to see me do it again?"
Hahaha good spongebob reference!
Awesome comment! I love that Spongebob reference.
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.
Didn't the cops ask, "What you were wearing?" Maybe you were ASKING to be robbed.
Or maybe you weren't clear enough when you said, "They had a gun." lol XD
$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
$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.
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...
Sucks to live in San Fran, looks like your taxes are going up again
Aawww. You are jealous aren't you?
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...
Never saw that video. Thanks for sharing.
"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.
What frame rate would you recommend to capture a clear image of an object moving at over 500mph?
http://xkcd.com/258/
Now go away.
What a colossal waste of money. The infamous 9/11 camera shot at one frame per second.
What a colossal waste of money. The infamous 9/11 Pentagon camera shot at one frame per second.
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).
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?
This is the Digital age. We need no less than digital cameras patrolling our streets.
Wasn't San Fran gonna do the citywide WiFi thing but then it got canned? There's your answer, if they do it.
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.
Correction - "then the head-END desperately needs to be upgraded"
Sorry about that.
You are reffered to as "SHEEPple"
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!
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.
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...
I would love to see how the police security cameras here in Buffalo and in NYC look.
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."
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.
While your maths may be correct, that is a pathetic reason for installing a useless security camera system.
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.
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.
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.
This is the kind of story you post AFTER you fix the cameras. In the meantime...
VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
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.
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.
wait wait wait....
1 frame every 2 seconds?
isn't that called a slideshow?
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).
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!
apparently ur spelling is bass ackwards as well!
haha jk
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.
Your phone disappeared in 0.33-0.50 seconds? Wow. I'd like to meet that thief.
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.
Alright Chicago! Oh yeah! We're better!
...oh wait
The cameras in Chicago are much hated? Really? I've got no complaints.
That's what happens when you contract out work like this to the lowest bidder.
i can buy a webcam cheaper than that and it would work a ton better!
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....