On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 20:05:15 +0100, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 19:20:32 +0100, T i m wrote:


They are OK for recording who bumped what in the yard
and I can easily identify people I know but detail isn't good enough
to identify a stranger. Similarly one can occasionally read a number
plate but not most of the time.

And that's the thing isn't it, one would assume that any competent
system would let you see all such things under most circumstances.

Well this is quite clever in that the instantaneous live view is at
lower definition for transmission over the internet, the stored video
which one can view online is much better but still not brilliant.

Ah, ok ... whilst I was talking from a different POV (the general
quality available) that might explain why when reviewing some systems
remotely the speed is very slow?

Trouble is if you increase the quality of recording either with better
cameras or more of them at wider angles the retention of the recording
drops.

Yup, it's just maths eh. ;-)

I like to have 4 weeks retention, using motion detection.

None of the systems I've been part to use motion detection as I think
it was decided to KISS to start with at least. ;-)

In a
large ish yard it's often some time before you become aware something
has happened which you need to see.

Same in many instances of course ... like that BBQ that went missing
from your back garden etc.

Last month one of our chaps left
his van correctly parked in the yard whilst in Portugal and came back
to see it had been shunted back 2ft. It was possible to see the change
in position and isolate an incident where it had been hit by a
reversing vehicle and trace the drier, who is seen examining the
damage before moving off.

Lovely. ;-(

My biggest bug is spiders

nice pun ;-)

webs reflecting the IR, it's great after
heavy rain and then they start weaving. They are not visible until the
infra red lights come on.

Like, I *expect* any answering machine to tell me how many messages
have been left when I just look at it (as in an illuminated digital
display) and from across the room. Like I'm guessing DART / DVLA would
assume any vehicle passing under their cameras *would* be read
correctly into their systems, assuming it was physically possible
(like the number plate was not obscured by another vehicle or using
bad font etc) and the same with any camera protected car-park etc. So,
it can be done (obviously) but at what cost?

Yes there are some ANPR add ons but last I looked it cost £5k.

I was thinking more of the quality of the camera needed to be *able*
to read a number plate at that sort of distance but maybe it's quite
easy or done using other technology (like the image duplication you
mentioned).

Anyway as far as I am aware vehicles only arrive at a burglary in the
closing stages and sure as hell their number plates will be iffy.

Quite possibly.


I did wonder about stacking software to use multiple images and make a
number plate legible but couldn't find anything to try.

That's a clever idea. Is it already done do you know (is that why you
generally see two cameras doing this sort of thing)?

Yes the software is used in astronomy and forensics but as I say I
have not seen any.

Ok.

Yes but what I was after was why the analogue cameras should be
preferable to the IP ones on a like for like basis.

I would like to know as well, assuming they are. Personally I think
you are likely to get better value if there isn't the cost of the i/p
/ video capture / storage / server bit, but maybe that is very cheap
(comparatively)? But maybe it's not the video quality that is better
but the feature set? Or maybe it is better video because it's being
digitised nearer the source so less likely to suffer transmission
losses?

I actually prefer the NVR but as I said I need a faster way of
reviewing the recording

I wasn't completely sure how a NVR differentiated from a DVR, maybe
because although the recording devices I've used could have supported
IP cameras, I've never use one on one. So an NVR in DVR mode? ;-)

snip

Cheers, T i m