Has any one tried DIY CCTV
I would like to detect motion of anyone near my house in day and night. At
night the street is not completly dark, but a basic web cam just shows a
black image.
I am also planning on uploading the motion detected images on to a web site
(this part I have no problems with).

My main intrested in people experiance of camera selection and connectivity
to a PC

lastly can i get a grant from the council for this??? as its could be said
its their lack of policing which has caused this issue.

Thanks

none wrote:
Has any one tried DIY CCTV
Yes I have.
I would like to detect motion of anyone near my house in day and night. At
night the street is not completly dark, but a basic web cam just shows a
black image.
You need a camera with light amplification or an infra red filter and an
IR lighting system. I can't remember what mine where called, they are
generic security camera's feeding a frame grabber card.

I am also planning on uploading the motion detected images on to a web site
(this part I have no problems with).

My main intrested in people experiance of camera selection and connectivity
to a PC

I use some home made scripts and the GNU Motion system

lastly can i get a grant from the council for this??? as its could be said
its their lack of policing which has caused this issue.

You are more likely to get a fine if you are pointing your camera's into
the street, mine overlook only my property.

//J

The message
from "none" contains these words:

night the street is not completly dark, but a basic web cam just shows a
black image.

Convert the webcam to IR. Works a treat and isn't hard. Good for webcam
and infrared mod and you'll find plenty of into.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

why would i get a fine for pointing the camera into the street, Its a public
area
"Jan Larsen" wrote in message
...
none wrote:
Has any one tried DIY CCTV
Yes I have.
I would like to detect motion of anyone near my house in day and night.
At
night the street is not completly dark, but a basic web cam just shows a
black image.
You need a camera with light amplification or an infra red filter and an
IR lighting system. I can't remember what mine where called, they are
generic security camera's feeding a frame grabber card.

I am also planning on uploading the motion detected images on to a web
site
(this part I have no problems with).

My main intrested in people experiance of camera selection and
connectivity
to a PC

I use some home made scripts and the GNU Motion system

lastly can i get a grant from the council for this??? as its could be
said
its their lack of policing which has caused this issue.

You are more likely to get a fine if you are pointing your camera's into
the street, mine overlook only my property.

//J

none wrote:
why would i get a fine for pointing the camera into the street, Its a public
area

Yes public, as in not your property, I am no expert in the rules
governing the use of CCTV camera's but I am fairly certain that you
would not be allowed to monitor the street like that, ask your council
or local police station.

//J

So why are shops and business allowed to monitor the street outside their
building. Or do the council and police turn a blind eye ?

"Jan Larsen" wrote in message
...
none wrote:
why would i get a fine for pointing the camera into the street, Its a
public
area

Yes public, as in not your property, I am no expert in the rules
governing the use of CCTV camera's but I am fairly certain that you
would not be allowed to monitor the street like that, ask your council
or local police station.

//J

none wrote:
So why are shops and business allowed to monitor the street outside their
building. Or do the council and police turn a blind eye ?

I believe the rules are different for businesses, as I said please ask
your local police department. I am not telling you what to do I merely
attempted to make you aware that I believe you could be getting yourself
in trouble by filming the street.

Also, please consider to kick the habit of top posting

//J

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 10:12:08 +0100, none wrote:

why would i get a fine for pointing the camera into the street, Its a public
area

It's not so much a fine, but you could be prosecuted under the Data
Protection Act if you set up a CCTV camera system to monitor a public place
without making an appropriate registration with the Information
Commissioner.

Look here for more information, and in your case the "Small User Checklist"
is a good summary of what you need to do.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 10:12:08 +0100, none wrote:

why would i get a fine for pointing the camera into the street, Its a
public
area

It's not so much a fine, but you could be prosecuted under the Data
Protection Act if you set up a CCTV camera system to monitor a public
place
without making an appropriate registration with the Information
Commissioner.

Look here for more information, and in your case the "Small User
Checklist"
is a good summary of what you need to do.

Thanks for the tips

I called them and domestic properties are excempt

just need a recommendations and any comments about which cameras to use,
and if any one has any helpful tips about the s/w that could also been good

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 08:38:35 +0100, none wrote:
I would like to detect motion of anyone near my house in day and night. At
night the street is not completly dark, but a basic web cam just shows a
black image.

There are 2 types of webcam: CMOS and CCD sensors. The CMOS ones
are cheap, but have crap sensitivity. The CCD ones are much more
expensive and (nowadays) difficult to come by. Philips make/made
the most popular CCD webcams.
I get a very satisfactory night time image from my Vesta(tm) cam
with a wide lens and a 0.2 second exposure time.

Pete
--
.................................................. .........................
.. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
.. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
.. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:24:22 +0100, none wrote:

I called them and domestic properties are excempt

Not if you turn your cameras onto a public place. Did you tell them that
you intend to monitor the street outside your home?

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 08:38:35 +0100, "none" wrote:

I would like to detect motion of anyone near my house in day and night. At
night the street is not completly dark, but a basic web cam just shows a
black image.

If you have not already found it http://www.willingsoftware.com/ is
worth looking at as is http://www.icode.co.uk/icatcher/index.html but
bear in mind most of their solutions are not evidence quality (see
later).

Most motion sensing CCTV systems have high false alarm rates as rapid
changes in illumination level trigger them, you can see this on the
demo cameras at
http://www.icode.co.uk/icatcher/samples/portsmouth.html during the
day as clouds pass over the sun.

I am also planning on uploading the motion detected images on to a web site
(this part I have no problems with).

If the camera is covering anything other than within the boundaries
of your personal property and if you use motion detection (making a
person the "focus of the information") or make the images on the web
accessibly by anyone other than yourself the installation will be
covered by the Data Protection Act. You would not be able to rely
upon S36 exemption. You might find it useful to read -
http://www.informationcommissioner.g...s/cctvcop1.pdf
in particular the bits about having to have clear signs naming the
person or organisation responsible for the surveillance and the image
quality required.

My main intrested in people experiance of camera selection and connectivity
to a PC

Most CCTV systems are ineffective as they fail to produce images of
adequate quality to be used as evidence. Even if someone can say "I
know him - that's Jones the Thief from no 42" it doesn't mean the
image is suitable as evidence. For night/very low light this problem
is many times worse as IR sensitive cameras produce a grayscale image
where the grays do not correspond in the same way a panchromatic
black and white photograph would correspond to a colour image of the
same scene. IR images are rarely usable in court. Ultra low light
(image enhanced) cameras produce very grainy and noisy images which
equally have little value as evidence.

Quite often police observing a surveillance image will be pretty sure
they can identify who the miscreant is (often well known to them) but
are unable to use the imagery as anything other than a guide to who
to visit. If there is no other evidence the imagery alone is usually
not enough to prosecute.

To produce useful images for submission to a court any image capture
system must be able to :-

* Identify the suspected criminal(s) visually for purposes of
evidence.
* Provide a linked record of the date, time and place of any image.
* Visually confirm the nature of the crime which was committed.
* Visually connect the suspected criminal(s) with the crime.
* Provide a verifiable audit trail of image handling from recording
to court.

Identification capability is usually expressed using the Rotakin
standard. This is measured by using a standard test target of a
standing man with a height of 1.6 metres. When the image fills the
screen vertically the image height is 100 per cent Rotakin. Different
Rotakin levels are classified into groups depending on the likely
evidential quality of the pictures.

Common Rotakin definitions from the Police Scientific Development
Branch a-

5% - Monitor
An observer can observe the number, direction and speed of movement
of people whose presence is known to them, i.e. they do not have to
be searched for. Subject matter should fill no less than 5% of the
screen.

10% - Detection
Following an alert an observer can, after a search, ascertain with a
high degree of certainty whether or not a person is visible in the
pictures displayed to them. The subject should fill no less than 10%
of the screen.

50% - Recognition
Viewers can say with a high degree of certainty whether or not the
individual shown is the same as someone they have seen before. The
subject should fill no less than 50% of the screen.

120% - Identification
Picture quality and detail should be sufficient to enable the
identity of a subject to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The
subject should be no less than 120% of the screen.

http://www.bsia.co.uk/pdfs/Form_191.pdf Code of Practice for Digital
Recording Systems for the Purpose of Image Export to be used as
Evidence is quite a good guide especially as to the chain of custody
requirements.

I assume you are contemplating an automatic (unattended) system. If
you wish to use the pictures as evidence you will therefore need to
consider the field of view carefully and are probably looking not
merely at a motion sensing but also an auto tracking system. If you
want this to work in hours of darkness it will need IR or visual
floodlighting (but remember IR images have limited value as
evidence). An alternative might be multiple cameras with one giving a
wide area view and others zoomed in on particularly critical areas
within the wide area view.

I've used the Axis 232 PTZ before and with appropriate lenses it has
good performance, the Axis 221 is also good but doesn't include a
pan/tilt head. For both a separate IR floodlighting system would
need to be used much at night. Network cameras are usually much
simpler and more reliable to use than usb/video card ones.

lastly can i get a grant from the council for this???

No.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:24:22 +0100, "none" wrote:


I called them and domestic properties are excempt

_Inside_ of domestic properties is exempt under S36 of the DPA.
Outside your boundary is not. Moreover by using motion detection and
uploading to a website you put yourself most definitely within the
DPA requirements.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 08:38:35 +0100, "none" wrote:

I would like to detect motion of anyone near my house in day and night.
At
night the street is not completly dark, but a basic web cam just shows a
black image.

If you have not already found it http://www.willingsoftware.com/ is
worth looking at as is http://www.icode.co.uk/icatcher/index.html but
bear in mind most of their solutions are not evidence quality (see
later).

Most motion sensing CCTV systems have high false alarm rates as rapid
changes in illumination level trigger them, you can see this on the
demo cameras at
http://www.icode.co.uk/icatcher/samples/portsmouth.html during the
day as clouds pass over the sun.

I am also planning on uploading the motion detected images on to a web
site
(this part I have no problems with).

If the camera is covering anything other than within the boundaries
of your personal property and if you use motion detection (making a
person the "focus of the information") or make the images on the web
accessibly by anyone other than yourself the installation will be
covered by the Data Protection Act. You would not be able to rely
upon S36 exemption. You might find it useful to read -
http://www.informationcommissioner.g...s/cctvcop1.pdf
in particular the bits about having to have clear signs naming the
person or organisation responsible for the surveillance and the image
quality required.

My main intrested in people experiance of camera selection and
connectivity
to a PC

Most CCTV systems are ineffective as they fail to produce images of
adequate quality to be used as evidence. Even if someone can say "I
know him - that's Jones the Thief from no 42" it doesn't mean the
image is suitable as evidence. For night/very low light this problem
is many times worse as IR sensitive cameras produce a grayscale image
where the grays do not correspond in the same way a panchromatic
black and white photograph would correspond to a colour image of the
same scene. IR images are rarely usable in court. Ultra low light
(image enhanced) cameras produce very grainy and noisy images which
equally have little value as evidence.

Quite often police observing a surveillance image will be pretty sure
they can identify who the miscreant is (often well known to them) but
are unable to use the imagery as anything other than a guide to who
to visit. If there is no other evidence the imagery alone is usually
not enough to prosecute.

To produce useful images for submission to a court any image capture
system must be able to :-

* Identify the suspected criminal(s) visually for purposes of
evidence.
* Provide a linked record of the date, time and place of any image.
* Visually confirm the nature of the crime which was committed.
* Visually connect the suspected criminal(s) with the crime.
* Provide a verifiable audit trail of image handling from recording
to court.

Identification capability is usually expressed using the Rotakin
standard. This is measured by using a standard test target of a
standing man with a height of 1.6 metres. When the image fills the
screen vertically the image height is 100 per cent Rotakin. Different
Rotakin levels are classified into groups depending on the likely
evidential quality of the pictures.

Common Rotakin definitions from the Police Scientific Development
Branch a-

5% - Monitor
An observer can observe the number, direction and speed of movement
of people whose presence is known to them, i.e. they do not have to
be searched for. Subject matter should fill no less than 5% of the
screen.

10% - Detection
Following an alert an observer can, after a search, ascertain with a
high degree of certainty whether or not a person is visible in the
pictures displayed to them. The subject should fill no less than 10%
of the screen.

50% - Recognition
Viewers can say with a high degree of certainty whether or not the
individual shown is the same as someone they have seen before. The
subject should fill no less than 50% of the screen.

120% - Identification
Picture quality and detail should be sufficient to enable the
identity of a subject to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The
subject should be no less than 120% of the screen.

http://www.bsia.co.uk/pdfs/Form_191.pdf Code of Practice for Digital
Recording Systems for the Purpose of Image Export to be used as
Evidence is quite a good guide especially as to the chain of custody
requirements.

I assume you are contemplating an automatic (unattended) system. If
you wish to use the pictures as evidence you will therefore need to
consider the field of view carefully and are probably looking not
merely at a motion sensing but also an auto tracking system. If you
want this to work in hours of darkness it will need IR or visual
floodlighting (but remember IR images have limited value as
evidence). An alternative might be multiple cameras with one giving a
wide area view and others zoomed in on particularly critical areas
within the wide area view.

I've used the Axis 232 PTZ before and with appropriate lenses it has
good performance, the Axis 221 is also good but doesn't include a
pan/tilt head. For both a separate IR floodlighting system would
need to be used much at night. Network cameras are usually much
simpler and more reliable to use than usb/video card ones.

lastly can i get a grant from the council for this???

No.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Peter
Many Thanks for the information, very helpfull

The exception you mention S36 is the one I was told about. and I did mention
that the pictures would be of public property.

Getting the feeling that this whole CCTV idea is a non starter. for the
following reasons

If i can't easly video the street then people can vandalise my property and
as long as their on the street i can't film them.

Even if I cover my self under DPA what is the use of the photos, if there
not admisable in court.

Basically i am getting the idea tht this whole personal CCTV is no use and
just a waste of money

Any comments ?

Any idea on the best course of action ?

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 12:10:06 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:24:22 +0100, none wrote:

I called them and domestic properties are excempt

Not if you turn your cameras onto a public place. Did you tell them that
you intend to monitor the street outside your home?

Doesn't it seem odd that I can take my "ordinary" digi camera anywhere
in the street and photograph almost anything, yet I can't point a CCTV
camera into the same street? :-)

--
Frank Erskine

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 13:22:13 +0100, none wrote:

Any idea on the best course of action ?

Move somewhere less pikey.

none wrote:
So why are shops and business allowed to monitor the street outside
their building. Or do the council and police turn a blind eye ?


But they are only monitoring a specific area of the premisis ie could be
the doorway or take for example the garage forcourt, so long as it does not
overstep the buildings boundry its fine.

Oh and one other thing a sign saying CCTV in operation is needed.

--
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

"Peter Lynch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:58:31 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 08:38:35 +0100, "none" wrote:

I would like to detect motion of anyone near my house in day and night.
At
night the street is not completly dark, but a basic web cam just shows a
black image.

... stuff deleted

If the camera is covering anything other than within the boundaries
of your personal property and if you use motion detection (making a
person the "focus of the information") or make the images on the web

... huge amount of stuff deleted

Discussions about what's "legal" really are moot here.

Unless it's the size of a football, painted orange and flashes
bright lights, no-one will ever be aware you're using a webcam.
So all this stuff about "the law" is really a pointless discussion.

If anyone does ask, just tell the truth - they won't be that interested,
unless you're pointing it in their bedroom window. Even if plod does
knock on your door, smile sweetly and say "Oh! officer, I never
realised. I thought I was being a concerned citizen." You won't get
shipped to Guantanamo Bay.

Pete

--
.................................................. ........................
. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................


I'm going to get the police & council involved I was planning on locating it
externally with some sort of IR (which i guess glow slightly).
I dont want to spend 100s of pounds to be told to remove it. plus if its no
good for evidence why should i waste my money..

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 13:22:13 +0100, none wrote:

Any idea on the best course of action ?

Move somewhere less pikey.

or just ban alcohol...............

Peter Lynch wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:58:31 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 08:38:35 +0100, "none" wrote:

I would like to detect motion of anyone near my house in day and night. At
night the street is not completly dark, but a basic web cam just shows a
black image.

... stuff deleted

If the camera is covering anything other than within the boundaries
of your personal property and if you use motion detection (making a
person the "focus of the information") or make the images on the web

... huge amount of stuff deleted

Discussions about what's "legal" really are moot here.

Unless it's the size of a football, painted orange and flashes
bright lights, no-one will ever be aware you're using a webcam.
So all this stuff about "the law" is really a pointless discussion.

If anyone does ask, just tell the truth - they won't be that interested,
unless you're pointing it in their bedroom window. Even if plod does
knock on your door, smile sweetly and say "Oh! officer, I never
realised. I thought I was being a concerned citizen." You won't get
shipped to Guantanamo Bay.


Maybe not, but plod is becoming ever more officious and would rather
meet their targets by targetting minor transgressions like pointing a
camera at the street rather than catching the real pikey scrotes. See
the story of the woman ordered to remove a sign saying "my dog eats
Jehovah's Witnesses" after 30 years and numerous other petty
misdemeanors that are nowadays blown out of all proportion.

MBQ

I'm replying to two post in one here ...

"none" wrote in message
...

If i can't easly video the street then people can vandalise my property
and
as long as their on the street i can't film them.

Even if I cover my self under DPA what is the use of the photos, if there
not admisable in court.

Basically i am getting the idea tht this whole personal CCTV is no use and
just a waste of money

Don't give in so easily! A little local history is informative ...

When I first moved here in the late 90s, it seemed a quiet, decent sort of
area - 80s cul-de-sac estate adjoining a park and nature reserve in the
suburbs of a large city, with mostly family houses. I went to work most
days, occasionally working from home, closed my curtains at night, and for a
few years remained completely *unaware* of what was *really* going on under
the surface.

I first became aware of problems around five years' ago. When working from
home I spotted vans outside the children's playground and a team of workmen
apparently carting it away lock, stock, and barrel. I went and spoke to
them, and it had been vandalised to the point of almost complete clearance
on safety grounds. I'd casually seen gangs of youths in it at night but had
thought no more about it.

Then I started leaving my curtains open at night, and became aware that
these gangs were setting fire to litter bins, throwing stones, knocking on
doors, playing football in the street using cars as goals, wrecking garden
fencing, etc. Some were openly riding motorbikes through the park and an
adjoining nature reserve, and even on one occasion in what had been the
playground. There was a motorbike race in the street which took out a
street light.

It was beginning to feel like we lived on one of those troublesome estate
one sees occasionally on the news, particularly after dark - the
difference in the atmosphere between night and day was quite marked,
certainly worrying, even frightening. I believe that if we hadn't
collectively and individually taken strong steps against all this, we could
have been a 'problem' estate by now.

I started by taking still photos of the daytime playground vandalism, making
a point of calling the police whenever fire was involved. I knew that if
they kept doing it, sooner or later the police would happen to respond
quickly enough to catch them, and this duly happened. The vandalism has now
stopped, the playground was rebuilt around 2 years ago and has remained
intact and in use ever since.

This made me a particular target of the local youths, but I am divorced and
have no children who could be bullied at school, so am not really vulnerable
to intimidation. However, I decided that things had gone too far when about
18 months ago four of them poured urine through my letter box, and I
installed CCTV.

Since then I have given the local police digital still photos, VHS tapes,
and even a DVD compilation - clips ranging from theft, youths (and even
some adults) riding motor bikes and scooters and quadbikes in the park,
stone throwing, and even a clip of one youth who just serially took his dog
into the local playground despite having the health hazard that this creates
explained to him.

I don't want to count chickens and continue to remain alert, because things
can change overnight, but life is a lot quieter here now. There are very
few incidents of motor-bikes or scooters going into the park or nature
reserve (at least one offender had his confiscated and others have been
warned that they'll lose theirs). The local youths, while occasionally
still abusive, have stopped the vandalism, stone throwing, playing football
in the street, taking the dog into the playground, etc.

Particularly, I suppose because the they don't feel comfortable around here
now - probably because they feel they are being watched, which they are -
they don't gather in large gangs any more. We are left with two or three
troublesome local ones who are less blatant without the protection of large
numbers coming in from elsewhere.

Moral: Don't assume that everything's ok, be aware of what is really
happening beyond your curtains at night. Take collective action as far as
possible, but be prepared to stand up and be counted as an individual as
well. Photographic and video evidence enables the police to take much more
targeted and relevant action than verbal reports. If youths and vandals
start to get too much aggro in one place, they'll eventually move on to
others.

Also ...

"none" wrote in message
...

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 10:12:08 +0100, none wrote:

Look here for more information, and in your case the "Small User
Checklist"
is a good summary of what you need to do.

So where was 'here'? There was no link.

Thanks for the tips

I called them and domestic properties are excempt

I've had a run-in with the local police about this; they were initially very
reluctant to accept video from my system. Things began to turn around when
there was a robbery, and it just so happened that I observed and reported it
and my system had caught the perpetrators as they passed in front of my
house - they were caught and convicted as a direct result. Nevertheless,
they still seemed reluctant to use other CCTV footage, and when I offered it
over the phone I often got conflicting viewpoints as to why.

In despair, I wrote to my local councillors, one of whom turned out to be an
ex-copper. I asked him about the police's reluctance. He said that there
was no problem with videoing evidence in your own premises or in a public
place, but that video of what was occurring in other people's premises was
unlikely to be accepted by courts in normal circumstances.

He also said that if the video was of the type where the date and time were
subtitiled onto the footage, to be certain that the system clock was correct
(don't forget the time changeovers in spring and autumn) otherwise, I
imagine, a good defence lawyer would rubbish it out of court.

He also said to keep tape in good condition and make sure the heads are
clean, so the result was more likely to be useful.

I also understand that you need to have a notice saying that your premises
use CCTV.

As a result of his intervention, the police have now viewed all the evidence
I had.

just need a recommendations and any comments about which cameras to use,
and if any one has any helpful tips about the s/w that could also been
good

I use a Micromark CCTV built into a front door light, but I can't recommend
it:

:-{ It was replaced twice under warranty
:-{ Nevertheless, the photo-sensitive light control is broken so I have
to remember to turn it on in the evening (not a problem) and off in the
morning (a problem).
:-{ Although the camera can be turned to face the approach to the door,
the PIR which can be set to control the light and switch the TV over to the
camera can not, so I have to keep the light on permanently at night -
youths delivering papers discovered that they could approach the door
without the light coming on, and word soon got around.
:-{ The camera is not very sensitive to sodium street-lighting (the
predominant yellow type)
:-{ The greyscales produced are often surprisingly different from colour
vision - a light colour can produce a dark grey and a black can produce a
light grey.
:-{ It can't be angled vertically.
:-{ When the PIR fires, it will either switch your TV over to the camera
or sound a very loud buzzer, or both, neither of which I want.
:-{ It requires excavation of quite a large channel and quite a lot of
ingenious patience to pull the DIN plug through the wall when installing it.

It does have a some good points though:

:-} The camera is discreet - it was there for quite a while without
anyone apparently noticing it, and word only got around when the thieves
were caught.
:-} It can be angled horizontally, so when required I can turn it to film
what is happening in the park. Again, even when they knew I had CCTV, it
was quite a while before the trouble-makers realised this.
:-} The video comes out of the control box through a standard SCART
connector, so can be plugged into any standard recording device.

I record everything that happens 24hrs (no motion detection) outside my
front door onto a HDD/DVD-R recorder hard disk. I use normal editing
facilities to preserve anything I think merits it before it's overwritten,
being sure to log the date and exact time in the title of the clip. If I
particularly want to record TV with the HDD/DVD-R, I can also record the
camera using a VCR. I can dub footage onto VHS or DVD-R as appropriate.

at night the street is not completely dark, but a basic web cam just shows
a black image.

Notwithstanding my comments about sensitivity to street-lighting above, this
could simply be a matter of TV/Monitor adjustment. It’s surprising what a
difference this can make - a scene initially appearing to contain nothing
whatever of value can actually reveal quite a lot if the set is adjusted
optimally and viewed in a darkened room. In particular, while I very much
prefer a modern LCD flat-panel for normal TV viewing, with night-time CCTV
it’s difficult to get a good combination of backlight, brightness and
contrast levels, and I have found that I get best results from an old
Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) TV, with the contrast around 3/4 of maximum, the
brightness about 5/8 of maximum, and other picture controls at their
mid-point. Before lashing out on IR stuff, try investigating this. I get
useful results at night without IR stuff, though obviously I would welcome
the improvement that IR would bring.

I'm inclined to think it particularly bad of CCTV makers not to make sure
that their kit is sensitive to street lighting, though I guess given the
limited ranges of frequencies involved there may be little or no overlap
between those of the common sodium and mercury sources and the sensitivity
of the CMOS/CCDs.

Java Jive wrote:
I'm replying to two post in one here ...



Wow! have you ever thought joe public is paying council tax for policing
the beat?

And here's you doing the job for them.

--
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

In article , The3rd Earl
Of Derby writes
Java Jive wrote:
I'm replying to two post in one here ...



Wow! have you ever thought joe public is paying council tax for policing
the beat?

And here's you doing the job for them.


Exactly, never see them around anymore?...
--
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 13:22:13 +0100, "none" wrote:


The exception you mention S36 is the one I was told about. and I did mention
that the pictures would be of public property.

With the type and purpose of the installation you propose you would
almost certainly not be exempt under S36 which simply states :-

"36. Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes
of that individual's personal, family or household affairs (including
recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles
and the provisions of Parts II and III."

If i can't easly video the street then people can vandalise my property and
as long as their on the street i can't film them.

You can have a system to protect your property even if it unavoidably
includes some public areas. What you can't do is have anything which
reacts to individuals or which can be used or accessed by anyone
other than you.

Even if I cover my self under DPA what is the use of the photos, if there
not admisable in court.

Not a lot of good unless they can be corroborated. So a video
showing someone bashing your car is pretty useless. A video of
someone bashing your car which also shows the house lights coming on
and the scrote running away as you come out can be very useful _if_
you are able to say "I went out of the house and saw Fred Bloggs run
off".

Basically i am getting the idea that this whole personal CCTV is no use and
just a waste of money

Most are certainly that.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

I have seen more patrols by police in the last six months than I previously
had in the last six years ... but, more to the point, they will quite
rightly follow the problem. What we have been largely successful in doing
is moving the problem on.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Exactly, never see them around anymore?...

I think your reply shows a common shortcoming in our modern way of thinking
....

We pay council tax, income tax, electricity and water charges, or whatever
and think that somehow that absolves us for personal responsibility for our
lives:

* We pay council tax so it's the police's job to catch criminals, so we
needn't take any further interest in the problem.
* We pay income tax and vehicle taxes, so why are the roads so crowded?
* We pay electricity charges, so why shouldn't we have our houses lit up
like fairgrounds all the time?
* We pay water rates, so why are we under a hosepipe ban?

.... whereas actually ...

* There will never be enough police if people aren't willing to get
involved and submit evidence to them, and if parents don't make it their
business to ensure that they know exactly what their kids get up to when not
directly under their supervision, and don't teach them respect for other
people and their property.
* The roads are so crowded because all the road-building in the past has
made it so convenient to travel by car that few who can afford not to want
the inconvenience of travelling by public transport anymore.
* The electricity we casually waste requires CO2 production to produce
it.
* All the water we (and the water companies) casually waste comes from
reservoirs and river systems that are near their capacity for extraction.

There is a whole class of human problems that do *NOT* fall into the
you-solve-it-by-flinging-money-at-it category. Just because we pay for
something doesn't absolve us from personal responsibility for the way we use
it.

"The3rd Earl Of Derby" wrote in message
...

Wow! have you ever thought joe public is paying council tax for policing
the beat?

And here's you doing the job for them.

"none" wrote in message
...
Has any one tried DIY CCTV
I would like to detect motion of anyone near my house in day and night. At
night the street is not completly dark, but a basic web cam just shows a
black image.
I am also planning on uploading the motion detected images on to a web
site
(this part I have no problems with).

My main intrested in people experiance of camera selection and
connectivity
to a PC

lastly can i get a grant from the council for this??? as its could be said
its their lack of policing which has caused this issue.

I've just ordered a device from ebay ....
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...m=160012914215

I'd been investigating using a linux machine but didn't come up with a
workable solution, so when I discovered this little gadget I thought too
good to be true. It may be, but I'll let you know when I receive it.

I am going to have mine running outside my front door, photographing anyone
that approaches. Hopefully the postman won't mind. I may have a second in my
lounge just for monitoring as well.

elyob wrote:
"none" wrote in message
...
Has any one tried DIY CCTV
I would like to detect motion of anyone near my house in day and
night. At night the street is not completly dark, but a basic web
cam just shows a black image.
I am also planning on uploading the motion detected images on to a
web site
(this part I have no problems with).

My main intrested in people experiance of camera selection and
connectivity
to a PC

lastly can i get a grant from the council for this??? as its could
be said its their lack of policing which has caused this issue.

I've just ordered a device from ebay ....
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...m=160012914215

I'd been investigating using a linux machine but didn't come up with a
workable solution, so when I discovered this little gadget I thought
too good to be true. It may be, but I'll let you know when I receive
it.

I am going to have mine running outside my front door, photographing
anyone that approaches. Hopefully the postman won't mind. I may have
a second in my lounge just for monitoring as well.

Pity it was a CMOS device. :-(

--
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

"The3rd Earl Of Derby" wrote in message
...
elyob wrote:
I've just ordered a device from ebay ....
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...m=160012914215

I'd been investigating using a linux machine but didn't come up with a
workable solution, so when I discovered this little gadget I thought
too good to be true. It may be, but I'll let you know when I receive
it.

I am going to have mine running outside my front door, photographing
anyone that approaches. Hopefully the postman won't mind. I may have
a second in my lounge just for monitoring as well.

Pity it was a CMOS device. :-(

Yeah, but the camera is easily replaceable in the future, ideally with an IR
camera. It's the server in a box that's the bit I wanted. So, I'll just wait
for CCD cameras to drop in price and replace in the future.

It's an interesting product, not needing a PC is just the ticket.

"gort" wrote in message
news

I'd been investigating using a linux machine but didn't come up with a
workable solution,

Did you know about Zone monitor for Linux ?

I looked at a few, but the main problem was just getting the camera to work
with the system. It just took too much of my time, and I also use the linux
box for other things. It's not entirely ruled out, but I thought I'd test
this solution and see what the benefits are. Hopefully it'll be a full
solution

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 10:12:08 +0100, none wrote:

why would i get a fine for pointing the camera into the street, Its a
public
area

It's not so much a fine, but you could be prosecuted under the Data
Protection Act if you set up a CCTV camera system to monitor a public
place
without making an appropriate registration with the Information
Commissioner.

Not applicable to domestic installations, nor to installations without
recording capacity, nor to commercial installations with fixed cameras that
are used solely for crime prevention and with strict controls on the data
stored - although the last took a test case to achieve.

Colin Bignell

In message , none writes
So why are shops and business allowed to monitor the street outside their
building. Or do the council and police turn a blind eye ?
Businesses usually get permission if they are truly monitoring public
property but I think you will find that a proportion of the shop
frontage is part of the shop property. The data protection act is also
involved.

Ask somebody who will know, I.E. your local council and police
authority. Unlikely to get into trouble but better safe than sorry.
--
Clint Sharp

In message , tony sayer
writes
In article , The3rd Earl
Of Derby writes
Java Jive wrote:
I'm replying to two post in one here ...



Wow! have you ever thought joe public is paying council tax for policing
the beat?

And here's you doing the job for them.


Exactly, never see them around anymore?...
Phone them, make sure your complaint gets logged, ask for a reference
number. The police are statistics driven, if there are a lot of
complaints from one area you will get a presence, possibly to the
detriment of another area though. If the stats aren't seen to show a
need, there isn't a need.
--
Clint Sharp

The message
from "The3rd Earl Of Derby" contains these words:

Wow! have you ever thought joe public is paying council tax for policing
the beat?

And here's you doing the job for them.

I don't think that's fair. Looking after your neighbourhood is the
responsibility of those who live in it, with support from the police.
It's not something you leave entirely to the police.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

elyob wrote:

I've just ordered a device from ebay ....
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...m=160012914215

I'd been investigating using a linux machine but didn't come up with a
workable solution, so when I discovered this little gadget I thought too
good to be true. It may be, but I'll let you know when I receive it.

I think you will find if you look under the surface that that IS a Linux
machine I just happen to have a few little MIPS machines and a NAS
that can think for it self (Via C3-2) sitting around my house doing
other useful things, also I'm a bit of a tinkerer hence I set up my own
system using generic security camera's.

Best of luck with your CCTV solution.


//J

Guy King wrote:
The message
from "The3rd Earl Of Derby" contains these words:

Wow! have you ever thought joe public is paying council tax for
policing the beat?

And here's you doing the job for them.

I don't think that's fair. Looking after your neighbourhood is the
responsibility of those who live in it, with support from the police.
It's not something you leave entirely to the police.

In a perfect world those words would suit.

I presume you don't live in a rough area?

--
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:50:22 +0100, Jan Larsen wrote:

Best of luck with your CCTV solution.

Solution?
--
Frank Erskine

The message
from "The3rd Earl Of Derby" contains these words:


I presume you don't live in a rough area?

Ha! You ain't seen nothing. Woodside in Telford has the second highest
rate of teenage pregnancy (for example) in the country. It's allegedly
in the ten most deprived estates in the realm. Though to live here you
wouldn't know it.
We had a major problem with burglaries, but that's pretty well been
knocked on the head now by a combination of things - partly better
policing, partly security cameras, partly the demolition of some flats
here which were dire and full of scunners and partly by kicking out a
few families. From Christmas to the end of March there were two
burglaries on the entire estate - which is over a thousand houses.

Some bits are like Beirut but others, perhaps only 100 yards away, are
fine. We're in one of the nicer bits, but you never forget that it's
easy to let the place slide downhill so we keep an eye out. Silly
things, like if some chav comes and parks his Nova outside with the
music up loud several neighbours will wander out and chat to each other
over the fences, get things from their cars, generally be seen watching
him. They get the message pretty quickly. Being seen watching makes a
big difference.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"Guy King" wrote in message
...

Being seen watching makes a
big difference.

Absolutely right.

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:50:22 +0100, Jan Larsen wrote:

Best of luck with your CCTV solution.

Solution?

Solution, hopefully, but yes, I was assuming it was linux. I use different
linux "solution's" out of the pc. I just couldn't create a mini PC, and am
glad someone else has.

I just hope the postman doesn't just drop a card tomorrow, that's just be
irony at its best.