Slashdot Mirror
Is Cheap Video Surveillance Possible?
timholman writes "After a series of burglaries and auto break-ins in my neighborhood, I'm thinking about adding some video security cameras to my home. To me, the object isn't just deterrence — if someone tries to break into my house or my car (parked on the street in front of my house), I'd like to provide a high-quality image of the perpetrator to the police. Inexpensive video surveillance systems, with their atrocious image quality, are nearly useless. The problem is being able to get good image quality at an affordable price. After some research, I've decided that using network cameras to FTP images to a central server over a HomePlug network is the best solution. However, good megapixel network cameras (e.g. Stardot or Axis cameras) can easily cost more than $1,000 each. Has any of you dealt with a similar situation? Is there any way to get reasonable quality (preferably open source) daytime and nighttime video surveillance equipment for home use without paying an arm and a leg? Is it better to go with a couple of expensive cameras, or a multitude of inexpensive cameras? Is paying two to three thousand dollars simply unavoidable if I want to monitor my front and back yards?"
Get a dog. The TCO may be higher than the camera, but the deterrence factor is way higher (and it's better to not be broken into at all, than have footage of your breakins afterwards).
I'm surprised it has to be 600-700 dollars when 8mp consumer digicams are $180 and have an intricate zoom lens you don't even want for surveillance. What we need is a 6mp monchrome sensor with no IR filter, a fixed-length lens, and wifi, for about $100. OK, $130 with a motion sensor. Come on China, you can do it!
You need to get yourself a dog. It doesn't have to be big or scary looking- a small, yappy-type dog will do just fine. Unless you advertise the presence of valuable goods inside your house, a burglar will not break into your house if it is occupied. I think you'll find that most burglars will go for the lowest-hanging fruit, which will be your neighbor's house (unless they also have a dog, in which case the next house over is the low fruit). They want to get in, grab the stuff that is easiest to make off with and pawn, and then get out. I doubt you have any state secrets or anything like that in your house; this is a simple cost/benefit analysis for you and the burglars.
Another thing to look into is a neighborhood watch program. Of course, if you live in a neighborhood like mine that might not be a viable option. In that case, you need to get yourself a dog and a steel-core door. Skip the expensive cameras. Are they really going to save you money? Or is this a vindictive side of you, the side that might put a "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot twice" sign on your fence?
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
Actually, quality isn't the issue. Angle is.
What you need to do is ensure that you capture a face shot as close to eye-level as possible, without having the camera obstructed by people walking by.
The police and FBI don't like to talk about it, but there is a program where if they input a digital photo of someone, even a poor quality one, the computer will compare it against the database of digital photos taken by the Department of Motor Vehicles and spit out the six closest matches.
These system rely on facial characteristics like eye-nose-mouth ratio, hairlines, etc so as long as the computer can accurately calculate the centers of these areas, it works.
But when cameras are mounted up on the roof or in a corner as is typical, they are worthless unless the suspect looks right at them.
Also, you want to think about having a camera just for vehicle traffic on your street or culdesac. A license plate is going to be your best method for apprehension. Sure, the car may be stolen, but if it is recovered then it can lead to your property. And if it happens to be a crime of impulse, you will have a suspect.
If you were really clever, you could find some way to rig a standard digital camera with a flash similar to a red-light camera. This would be your most inexpensive option but also a dead give-away and not recommended for busy roads. Instead, find the least expensive camera that offers changeable lenses, and then focus them on a spot on the street that you know vehicles must drive through. Add some inexpensive infrared lighting and you should be able to playback a log of all vehicles (suspects and potential witnesses) when there is an incident.
I think having more inexpensive cameras with decent quality will have a greater chance of success than a couple high-quality ones. Also, don't overlook physical security sensors. Infrared beams and even motion sensors are the best way to deter the crime, instead of relying on catching the criminal.
I have been on the victim side of countless incidents in my profession and, frankly, you won't get the time of day from law enforcement. If a light turns on, or a camera flashes as someone approaches your vehicle...they will move on. And don't forget if you are worried about your vehicle and not just what's in it...pick up a used Sprint/Nextel phone on eBay and split off power from your car's 12V plug. Hide the phone inside the dash somewhere on continuously. Get the least expensive plan, or just write down the IMEI so that you can later activate the phone by calling Sprint. If the car does get stolen, activate service and add-on the GPS tracking features.
Cheapest Lojack you will find.
Good luck.
-JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
There's pretty good motion detecting software out there already.. a bit of time with google should solve that problem.
I've solved the security camera problem with a $50 webcam, but I was only monitoring a desk in a cubicle that had a bad habit of things going missing. Worked pretty well, though lighting wasn't an issue in that case. Neither was cable length, because the camera only had to be a couple feet from the host PC.
Maybe one could rig up something like that, get a couple Fit-PC's (they run around $300 each) and a couple webcams and go from there.
Not sure how to solve low light situations.. but it's a long shot cheaper than $1000 if you can live without it.
No, really. Citation needed.
Here is a blog where someone's mentioned a lot of the statistics. The number of gun accidents, as he discovered, is somewhere around 1150/year. The number of crimes prevented is apparently somewhere around 1.5 MILLION per year.
So, yes. Citation needed. Your gut feeling that guns are evil is not, in any way, proof.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
But long story short, your great grandfather still got shot. Having a gun didn't protect him at all.
First off, I was replying the comment before me, which said that for each person who saved their home with a firearm, there were 10 who were hurt by accidental gunfire. I was pointing out that instead of the ratio being 1:10, it was more like 1000:1. I never actually said that this ratio was acceptable.
However, I do believe that it is.
First, you're making up wild numbers to "prove" your case. Gun ownership is estimated around 200 million - given that previous number of 1150 accidents, that implies that there's a one in 170,000 chance that your gun will accidentally kill someone. Also, given the 1.5 million crimes prevented, that's a one in 133 chance that you will prevent a criminal from committing a crime. Not, necessarily, from stealing your TV. Looking at the paper quoted there, this appears to be about a 2:3:3 ratio of rape, assault, and robbery. So out of that 1.5 million crimes, that's about 375 thousand rapes averted.
Is preventing the rape of 300 women worth a single innocent life?
Is preventing the rape of 300 women, plus the assault of 450 people, plus 450 robberies, worth a single innocent life?
(Also, consider the chance that some of those potential rapes would end in murder. Apparently only two percent of rapes end in murder, so that means there's about six murders prevented there as well. Versus a single accidental death. That is a trade I would be willing to take.)
If you can sit there and say "okay, I have looked at the numbers and I still think guns are fundamentally a bad idea", then, okay, you've made a decision, and I'll respect your decision. But as long as your decision is based on wild extrapolation and guesswork, it's not a particularly valuable one.
As a side note: one of my friends was robbed while home a few months ago. The criminals broke in, held them at gunpoint, and discussed raping his girlfriend, which they decided not to do because they didn't want to risk hanging around too long. At least some criminals aren't particularly afraid of head-to-head confrontation.
I agree that we need reasonable, well-thought-out laws on this matter. That reasonable regulation should be based on facts and actual numbers. Please research before inventing numbers and making claims.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.