Realities of License Plate Recognition (LPR)by John Honovich, IPVM posted on May 08, 2008 About John Contact John
LPR is a very demanding application that can only succeed in limited operational conditions deployed by expert security integrators.
Historically, publicly available information clearly explaining the operational impact has been hard to find. Thankfully, Milestone has released their LPR administrator's manual providing an honest, clear and concise explanation. [Updated 2013 manual] Though this is for Milestone the points are generally consistent with the state of the art in currently available commercial systems.
The Milestone document helps to reveal 3 key practical elements:
- LPR can only succeed when a number of strict operational conditions are met.
- The costs of achieving these conditions makes LPR unfeasible for many scenarios.
- You need deep security integration expertise to succeed but only modest IT depth.
Here are the key conditions that need to be meet in approximate order of difficulty:
US license plates need to be at least 130 pixels wide. This translates roughly into an image no wider than 5-6 feet assuming 4CIF standard definition video. That's a very tight shot.
- The horizontal angle between the camera and plate is within 20 degrees. This means that if your camera is 10 feet away from the plate, the plate cannot be more than 3 feet to the right or left of the camera. This significantly limits where you can put the camera.
- The vertical angle between the camera and plate is within 30 degrees. This means that if your camera is 10 feet away from the plate and the plate is 3 feet off the ground, the camera cannot be mounted than 8 feet high. This usually can be accommodated but is low relative to normal heights for outdoor surveillance.
- There are a host of lighting adjustments that need to be made. Simply using a stock camera with stock settings will routinely cause very poor performance. For example, Milestone recommends CMOS cameras, disabling auto gain, using WDR and higher shutter speeds (if the car is moving). There is a lot of advanced details that need to be set correctly.
- You must use MJPEG and you cannot use H.264 or MPEG-4. Since the analytics in this design are being done outside of the camera and since the analytic can only process images, MJPEG is required. You could theoretically use H.264 or MPEG-4 but then you would have to decode it and the processing power can be very significant. Bottom line is this can have a big impact on bandwidth utilization especially if you are looking for a wireless system.
Clearly, LPR is feasible for the traditional license plate camera use case: A camera installed immediately adjacent to an entrance or toll booth that is only a few feet off the ground and dedicated to looking at the plate. Automated LPR makes reading these plates easier.
However, for broader market usage, this has major limitations. Lots of companies like the concept of monitoring the license plates of people who enter their premises. Setting up cameras in the specific constraints required can be very expensive. Assuming you can find a location that meets these constraints, it requires a construction project that can be $5,000 or more per camera simply for the installation and equipment.
The holy grail is reutilizing your PTZs mounted on roofs and poles. However, these conditions should make it clear that is not feasible. One, getting the resolution needed would be difficult. Does a monitor manually zoom in on license plates? Even if he does, what will the image quality be, given the lighting constraints required for LPR. Also, it will be extremely tough to stay within booth the horizontal and vertical angle requirements.
LPR analysis, with its current capabilities, cannot enable significantly new operational uses of license plate monitoring. While it should help with the traditional use case of monitoring controlled traffic flow, its constraints make it very challenging for broader use.
Security Integration Expertise
The other interesting element that the Milestone manual demonstrates is that LPR integration does not demand deep IT skill but it does demand deep expertise in security design and camera systems.
Integrating LPR is much more like using a graphics design application than it is like setting up a mail server. It depends on understanding the design objectives of security, the physical conditions of the site and the capabilities of the video tools available. The IT elements of the setup are fairly straightforward for a security integrator. The challenge lies in the design and application.
Finally, it is great that Milestone released this manual. Milestone has clearly shared operational limitations that might stop some from buying their product. It is hard for most organizations to do this. Nevertheless, in the long run, it is better for our customers and I believe better for Milestone. In this way, we can maximize the probability that projects will be successful, customers will be happy and the market expands over time.
Most Recent Industry Reports
Testing Genetec Security Center on Jul 23, 2014
This is IPVM's first in a series of all new, in-depth test reports on video management software. We start with Genetec's Security Center. Here's a 50 second video overview: Inside this report a...
Panasonic Series 6 IP Cameras Tested on Jul 21, 2014
Can Panasonic make a comeback? One of the early entrants in IP cameras, Panasonic has been slipping, dues to faster and more aggressive competitors. Now, Panasonic has released a sixth generation...
Favorite Access Control Software 2014 on Jul 16, 2014
What are the favorite access control software platforms? Is it the elder incumbents like Honeywell, Lenel and Software House? Or can newer providers like Brivo, Genetec or S2 make a dent? Just lik...
Testing Samsung vs Google/Dropcam on Jul 14, 2014
Samsung is charging hard into IP cameras. Last year, they attacked the professional market with their WiseNet III launch. Now, they are going after the consumer / residential market with their "Sm...
Summer 2014 IP Camera Course on Jul 10, 2014
Registration is CLOSED. IPVM's industry leading IP camera course provides certification and enables you to master the key concepts, drivers and factors in selecting and deploying modern surveillan...
Testing the Smallest HD Cameras on Jul 09, 2014
Miniature HD IP cameras are a growing trend. It started with cameras that had small 'heads' but large 'base' units. Increasingly, though, the bases are shrinking. Recently, we even found one withou...
IP Camera Statistics 2014 on Jul 07, 2014
All IPVM members can download our new IP Camera Statistics 2014 report. Here's what's inside the 54 page guide: This is a companion report to Favorite IP Cameras 2014, Worst IP Cameras ...
Testing Varifocal Minidome (IQeye) on Jul 02, 2014
Minidomes are increasing in popularity, as IPVM statistics show. However, the most common objection to using minidomes is the lack of varifocal lenses. In this report, we tested the IQinVision&nbs...
Testing Canon IP Cameras on Jun 30, 2014
Canon now owns one of the top global VMS offerings but how good are their IP cameras? Will the combination of Canon IP cameras and Milestone VMS create the next Avigilon? Or will Canon's cameras b...
H.264 High vs Main vs Baseline Tested on Jun 27, 2014
In surveillance, H.264 is often considered a single 'thing' but there are many different sets of capabilities, called profiles, to choose from. The most well known of these are: Baseline Main ...