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
Genetec and Milestone Access Tested on Apr 23, 2014
Video management software companies entering access control is a growing trend. One of the first to do this was Genetec, who now has a long history in both video and access. Indeed, they market th...
7 Key Surveillance Trends for 2014 on Apr 21, 2014
Here are the 7 key trends we see for the video surveillance market emerging in 2014: Low cost camera manufacturer competitive shift FLIR and Samsung aggressive expansion 4K camera problems e...
Testing Vivotek Smart Stream on Apr 18, 2014
Reduce storage costs by 30%, claims Vivotek. Their new "Smart Stream" feature intelligently compresses video streams such that moving objects get higher quality than background, stationary pa...
ONVIF Mega Test on Apr 16, 2014
In this groundbreaking report, we share findings of in-depth ONVIF testing. ONVIF Real World Integration We tested 14 camera manufacturers with 5 VMSes, performing 70 total integrations. The cam...
7 Quizzes - Can You Pass? on Apr 14, 2014
A major new offering, now IPVM members can take a series of 7 quizzes, plus they can assign them to their co-workers who are also IPVM members. 7 Quizzes to Start We are starting with 7 quiz...
Super Low Lux Minidome Tested on Apr 10, 2014
'Super' low light cameras have become increasingly common in box and full size cameras. However, no one we know has offered them in a minidome, the most common form factor for many users, valu...
Testing 'Megapixel' Analog Camera on Mar 26, 2014
Megapixel analog sounds like a contradiction in terms. 'Analog' by definition, or at least in common use, is constrained by 60+ year old NTSC / PAL specifications and cannot be 'megapixel.' Howeve...
Ranking 95 Surveillance Manufacturers Interest on Mar 24, 2014
IPVM has ranked interest levels in 95 surveillance manufacturers from most to least. These are the companies covered: Over 400 IPVM members selected which of these companies they were interested...
2014 Surveillance Test Results Guide Released on Mar 19, 2014
Inside, get the 50 page IPVM 2014 Surveillance Test Results Guide and register for the 1 hour live webinar. In the past year, IPVM has spent thousands of hours conducting over 75 tests, representi...
Testing Pelco SureVision 2.0 on Mar 17, 2014
Pelco's new SureVision 2.0 line promises superior low light and wide dynamic range capabilities, claiming "industry-leading image quality in the most difficult lighting conditions." But does it del...