4K And 7K Cameras For Casinos?

Quote:

"There are specific applications that would certainly benefit from a 7k camera, where very high definition is required,” says Chris Owen, systems design manager at Secure Engineering.

“Casinos would value this technology, as they obviously depend on cameras to pick up tiny details for the detection of fraudulent behaviour.”

What do you say? A 7K / 'up to 8 images per second max' camera in a casino?

Let's expand it. How about 4K / 30fps cameras in casinos?


Interesting question. At what point is too much overkill? I have never worked at a casino or done an installation but I have been to casinos and watched TV about casino security. A lot of their shots are a very small FoV looking at very specific areas. I can see some of the wider shots taking advantage of the higher pixel density but I have to imagine on a lot of the smaller FoVs they wouldnt gain much. Any references or tests where once you reach a certain PPF you stop gaining detail?

Thanks for posting.

One interesting thing you will see in that test was that it is not just resolution but also ability to handle lighting variations. Those cameras used in the test were Arecont so....

Darnit how did I miss that one LOL. Thanks I will get up to speed.

...running in Casino Mode?

Casino mode seems to be about frame rate, not image quality or WDR capability.

I think it's about frame rate at the expense of image quality:

This mode guarantees that the frame rate will not dip below 30fps under any conditions by forcing the bit rate control and exposure time to specific predetermined settings.

So, if the standard bit-rate settings are CBR, VBR and MBR, this one is best described as CFR, constant frame rate at all costs, drop the quality, up the bit-rate whatever. Just maintain 30 frames a second to meet the requirement.

Casino Op1: Did you see that?

Casino Op2: Yes, but WHAT was that?

Do you agree CFR is a different setting?

Axis has a mode that does something similar. I think it's called frame rate priority or something like that.

What Arecont saying is, as you allude, a dangerous tradeoff. Yes, you get the frame rate you are required but with potentially high compression / quality loss.

Casinos would value this [7k 8fps] technology...

Casino's may value their licenses more:

All surveillance provided within the gaming salon shall allow for 24-hour per day, seven day a week remote viewing from the offices of the board. Such remote viewing must be delivered in real time and at a minimum of 30 frames per second. - Nevada Gaming Commission Regulations

Maybe it's different in the UK? But, regulation or not, 8fps would be a problem with anything even moderately fast moving (like cards or hand movements).

Typically only about 50% of the cameras in a casino are "regulated." Many cameras deployed off the gaming floor run less than 30ips. I'm sure regulations are different everywhere as this is concerned.

Sure, but do those unregulated cameras really need all that resolution?

That's in the eye of the customer. Parking lots, Valet areas, and outdoor event space seem to be areas that aren't regulated and can benefit from something over 2MP. Since they're unregulated, frame rates don't need to be 30ips.

"Parking lots, Valet areas, and outdoor event space seem to be areas that aren't regulated and can benefit from something over 2MP."

Lol, so your defense of putting such cameras in casinos is to put them in the non-casino parts of the casino.

Please point out my "defense of putting such cameras in casinos."

I was simply pointing out that the regulations often don't cover areas off the gaming floor. Then I responded to where casinos might place higher resolution cameras.

You make it hard John. I want to contribute to one of the few industry boards out there. But you spin things on people to fit whatever it is you want to say.

I could have said nothing, and just let the uneducated continue to assume all cameras in a casino must run at 30ips.

You're right to point out that Casinos regulations don't necessarily cover areas away from gaming and cash areas. You are also right that these areas might benefit from multi-megapixel coverage.

IMHO, it seemed as though you were trying to salvage Chris O's statement by making a case for their use in Casinos:

Chris O: Casinos would value this technology.

Me: Casinos may value their licenses more.

John H: Regulation or not, 8fps would be a problem with anything even moderately fast moving.

You: Typically only 50% of cameras are regulated....Parking lots, valet areas and outdoor event space seem to be areas that aren't regulated and would benefit from something over 2MP.

So what you say is true and unimpeachable, however it does not let Chris O off the hook for his statement because we assume he means "Casinos especially value this technology", as if there was a unique property of Casinos that made them benefit from MMP cameras.

Non-gaming uses are generic to many use cases and do not support (nor deny) Chris O's premise.

Just a misunderstanding, I would say. :)

Rephrased then, do you think that Casinos should especially value this technology for their gaming activities, aside from off-floor applications?

2, You are undisclosed Avigilon employee supporting a statement by an Avigilon partner. Talk about 'spin'.

1 has already explained the flaw in your position.

I said nothing to support the article. I talked about regulations and then where high resolution cameras go in casinos.

I'm done.

Arecont 2 megapixel camera covering gaming.

Apparently unregulated.

That says it is a "demo" so not sure if that is in production. Also, regulations.

I don't know one way or another about this video but does not seem to be enough information provided to judge it.

Card mechanics and bottom dealers rejoice.

I have no problem judging this video. This quality is unacceptable for gaming.

Maybe the camera is setup poorly, though in that case I wonder what the demonstration is supposed to show us?

The referenced article continues with what I presume is more of his quote (even though the author doesn't ever mark the end of it):

“With high definition it is important to ensure that all 30 megapixels are maintained from the camera to the recording and monitor. Storage requirements need to be considered, as they increase with the larger file sizes

So, perhaps he was trying to imply that a casino will value a 7k camera so long as it does not sacrafice something else and the author simply edited his remarks down to a level where Mr. Ownes point no longer comes across as intended.

Obviously "we" are not there today but should that preclude companies from building solutions the market (a casino?) wants which put pressure on infrastructure capacity demands? Otherwise, there may not be any progress. Maybe there is a demand for 7k and maybe it just isn't possible to apply the product to the use case yet, but, I bet (pun intended) that day will come.

Besides, I am sure there are no Avigilon sales reps who would ever show a user that beautiful 7k image and a moment later talk about the ability of their system to display and record at 30 fps and cause the customer to inaccuratley interpret that to mean the rep was referring to that same 7k image. Right??? - of course not, never happen.

Late to this discussion but as my first post in a long while (Thanks for letting me come back, John), I have to say I'm a firm believer in what I call "Just enough" surveillance. So while there may be applications where very high camera resolutions may be of use in a casino environment, I have yet to discover them.

For instance, take a table game. For poker-based games, Surveillance needs to be able to identify the value and suit of cards and the value and quantity of chips in a stack. That is pretty much it. We also need to be able to view video in either "real time" (typically defined at 15fps to 30fps, depending on the regulating authority). Other table games, like Blackjack, don't depend on card suits but everything else applies.

We found that 1k (720p) is "just enough" to see what we need, as depicted above, and that is what we used. I admit if we were starting over fresh, I would probably go to 2k (1080p), just because that seems to have become the de facto standard and because it would enhance the ability to quantify chip stacks.

There is no need or desire to go to higher resolutions for many reasons:

1. We would not see anything that we need to see any better.

2. It would waste precious storage space.

3. It could stress network, server or workstation capacities.

Regarding the second point, even though storage continues to get cheaper yearly, I believe we are reaching or are already beyond an effective safe limit for RAID-based storage. In our environment, digital evidence is so critical that our systems use RAID 6 with failover controller/transport redundancy. Rebuild time on our existing 3TB HDD-based storage is around 2-1/2 to 3 days. With 8TB drives, I would expect that time to more than double. A week is really way too long to run a system in degraded mode. There's too much chance of encountering another problem during the rebuild process and 8+TB drives are reaching an effective limit on read errors in RAID systems.

For example, many HDD manufacturers claim 1 unrecoverable error per 10^14. 10^14 is 100Tb or 12.5TB (plus or minus) so essentially, you would have about a 1 in 2 chance of encountering an unrecoverable read error each time a disk is overwritten on a 6TB disk. Granted, the loss of one bit from a video frame is rather negligible, but really any loss could become critical under the right (or rather wrong) circumstances. That could include with CRC-based authentication.

Cheers

NOTICE: This comment has been moved to its own discussion: I'm A Firm Believer In What I Call "Just Enough" Surveillance - Casino Example

Wow, I can’t believe Carl is back:)

welcome back sir

hmm,

i might keep my membership for another year:)

i might keep my membership for another year:)

WHAT! Now Carl's back and you are not going to leave - oh man.... ;)