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?
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.
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
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.
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?
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.