Take a look at this one minute video, notice there is video captured of the thief from multiple cameras but no face shots:
Is this inevitable or could better design helped capture a face shot? I'd argue the later. Let's discuss.
Take a look at this one minute video, notice there is video captured of the thief from multiple cameras but no face shots:
Is this inevitable or could better design helped capture a face shot? I'd argue the later. Let's discuss.
In particular, I would argue that there should be a camera aimed directly at the doorway for capturing a trail of everyone who enters, whether it is a customer during business or a break-in like this.
Agree/disagree?
What about a camera right above the door that looks at people's backs as they enter the store, but also looks directly at their faces upon leaving? I think that would have got a clear shot of the robber's face.
The thief seemed to have an excellent idea where the cams were so to avoid this situation I would recommend:
Overlapping FOVs so that a good shot can't be avoided.
Not displaying all of your cameras on public or employee monitors.
Adding in a few covert or camouflaged camera at lower levels to look up capture good face shots of people looking down. A great place would be display cases or near doorways. Again consider placement to complaint FOVs of other overt cameras.
Anyone wonder how they knew there was a key to the display case on top?
As John mentioned, we normally have extremely close face shots directly infront of the entrances/exits of retail stores. We also place individual cameras for each POS register, and usually a few overview cameras.
This seems to be the trend nowadays, burglars with hoods drawn tight obscuring most of their face, and many are wearing scarfs. There's an excellent video of a gang of burglars breaking into a hardware store in Sonoma, California, all wearing hoodies, gloves and scarfs, excellent camera angles too. But no facial identification footage. And the Texas gun shop burglary, same type of thing. Camera angles, heights and covert applications may help slightly, but surveillance systems in these types of crimes really just document the event for posteirtity. Stronger barricades and alarms may slow them down a bit, and limit their take.
When designing a surveillance system for a business like the one shown, most people think the cameras should be prominently displayed, for a deterrent affect, and by placing them at a higher plane they'll be readily noticed. The business owner usually prefers this as well, as they're hoping to deter someone from shoplifting, and not a window smash burglary. Many times it's the customer who "designs" the system according to their preferences.
$20 of security film on the glass couldn't have hurt...
Window film looks like a method to slow down the intruder trying to do a window smash burglary. I'm considering using it on my sliding glass doors, but after doing more research, I found that an "attachment" of the window film to the frame is critical if you want the window film to actually slow down an intruder.
In small locations I have found they want the bare minimum. If you don't know how to handle a client who thinks they know more than you, you end up installing in bad locations like in the video. I would be willing to bet the client wanted to see both the display next to the door on the wall and the door. That's why the camera was most likely placed where it is rather than directly in front of the door.
I'm not sure how to post a Youtube video here, but if you search for Rincon Valley Burglary, there are three parts to a video that will show, what I think are, some excellent camera angles of a gang of burglars carrying out what appears to be a well planned burglary. I think a few of these burglars were inside the store during business hours, casing, as they seem to know what tools to bring and how to breach the front security barrier. Maybe someone who is familiar with posting videos can post them to this string of posts.
Also, the glass door was breached but looks like it had security film as the glass did not shatter and fall away. Chances are the installer of the security film did not "attach" the security window film to the door frame. There is a process to attach security film that may have slowed down the breach requiring them to make multiple strikes on the window. A glass break detector would have sounded on the first window strike alerting the police before the burglar made entry and might have made a difference in apprehending these people.
Cameras can't multi-task. Pick a camera to do one thing and it will do it well. Soon as you try to do more then one thing with the camera you will you will be disappointed. Setting up a camera to cover the whole room and ID people coming in the door is a recipe for disaster but small projects like this don't normally have the budget for doing it right.
small projects like this don't normally have the budget for doing it right.
If there is an upside of the race to the bottom is it not that even small projects can now afford to have as many cameras as they need? Even if they buy them at Costco, this strikes me as poor design / layout than not having enough money for equipment?
I think it is a combination of not enough funds and the customer thinks they know more than they do. The camera might be cheap but you still need labor to cable and install. Plus most of the camera kits only come with one lens option which is mostly 2.8mm or 4mm. Most people look at the design and see a small room with 2 cameras in it thinking that room is small I don't need two cameras as I can cover this with one camera. Then 6 months go by and they have an issue and can't ID the person than the I told you so part of the conversation happens.
I think it is a combination of not enough funds and the customer thinks they know more than they do.
Could be. I don't know what the design / install process was for this specific site.
I am just saying, as a general point, 'budget' is not as much of a barrier as it used to be for a small site like this.
I disagree budget is always a factor. Especially in the world of ip cameras. Now if you stick to older analog technology for cameras and a DVD with an internet connection from sams club or amazon maybe not but as Michael pointed out again not the best cameras.
I get what you're saying and it makes sense but that's not how it is working in the real world IMO. Say 2 years ago a 8 camera system was $2000 grand and now an 8 camera system is $1000. We would hope customers would be thinking now they can get twice the cameras for the same amount of money but they are looking at it like they are saving. Now on larger projects, I am seeing customers with the mind set that they can get more cameras for the same money but not with small projects. Not say customers can't be sold but that is not the mind set right off the bat.
Mike, you started with:
small projects like this don't normally have the budget for doing it right.
Now you are effectively arguing that all small projects have cut their budgets.
All I am saying is that in the 'real world' there are lots of small projects, some people are just going to take the savings, others are going to use it fit more cameras in to their budget.
p.s. - in the 'real world', 8 1080p camera kit - $399 - not a big budget constraint these days:
I recall for awhile and probably still, banks adding cameras at the entrance doors very low and looking inside and up to capture robbers removing the mask as they went into the public space to not draw attention.
That seemed like a good idea.
This Tend s to be an industry standard for restraunts, bars, ff places, and the like liquor stores
Fast, Cheep, and looks good untill you blow it up.
joe electrician or owner decided where it show go and what to look at.
Position, Placement , and quality of video
purchased online at great discounts
The Price , Crummy, Cappy, pictures with no real value
I agree UI#5, buy 8 cams with a DVR for $399 expect crap when you go to actually need the footage.
Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.