Low-Wach Camera Design. - Do Your Security Cameras Lie?

Brandon,

I appreciate your reply. In response to your second question, it is our opinion that anything less than 12.5-pixels-per-foot, or "observation-level" detail, is not useful.

The problem with the traditional definition of "situational awareness" becomes painfully obvious while reviewing footage during investigations.  Crime rarely occurs where you want it to.

At Wach1design, we feel that if the camera can see it, the footage should be useful.

You are certainly entitled to disagree.

Concerning your question pertaining to fewer cameras, please refer to the last few minutes of the video. I show how High-Wach views cover substantially more square-footage of useful video than Low-Wach views.  

However, this only makes sense if you agree on the term of "useful" video.  If the Low-Wach resolution is acceptable for your situation, then it is definitely the correct solution.

I appreciate you calling it "slick marketing".  We worked really hard on it. 

Stephen W. Bond

If it were possible to add to your impressive litany of complaints, I would add that:

1. Longer focal lengths also have technical limitations, aside from f-stop, like CoC/MTF and atmospherics, see A Major Flaw in Long Lenses and PTZs Found.

2. The entire depth of field will not be in focus, objects closer to the camera will be blurry.

Nice call on the increased vandalism due to height.

Hey Brian,

You make some excellent points for discussion.  Let's take them one-by-one.

1.  Camera positions are often practically limited by existing structures and/or the boundaries of the customers property. You can not always install cameras far enough away to accommodate the kinds of layouts they propose.

I agree with you 100% that correct camera placement is critical.  As a matter of fact, I would argue that camera placement is the single most important aspect of surveillance design.  I tell my clients that it might appear that I am lost while I am performing a site evaluation.  This is because I spend an inordinate amount of time looking up at the roofs of buildings, figuring out the optimum position for each of their cameras.

Although camera cost continues to decrease over time, deployment cost continues to increase.  Minimizing the number of roof-penetrations and/or mounting locations required can have a significant impact on the overall project cost.

I have found that combining High-Wach views with precisely chosen mounting locations can substantially reduce the number of cameras and building penetration points required to cover large areas with useful video. Our process ensures we find those locations for each and every camera being deployed.

The last point I would like to make concerning this topic is your statement about not always "being able to install cameras far enough away".  We call it the Wach-Factor because it is a sliding scale.  We design the system around the most efficient camera/lens/mounting location for every covered area.

 

2.  Generally speaking, long focal length lenses have smaller apertures and capture less light. Or, a long focal length length lens with a large aperture will be more expensive. Night time video will suffer as a result.

Anyone who has spent any time with me discussing surveillance cameras knows I am a fan of exceptionally high-quality equipment.  I would never recommend that anyone choose poor quality lenses. Take a look at the photographers on the sideline of any professional sporting event. Nobody serious about their profession compromises on lenses.

Lighting is another very serious topic.  As a matter of fact, I developed my own Android application to work with the Minolta T-10A Professional Light Meter.  This tool allows us to provide exceptionally accurate and detailed light-level surveys of the areas under surveillance.  

An accurate light-level survey allows the client to consider the options of a more expensive camera which effectively sees "in-the-dark".  Or they can choose a less expensive camera, but will have to accept marginal to poor night-time performance.

A third choice is to choose a less expensive camera and add lighting to the affected area(s).  This is really a "budget" conversation, not a "camera" conversation, because the lighting issue exists no matter the lens choice or Wach-Factor.  Cameras need light.

 

3.  Long focal length lenses will be more expensive in general than shorter focal length lenses.

For the most part this point is covered in the prior discussion.  It is always tricky to isolate a single component when evaluating the value of the whole.  I just don't think it is possible to make the best burger using cheap beef.

When I started Wach1design, my goal was to provide a service which gives the client the best value for their overall surveillance budget.  When the entire system cost is taken into account, it becomes clear that "lens" cost is a very, very small percentage of the budget.  However, these lens choices and their precise placement have a huge impact on the usefulness of the system.

I don't think people are thinking about lens cost during a critical investigation.

 

4.  Not all cameras are available with long lenses, or have the ability to accommodate external lenses. Those that do also tend be much more expensive than their counterparts.

Our designs are based around cameras that are readily available in the marketplace.  Nearly every camera manufacturer offers options that can provide the specified viewing angle.  At the client's request, we will provide exact camera model number, specific lens and mounting brackets required for each location.  The client can tell us which brand(s) of cameras they want to use.

 

5.  The lower mounting heights required for their proposed designs increase the likelihood of cameras being tampered with, or possibly just hit/moved by day-to-day activities.

Mounting height is certainly taken into account for every camera location.  Most clients would agree a "face" shot is much more useful than a "bald-spot" shot.  The vast majority of our designs place the exterior cameras on roof-tops.  One of the engineers I work with request that I design cameras to be mounted at 10' 6" to ensure the best view of faces.

Mechanically, High-Wach views are no more susceptible to vandalism than Low-Wach views are.  However, the inverse may be true, since the camera providing the High-Wach view isn't located near the area under surveillance, whereas the Low-Wach camera is.

This is an excellent case to be made for "security-through-obscurity".

 

Personally, I was a little taken aback by your tone.  It almost seemed like you were attacking me.  That is an unusual experience for me.  I am much more accustomed to people loving and appreciating my work. 

 

Stephen W. Bond

Undisclosed #1,

I love what you did with Pinocchio's nose. I'm serious.  Very creative. I wish I would have thought of it!

Stephen W. Bond

Undisclosed #1,

Your question made me think of a joke by my favorite comedian Demetri Martin:

- I feel like my washing machine is sneaky. I put clothes in there and detergent and I hear all this noise and this turning around then I open the lid to see what’s going on and it’s like,... ‘…What man we’re just hanging out in here. There’s nothing happening, don’t worry about it. I’m a washing machine, not a Show-you-how-I-do-it machine.’

We created our video as an informative-marketing piece, not as a technical-education piece.  Lots of things in life can be reverse engineered.   However, reverse engineering does not lessen the value of it.

One could argue that the desire to figure something out and reverse-engineer it, enhances, instead of diminishing, the value of the original.

I really think your question touches on a different subject that has a deeper meaning which needs to be addressed.  And that is the fact that efficient and effective surveillance design is difficult and precise work.

I know it is precise and difficult work for two reasons:  First-off, I know first-hand how much time, thought, consideration and effort I put into every project I am part of.  And secondly are the endless examples of horrific surveillance design I've witnessed with my own eyes while performing site evaluations of existing cameras and coverage areas.

If efficient and effective surveillance design was quick and easy, everybody would be doing it the way we do it.  And we would all work for free because we would be finished before we started.  But that is just not the case.

The "trick" is being able to visualize the world the same way a camera "sees" the world.  It is very difficult to stop yourself from treating security cameras as if they are tiny-little sentry-guards that you position to watch over their posts.

Cameras do not "see" the world the same way as our eyes see the world.  Our designs explicitly take these differences into account.

There is a giant gulf between "knowledge" and "understanding".  Destin Sandlin from YouTube's Smarter Every Day has the best explanation of the differences in this video.  

I did not give the specifics of those two shots because it is not relevant to the overall subject matter.  I also don't want people going off half-cocked thinking they've got it mastered after an 11-minute video.

The fact is we design surveillance systems differently than most.  We explain why we feel our methods are superior to traditional surveillance designs.  Often our biggest hurdle to securing additional contracts is the perception that others are offering their surveillance design services for "free".

Our goal was get people to question the concept of "free".  We give them the information they need to come to their own conclusion of whether "free design" or "paid-for design" offers them the best value for their overall surveillance budget.

We provide a service.  We are not a university.

 

Stephen W. Bond

 

are using a made up name

This kind of irked me as well. What they call a "Wach factor" is really just lens compression or perspective distortion applied to surveillance cameras. It is not an unknown or recently discovered tecqnique.