Surveillance professionals prefer motion based recording over continuous but the main weakness of motion detection is its inaccuracy. Sure, it saves a lot of storage over recording continuously but it still can be very inefficient, triggering against leaves, trees, shadows, low light noise and more, requiring time consuming optimization that rarely works completely.
Axis and Mobotix Advanced Offerings
Recently, both Axis and Mobitix have released advanced video motion detection offerings. Axis has VMD 2.1 that it bills as having 'easy setup with few false alarms' while Mobotix promotes MxActivitySensor as offering 'unique motion detection in the camera'.
The IPVM Test
We tested both of these offerings to understand how much of an improvement they made over 'traditional' video motion detection plus how accurate they were.
To do so, we bought 2 Axis cameras (same model) and loaded one with traditional and one with VMD 2.1, running them simultaneously.
We started with a simple conference room and performed tests with moving subjects as well as running the cameras 24/7 to measure false positives:
We then moved on to a more complex, larger area to see how the offerings handled this:
Finally, we went outdoors to a very large area with vegetation to see how they would fare in an adverse environment:
Finally, we ran the Mobotix camera through similar conditions to gauge its performance.
Our testing answers the following key questions:
- How much of an advantage did advanced VMD provide over traditional?
- Where was advanced VMD better than traditional and where was it worse?
- Is it worth using advanced VMD? If so, where?
- What barrier or issues are there in using 'advanced' VMD?