Axis Tailgate Detection Tested

By Rob Kilpatrick, Published Jan 04, 2019, 09:31am EST

Axis is aiming to tackle tailgating, one of access control's biggest issues, with the Tailgating Detector ACAP application. This camera app claims to do the job of much more expensive dedicated solutions at much lower cost.

We tested this new app in a simulated entrance scenario, testing with multiple subjects at various speeds, in varying light levels, with changing intervals and distance. In this report, we look at:

  • Axis setup guidelines
  • Use on typical surveillance fields of view
  • Pricing compared to dedicated sensors
  • Full light detection performance
  • Low light (<1 lux) detection performance
  • False alert sources
  • VMS integration

*******

***** ** *** *****, Axis ********** ******** ********* well **** ******** ********** as *** **** ***************, detecting ******** ********** ******** at ******* *********, *********, and ******, ** **** light *** **** *** light **** ** ~*.* lux (******* **).

*******, **** ******* ** pulling ***** ** ********** through *** ***** ** view, *** *********** ************ saw *** ******/****** ****** as ******* ******, ******* triggering ********** *********. **** was *** ********* **** simply ******** *******.

***** ** *** ***********, Axis ********** ******** ****** with * ***-***** ** even ***** *** **** camera *** ** * viable *** **** ***** cost ****** *** ********** detection **** ********* *******, which *** **** ********* of ******* ****.

Pricing ******** ** ********* *******

******** *** **** ********** Detector *** ** ***** online *** ~$*** *** per ******.

******** **** * *** range ****** **** ***** output, **** ** *** P3225-LV (~$*** ******), **** application *** ** **** to ******* ****** ** any ****** ******* ****** with * ***** *** contact ***** *** * total ** ***** ~$*,***.

** ********, ********* ********** sensors **** ***************** ************* ***** ** $*,***+, making *** **** *********** plus ****** **** **** expensive. *******, ***** ***** systems ** *** ******* light ** ***** ** in ***** ** ******* in **** *** ***** as *** **** *** might.

Camera *************

*** **** ********** ******** is ********** **** **** current * *** * series **** ****** ** well ** * ****** modular *******. ***** ****** may ** ******** ** compatible, ** ****, *** have *** *** ****.

App *****

***** ****** ******** ********* camera ****** *** ********* a ********* ****. ********** settings *** *********** **** between **********, ********* ********, and **** *** **** available, *** *** ********. We ***** *** ******* 4 ****** ******* **** worked ******* ***** ** our *****, ****** **** applications *** **** ** decrease **** ******* ********* in **** ******* *****.

Setup ***********

*** ** *** ********** Detector ******** ****** *********** of *** ******, *** Axis *************. *** ****** should ** ******* ***** the **** ** ***********, looking ******** **** (**° downtilt). *********** ******** ****** is ** ***** *.*'/*****, with * ***** ** view ***** ***** ** the ******** ******.

axis recommended field of view

** *** ****** ** positioned ** ****** ************ camera ***** **, ** ceiling ****** *** ****** down, ********* ****** **** not **** ********. *** example, ***** ** *** entrance **** ******* **** back, *** ****** ***** to ***** ******* **** subjects *** ******* ** one ******.

****** *** ****** ** the **** ** *** entrance **** *** *** work ** *** *****. In **** ****, *** camera *** *** ********* any ***** ********, ******* to ***** ** ***.

Tailgate ******** ***********

******** ******** ********* **** in *** *****, ******** to ****** ******* ******* the ********** **** ** any *****, ***** ** an ******* ** *** a ********* **** *****-******* quickly ******* *** ********** zone.

**** ** *** ***** (~0.6 ***), ********** ******** functioned ********, ******* ******* reduced ******** *** ********* digital *****.

False ****** ** ******/****** *******

*******, ******** ******** *** have *** *********** ** found ** *** *****. False ****** **** ********* when *** ******* ********* a ** **** ** pull * **** ** hand ***** ******* *** detection ****. ***** ****** did *** ***** **** carrying ***** ** ***** large *******.

VMS ***********

** *** *****, **** Tailgating ******** ********** **** with ******* ******** ****** and ****' *** ****** Station *** *** ** the ***. *** ******* sent **** *** ****** upon ***** *** ********** with *****, *********, *** NxWitness, *** ******* ***** to ********* *** ***** and ****** ** *** camera, *** *** *** to ******* **.

*** ******** ****** *********** worked *** ** *** box, **** ********** ****** simply ******** **** *** camera **** *******, ****** somewhat ******* *****, **** "TailgatingDetector-InOrOut".

Versions ****

**** ********** ******** - ******* 3.14.1 (****-**-**)

Comments (18)

Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

01/04/19 03:22pm

Interesting version of people counting analytics.  In a real life scenario, anyone entering after a “door propped” event is tailgating.  

Others have tried to visually monitor the door position or use an integration to the ACS to determine the correct amount of valid card reads to people.

Michael Miller

01/04/19 05:27pm

I would have to test but this should integrate easily with Avigilon ACC with Arbitrary Events

Undisclosed Manufacturer #2

01/04/19 07:05pm

What happens when you do a real piggyback??

Image result for piggyback

Avatar

Ethan Ace

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #2 | 01/04/19 08:16pm

I'm trying to find out but Rob won't carry any of us for some reason...

Undisclosed Manufacturer #2

In reply to Ethan Ace | 01/04/19 08:36pm

That red beard to ticklish on the back of his neck!!!

Avatar

Sergey Bystrov

NetworkOptix
01/04/19 07:50pm

For the sake of improving the experience, what's the difference between one red dot and two yellow dots in VMS integration comparison in this case?  

Avatar

Ross Vander Klok

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Sergey Bystrov | 01/05/19 04:02pm

Two yellow dots are better than one red dot meaning it integrates better.  Sorry, couldn't resist!

Undisclosed #3

In reply to Ross Vander Klok | 01/07/19 06:17pm

Perhaps they can test this at a the super bowl tailgate party.

Avatar

Sergey Bystrov

NetworkOptix
In reply to Sergey Bystrov | 01/07/19 08:48pm

Rob, IPVM team? 

Avatar

Ethan Ace

IPVM | In reply to Sergey Bystrov | 01/07/19 09:02pm

What, was Ross' answer not good enough?! :)

The one red dot (in this case Avigilon) means no integration. The two yellow means there is integration possible, in this case via HTTP/TCP events from the camera to the VMSes (Exacq, Milestone, and Nx Witness). But it's user-configured and takes some time/skill to set up. Genetec gets a green because it captures the event out of the box.

Avatar

Sergey Bystrov

NetworkOptix
In reply to Ethan Ace | 01/07/19 09:11pm

was not good enough..:-)

All I'm trying to do is to understand, how we can improve it. 

So you say:
The one red dot means no integration.

on another hand:
TCP strings sent from the camera upon event are compatible with Exacq, Milestone, and NxWitness


So my question is, since it works, what did we do so much outline to deserve one red dot:-) Is it by mistake, or did we indeed screw big time something? If so, I want to know. 

Avatar

Ethan Ace

IPVM | In reply to Sergey Bystrov | 01/07/19 09:18pm

Ah, sorry, now I understand your confusion. You were supposed to get the two yellows, as well. I've fixed that in the report.

Avatar

Sergey Bystrov

NetworkOptix
In reply to Ethan Ace | 01/07/19 09:19pm

ok. thanks. 

Avatar

Sergey Bystrov

NetworkOptix
In reply to Ethan Ace | 01/07/19 09:13pm

sorry I'm afraid instead of replying to you, I commented on the post, please see below. 

Undisclosed Integrator #4

01/10/19 12:02pm

Is this really a practical solution without integration to the ACS to filter out multiple entries following a valid card read for each one? Otherwise there will be a lot of nuisance alarms for people that have held a door open for the next person, but they have both diligently followed security SOPs and presented their cards first.

Would a better approach (although more expensive) not be to use Facial Recognition with a whitelist of staff and visitors?

Avatar

Brian Rhodes

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Undisclosed Integrator #4 | 01/10/19 06:10pm

Face Recognition is more practical?!?

The goal of this product is to alert on exceptions.  The potential nuisance alarms from:

'people that have held a door open for the next person, but they have both diligently followed security SOPs and presented their cards first'

is not typical, but if that were the expected behavior then this Axis analytic may not be the solution.

Undisclosed Integrator #4

In reply to Brian Rhodes | 01/10/19 06:41pm

I just wonder where this would actually work well in practice as it’s not unusual for two authorised people to be passing through an entrance at the same time (whether both badging in or not). Perhaps very small sites or low throughput doors? Even then would you really want an alarm every time two people came back from a meeting together? Or am I missing something? 

Undisclosed #3

06/18/19 07:06pm

Any tests or comparison with this product?

https://orioneci.com/doorguard/

NOTICE: This comment has been moved to its own discussion: Any Tests Or Feedback On Orion Secure Doorguard?

Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 6,800 reports, 913 tests and is only available to members. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

Already a member? Login here | Join now
Loading Related Reports