First Integrator Face Off Results

I think Bullet and "None of the above" are the same choice if you removed that option.

Neither afford a surveillance system that would guarantee detection but at least the Bullet system would be a decent deterrent if I had to spend some money. I doubt spending the most would return on the investment as small crimes are routinely ignored or have slight chances of financial recovery.

I'm closest to bullet, I don't like using a lot of wireless. However I would have used all 4MP cameras and installed two additional cameras one on each corner looking at those two exits with appropriate lens and eliminated the PTZ in the middle of the parking lot.

I'm guessing that Brian spent no small amount of time normalizing all the designs and getting them into the finder in a way that they can easily be compared.

Kudos!

All of those design miss the intended purpose which is clearly to "stop vandalism"! Without some sort of detection and deterrence equipment all those HD and up resolution are useless. It is sad to see how few integrators in today's industry even understand the basic concept knows as 4 D's of security...

The request miss to demand what is the minimun pixel density on specif places so the end customer can look for people and/or plates identification.

Being said that all the approach are not comparable.

Someone can brings even a lower cost solution and stills argue is covering all asked areas.

Next exercise could be better!

I look at this from the perspective of being a consumer (although I cannot just dismiss my experience). With all due respect to Bullet, the Artelisys proposal gets the job done at a reasonable cost, (I am always a little suspicious of the lowest bidder when the cost differential is that much). This is a Farmers Market and we just don't have 50-130k to spend on video surveillance with so many other needs. Also, because we are a Farmer's Market, we generally close at or before sundown. The bulk of our traffic is during the daytime and IR is not all that important to me. I would use their design and ask them to increase all entrance cameras to 50PPF minimum.

I think if I used the Bullet proposal and made some adjustments on PPF, the cost would be near equal to Artelisys.

But that is why Baskin and Robbins has 64 flavors.

As a general comment about the variation in designs:

1) The project details were specifically written to avoid bias. IPVM did not have a 'winning solution' in mind while writing this scenario. The goal was to see variations in designs the problem would return.

2) The statement "Each participate lacked knowing the clients budget, acceptable video quality testing, and more from the customer" is incorrect.

Respondents were encouraged to ask any questions they had, for clarity or elaboration. All of those questions were asked and answered in the comments thread here. Everyone had the equal, open opportunity to ask and see these questions answered.

I think these characteristics are common practice in real-world solicitations as well.

What was proposed was purely the prerogative of the responding party. They all did a great job.

The inclusion of a PTZ device in Bullets submission is an absolutely correct choice in my opinion. This tips the utility of the system more towards the 'surveillance' aspect and less towards the 'evidence gathering' aspect. The requirements brief clearly stated that there would be a live monitoring capability and likelihood. In my experience with a similar scenario the ability to spot and/or follow known perpetrators is the best way to stop them BEFORE they've exited the property. Back in the bad old CCTV days - before the not so inconsequential latency issue arrived - the use of a good PTZ camera in skilled operator hands often produced the only clear evidence that a crime was in fact taking place and the subsequent recordings usually met the required resolution - pixel density sorry - that law enforcement could use as evidence in prosecuting the suspect that you had detained for them. Very enjoyable read all around - congrats to the participants.

That is an amazing array of proposals. Thanks to the companies that participated.

Each participate lacked knowing the clients budget, acceptable video quality testing, and more from the customer.

Budgets are for the birds.

If I walked in to that Farmers Market, I could tell you what their 'budget' is within 15 minutes. How? Looking at other equipment, HVAC, lighting, computers, networking, telephone, intercoms, gadgets, DIY crap, what cars they drive, who they know and don't know.

Getting a sense of the true value of the assets under protection, and the glaring vulnerabilities.

Who the owners are, family corporate, idiosyncratic etc...

How could a client like the farmers market budget for a system like this without being an expert in the first place, (assuming it was their first crack at VS).

The budget is yours to make and justify.

That's what all these different proposals have in common, a guy who is ready to make the case for why, how and how much.

Is it possible to include access control as well in future cases?
I think it would be very interesting.