Specifying Surveillance Video Quality

Author: John Honovich, Published on Mar 19, 2011

Ensuring high quality surveillance video can be difficult. The challenge starts with specifying what level of quality is needed. There are a number of specification methods but important tradeoffs exist between them. In this report, we are going to present a thorough approach to doing so. Undoudtedly, it is fairly time consuming but it provide the highest probability of delivering high quality surveillance that meets the expectations of surveillance users.

Two common approaches exist today in specifying surveillance video quality:

  • Specify Resolution (e.g., 4CIF or 720p, etc.): This is the 'classic' way of specifying surveillance cameras. The plus side is that it is easy to list and to verify as resolution is prominently stated in almost all products. The downside is that it is extremely inexact and may be overkill for some scenes and provide terribly poor coverage in others. A slightly more sophisticated approach is to specify higher resolution cameras for scenes covering large areas (e.g., only 4CIF for entrance cameras but 3MP for parking lots, etc.). All in all, this is a quick and dirty way that can be roughly accurate.
  • Specify Pixel Density (e.g., 40 pixels per foot (PPF), 120 pixels per meter (PPM), etc.): The 'new school' way of specifying surveillance cameras is to specify specific levels of pixel density - 40 pixels per foot for your entrance camera, 15 pixels per foot for your auditorium camera, etc. The benefit is that it is more exact than simply specifying resolution. The most immediate downside is the complexity or confusion about what pixel density is.

While we see specifications of pixel density (e.g., PPF or PPM), these specifications are almost always incomplete and therefore dangerous. It leads to a false sense of security yet omits crucial details that are vital to accurately achieving a system's video quality goals. Without these details, users are likely to still receive deficient quality and unmet expectations. Here are related attributes that must be specified to properly use pixel density:

  • Lighting Conditions in Scene
  • Horizontal Width of FoV Required
  • Distance from Camera
  • Vertical Range of Coverage

Pixel density is a very useful starting point but demands other related specifications. If you are just going to specify pixel density, you might as well just specify resolution. It will likely deliver the same quality levels but with less confusion. However, if you really want to accurately specify and obtain video quality matching your expectations a full specification of pixel density and the above 4 attriutes must be made. Inside, we provide videos and tutorials to better explain the issues involved and how to specify properly.

This report is the 3rd feature in our trilogy on video surveillance quality. For background, review our:

******** **** ******* ************ ***** *** ** *********. *** ********* starts **** ********** **** ***** ** ******* ** ******. ***** are * ****** ** ************* ******* *** ********* ********* ***** between ****. ** **** ******, ** *** ***** ** ******* a ******** ******** ** ***** **. ***********, ** ** ****** time ********* *** ** ******* *** ******* *********** ** ********** high ******* ************ **** ***** *** ************ ** ************ *****.

*** ****** ********** ***** ***** ** ********** ************ ***** *******:

  • Specify ********** (e.g., 4CIF or 720p, etc.): This is the 'classic' way of specifying surveillance cameras. The plus side is that it is easy to list and to verify as resolution is prominently stated in almost all products. The downside is that it is extremely inexact and may be overkill for some scenes and provide terribly poor coverage in others. A slightly more sophisticated approach is to specify higher resolution cameras for scenes covering large areas (e.g., only 4CIF for entrance cameras but 3MP for parking lots, etc.). All in all, this is a quick and dirty way that can be roughly accurate.
  • Specify ***** ******* (e.g., 40 pixels per foot (PPF), 120 pixels per meter (PPM), etc.): The 'new school' way of specifying surveillance cameras is to specify specific levels of pixel density - 40 pixels per foot for your entrance camera, 15 pixels per foot for your auditorium camera, etc. The benefit is that it is more exact than simply specifying resolution. The most immediate downside is the complexity or confusion about what pixel density is.

***** ** *** ************** ** ***** ******* (*.*., *** ** PPM), ***** ************** *** ****** ****** ********** *** ********* *********. It ***** ** * ***** ***** ** ******** *** ***** crucial ******* **** *** ***** ** ********** ********* * ******'* video ******* *****. ******* ***** *******, ***** *** ****** ** still ******* ********* ******* *** ***** ************. **** *** ******* attributes **** **** ** ********* ** ******** *** ***** *******:

  • ******** ********** ** *****
  • ********** ***** ** *** ********
  • ******** **** ******
  • ******** ***** ** ********

***** ******* ** * **** ************** ******** ******* ***** ******* **************. ** *** *** **** ***** to ******* ***** *******, *** ***** ** **** **** ******* resolution. ** **** ****** ******* *** **** ******* ****** *** with **** *********. *******, ** *** ****** **** ** ********** specify *** ****** ***** ******* ******** **** ************ * **** specification ** ***** ******* *** *** ***** * ********* **** be ****. ******, ** ******* ****** *** ********* ** ****** explain *** ****** ******** *** *** ** ******* ********.

**** ****** ** *** *** ******* ** *** ******* ** video ************ *******. *** **********, ****** ***:

[***************]

Key ******* ** ****** *** ***** ********

*** ***** ********** ****** *** ************ ** ***** ****** ********* 3 *** ******:

  • ****** ** *** ***** ***** ******
  • ***** ******* ***** **** ********
  • ***** ******* ******** **** ** ****** *****

In ****** - ******* ** ********

*** ** ******* ***** ********** ***** ***** *** *** ** plan *** ************** ** ****** ********* ********* *********, *****, ****** and ******* ****. ** ******:

  • *********** ****** *** **** ******* (***** ********* ********* *****)
  • *********** ********** ***** ** **** *****
  • ********* ******** **** ******
  • *********** ******** ***** ** ** *******
  • ******** ****** *************** (***** *** ****** ******)

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports on RFP

US Government Entities Hard Spec Hikvision on May 26, 2016
The US and Chinese governments are working together. Now, US government entities are not only buying video surveillance products from the Chinese...
Poorly Written College Town Camera RFP Examined on May 25, 2016
State College, PA issued an RFP for a neighborhood surveillance system that leaves out many key details required to invite qualified bids. We...
Large Video Surveillance Systems Guide on Oct 29, 2015
This 14 page guide explains the key uses, design factors, and players in the large system surveillance market. A global group of 80...
This Spec Wizard Makes a Mockery Out of RFPs on Dec 05, 2014
Terrible RFPs are commonplace. If only there was a way to make it easy to generate terrible RFPs. Well, Honeywell, Vicon and Aiphone are working...
Ridiculous $100K Project / Now Stalled on Oct 31, 2013
Update 10/31: When we first published this in July, we broke down how flawed the RFP was. Now, the city is delaying the project as it works through...
Bad RFP Leads to Homebrew System on Oct 29, 2013
Bad RFPs continue to plague the industry. In the case of one city, a poorly written RFP led to a contract that likely fails to address one of the...
10 Top Discussions This Summer on Sep 01, 2013
This year, IPVM launched its own discussions, with over 10,000 comments so far. Now, we have improved it with 12 new features. Here are 10 Top...
Design-Build - A Better RFP Process? on Aug 28, 2013
Almost everybody in the security industry has a horror story of a "low bid" system installation that has gone terribly wrong. Many city, county and...
Surveillance Camera Specification Guide on Aug 19, 2013
Anyone reviewing RFPs knows there are countless common problems, with 'good' specs seemingly few and far between: RFPs copied from more than 10...
The Laziest RFP Ever on Aug 13, 2013
Bad RFPs - out of date, vague or just plain confusing - are common. But this RFP is on a whole other level. It is as if no one even looked at...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Avigilon Discontinuing Rialto Analytics Line on Apr 27, 2017
Avigilon is informing dealers/partners that the legacy VideoIQ Rialto products have been discontinued, recommending the newer ACC ES Analytics...
A Marketing Home Run For Knightscope - Man Attacks Robot on Apr 27, 2017
We criticize Knightscope regularly - their lack of revenue, their trying to fool mom 'n pop investors, their associating themselves with a clueless...
The World's First Fashion IP Camera From Amazon on Apr 27, 2017
Some analytics cameras can tell you if a person is jumping a fence, or loitering in a secure area, but none of them can tell you if the person...
Last Day - IP Networking Course May 2017 on Apr 26, 2017
Today is the last day to register for the May IP Networking Course. This is the only networking course designed specifically for video...
Hikvision EZVIZ Amazon Scam Revealed on Apr 26, 2017
Hikvision is violating US Federal Trade Commission guidelines and Amazon rules with a "Honest" Review Program scheme that provides gift cards to...
Anixter CEO Admits Price Deflation and Non-Exclusive Integrator Sales on Apr 26, 2017
Anixter's CEO has admitted to (1) price deflation impacting IP camera sales and (2) not always being 'exclusive' with security integrators. In...
Xandem Next Gen Intrusion Tested on Apr 26, 2017
Xandem's "full coverage motion tracking technology" is unlike any intrusion technology we have seen. We bought their new system and tested it...
Tri-Ed Favorability Results on Apr 25, 2017
Tri-Ed, owned by Anixter, far outranked Anixter, the lowest ranked company in our distributor favorability series. Still, Anixter's ownership did...
Eagle Eye Exec On Mountain Of Servers - VSaaS Growth Analysis on Apr 25, 2017
Eagle Eye VP of Operations, Hans Kahler, posted a picture of himself sitting on top of a shipment of new servers, as a testament to the companies...
Chinese 'Attacking Us From Every Direction', Says US FBI on Apr 25, 2017
"Chinese eating our lunch. Attacking us from every direction" said the US FBI's Deputy Director Andrew McCabe at the ASIS 2017 CSO Summit. .@FBI...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact