In message , at 20:05:01 on
Sun, 17 Sep 2017, Charles Ellson remarked:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:40:01 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 03:29:35 on
Sun, 17 Sep 2017, Charles Ellson remarked:
But instead of the early grainy, very low res, fuzzy, extended play VHS
images on worn-out tapes, it's now HD quality, sharp, clear, digital
images. Perhaps some are now 4k video quality?

How many would sir like ?
https://www.cctvcameraworld.com/4k-ip-cameras.html

I wonder how widely installed those are? Most installed cameras are well
behind the state-of-the-art.

At around 200 squid a time possibly roughly the same good/bad quality
spread among users applies as before when it seemed to be "TV" quality
v. something cheaper ?

The cost of CCTV systems is much more than just a consumer grade camera.
For public surveillance not only is there the backhaul, but they are
often able to pan and tilt, and need much better sensitivity/
illumination than those listed.

Have you actually installed and used those cheapo ones? They are OK for
the passageway down the side of a shop, but not much else.

There's not much point having pan and tilt if you haven't got someone
to operate it; the "do you know this person?" pictures generally seem
to come from fixed cameras.

Tell that to the installers of the tens of thousands of cameras which do
pan and tilt.

The need for moveable cameras is reduced by siting fixed cameras at
pinch points;

The moveable cameras tend to be at strategic points where they can cover
may different routes. The panning and tilting can be automatic on a
timer. Such cameras are more for preventing crime than detecting it.

each moveable camera is likely to augment several fixed cameras
depending on purpose. When you get to the point of needing to track a
specific target then you probably are needing more moveable cameras
(and zoom lenses).

You've been watching too much "Spooks".
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:05:01 on
Sun, 17 Sep 2017, Charles Ellson remarked:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:40:01 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 03:29:35 on
Sun, 17 Sep 2017, Charles Ellson remarked:
But instead of the early grainy, very low res, fuzzy, extended play
VHS
images on worn-out tapes, it's now HD quality, sharp, clear, digital
images. Perhaps some are now 4k video quality?

How many would sir like ?
https://www.cctvcameraworld.com/4k-ip-cameras.html

I wonder how widely installed those are? Most installed cameras are
well
behind the state-of-the-art.

At around 200 squid a time possibly roughly the same good/bad quality
spread among users applies as before when it seemed to be "TV" quality
v. something cheaper ?

The cost of CCTV systems is much more than just a consumer grade camera.
For public surveillance not only is there the backhaul, but they are
often able to pan and tilt, and need much better sensitivity/
illumination than those listed.

Have you actually installed and used those cheapo ones? They are OK for
the passageway down the side of a shop, but not much else.

There's not much point having pan and tilt if you haven't got someone
to operate it; the "do you know this person?" pictures generally seem
to come from fixed cameras.

Tell that to the installers of the tens of thousands of cameras which do
pan and tilt.

The need for moveable cameras is reduced by siting fixed cameras at pinch
points;

The moveable cameras tend to be at strategic points where they can cover
may different routes. The panning and tilting can be automatic on a timer.
Such cameras are more for preventing crime than detecting it.

each moveable camera is likely to augment several fixed cameras depending
on purpose. When you get to the point of needing to track a specific
target then you probably are needing more moveable cameras (and zoom
lenses).

You've been watching too much "Spooks".

I never had a problem with spooks following people on CCTV

It was the way that there was always magically a "new" real person to take
over regardless of the route that the perp took, that was unbelievable.

tim


--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:36:47 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:05:01 on
Sun, 17 Sep 2017, Charles Ellson remarked:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:40:01 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 03:29:35 on
Sun, 17 Sep 2017, Charles Ellson remarked:
But instead of the early grainy, very low res, fuzzy, extended play
VHS
images on worn-out tapes, it's now HD quality, sharp, clear, digital
images. Perhaps some are now 4k video quality?

How many would sir like ?
https://www.cctvcameraworld.com/4k-ip-cameras.html

I wonder how widely installed those are? Most installed cameras are
well
behind the state-of-the-art.

At around 200 squid a time possibly roughly the same good/bad quality
spread among users applies as before when it seemed to be "TV" quality
v. something cheaper ?

The cost of CCTV systems is much more than just a consumer grade camera.
For public surveillance not only is there the backhaul, but they are
often able to pan and tilt, and need much better sensitivity/
illumination than those listed.

Have you actually installed and used those cheapo ones? They are OK for
the passageway down the side of a shop, but not much else.

There's not much point having pan and tilt if you haven't got someone
to operate it; the "do you know this person?" pictures generally seem
to come from fixed cameras.

Tell that to the installers of the tens of thousands of cameras which do
pan and tilt.

The need for moveable cameras is reduced by siting fixed cameras at pinch
points;

The moveable cameras tend to be at strategic points where they can cover
may different routes. The panning and tilting can be automatic on a timer.
Such cameras are more for preventing crime than detecting it.

each moveable camera is likely to augment several fixed cameras depending
on purpose. When you get to the point of needing to track a specific
target then you probably are needing more moveable cameras (and zoom
lenses).

You've been watching too much "Spooks".

No, I've been working in one of many areas where that is exactly what
is done when an offender leaves the scene of their crime. They're
generally too thick to go off down a side street so we've often
watched the police with us just waiting for them to walk/run past.

I never had a problem with spooks following people on CCTV

It was the way that there was always magically a "new" real person to take
over regardless of the route that the perp took, that was unbelievable.

In message , at 18:47:06 on
Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Charles Ellson remarked:

The moveable cameras tend to be at strategic points where they can cover
may different routes. The panning and tilting can be automatic on a timer.
Such cameras are more for preventing crime than detecting it.

each moveable camera is likely to augment several fixed cameras depending
on purpose. When you get to the point of needing to track a specific
target then you probably are needing more moveable cameras (and zoom
lenses).

You've been watching too much "Spooks".

No, I've been working in one of many areas where that is exactly what
is done when an offender leaves the scene of their crime. They're
generally too thick to go off down a side street so we've often
watched the police with us just waiting for them to walk/run past.

How are the police alerted to the flight of the alleged offender so
soon?

Meanwhile, I was looking at one of the pan/tilt cameras on a street
corner (T-junction) earlier today, and it simply cycles between each of
the three directions every 15-20 seconds.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 21:19:32 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 18:47:06 on
Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Charles Ellson remarked:

The moveable cameras tend to be at strategic points where they can cover
may different routes. The panning and tilting can be automatic on a timer.
Such cameras are more for preventing crime than detecting it.

each moveable camera is likely to augment several fixed cameras depending
on purpose. When you get to the point of needing to track a specific
target then you probably are needing more moveable cameras (and zoom
lenses).

You've been watching too much "Spooks".

No, I've been working in one of many areas where that is exactly what
is done when an offender leaves the scene of their crime. They're
generally too thick to go off down a side street so we've often
watched the police with us just waiting for them to walk/run past.

How are the police alerted to the flight of the alleged offender so
soon?

Through a set of the local authority's radios used by door staff,
police, street wardens and others.

Meanwhile, I was looking at one of the pan/tilt cameras on a street
corner (T-junction) earlier today, and it simply cycles between each of
the three directions every 15-20 seconds.

That would suggest it is mainly for observing the traffic when in that
style of use. It might be findable on one of the various websites that
get feeds from cameras.

In message , at 23:11:45 on
Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Charles Ellson remarked:

I've been working in one of many areas where that is exactly what
is done when an offender leaves the scene of their crime. They're
generally too thick to go off down a side street so we've often
watched the police with us just waiting for them to walk/run past.

How are the police alerted to the flight of the alleged offender so
soon?

Through a set of the local authority's radios used by door staff,
police, street wardens and others.

I'm surprised to find that's the idea behind the cameras where I live.
Surprised because I know the police station (where the feeds end up) is
unmanned at the times when they would be most useful.

Meanwhile, I was looking at one of the pan/tilt cameras on a street
corner (T-junction) earlier today, and it simply cycles between each of
the three directions every 15-20 seconds.

That would suggest it is mainly for observing the traffic when in that
style of use.

Antisocial behaviour.

It might be findable on one of the various websites that get feeds from
cameras.

No, and the pictures it takes are virtually inaccessible to the public
even under SAR. I've never seen quite such a lots of bogus reasons why
they could refuse
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 07:15:23 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 23:11:45 on
Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Charles Ellson remarked:

I've been working in one of many areas where that is exactly what
is done when an offender leaves the scene of their crime. They're
generally too thick to go off down a side street so we've often
watched the police with us just waiting for them to walk/run past.

How are the police alerted to the flight of the alleged offender so
soon?

Through a set of the local authority's radios used by door staff,
police, street wardens and others.

I'm surprised to find that's the idea behind the cameras where I live.

Your area might not use them the same way as Lambeth.

Surprised because I know the police station (where the feeds end up) is
unmanned at the times when they would be most useful.

Meanwhile, I was looking at one of the pan/tilt cameras on a street
corner (T-junction) earlier today, and it simply cycles between each of
the three directions every 15-20 seconds.

That would suggest it is mainly for observing the traffic when in that
style of use.

Antisocial behaviour.

That tends to happen at night. If the cameras are available then it
would seem to be sensible to use them for observing the traffic at
other times. In the above case, the cameras are usually "parked"
around 4am after the clubs have closed, not necessarily all aimed at
something as at least one (not at a junction) is just left pointing
down.

It might be findable on one of the various websites that get feeds from
cameras.

No, and the pictures it takes are virtually inaccessible to the public
even under SAR. I've never seen quite such a lots of bogus reasons why
they could refuse