3 camera CCTV

cbr900

I'm thinking of buying a CCTV system for our home (Dublin),I would like one camera covering the driveway,one covering the back garden,and one for the side of the house,any idea how much this could cost including installation?

KoolKid

It really depends on what you want .The quality of the images, the storage how long you want to store images the recorder etc.

For cameras look for €600 tvl lines or better. For external also look for infred built in if there is low lighting at night time. You could get a basic 4 way recorder with 500gb hard drive , that would give you a months recording at reasonable quality. Also look for frame rate of at least 100 FPS (Frames per second) to will give you real time recording on 4 cameras.
For a decent 3 cameras professionally installed with recorder , monitor & UPS expect €1000 +

Jnealon

KoolKid wrote: »

. Also look for frame rate of at least 100 FPS (Frames per second) to will give you real time recording on 4 cameras.

Why would you want real-time recording, it offers no additional benefit
6 or 7 fps would be an absolute minimum with 12 fps being optimum.

KoolKid

More is better & usually at no extra cost.:D.
The more FPS the more that is captured. Manys a time I have spent with the Guards trying to catch better frames only to miss something with low frame rates. Criminals can move fast sometimes.:D

Jnealon

More is definitely not better. 25 FPS is motion picture standard and we're not in the movie business.
I have discussed this with other installers and they all use anything from 6 to 12 fps, not one records real-time. The do however record in D1 or 4cif.
I suspect your recordings were low on quality and not frame rate.
Only this week I had to retrieve footage from an apartment block in the city and it was at 12fps, more than enough to identify the suspect.
I also have another on going case involving a fatality which was recorded at 12fps @ D1, the Gardai were more than happy with the footage
Even the CCTV policy from the Home Office in the UK states that real time is not needed and that 8 fps is more than enough.
What I'm basically saying is that quality is better than quantity:)
I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one

KoolKid

I suppose we will. On a small system like this its easy to get 25fps and still get the required storage time.

altor

cbr900 wrote: »

I'm thinking of buying a CCTV system for our home (Dublin),I would like one camera covering the driveway,one covering the back garden,and one for the side of the house,any idea how much this could cost including installation?

The best thing to do is get a few installers out to have a look at what is needed, this will also give a you a chance to see how much it will cost as you may need different type cameras installed depending on what you want to look at. The most important thing to see with any DVR is the playback of the events recorded as you may need them as evidence, live view of most systems will always look different in playback. As has being pointed out here real-time recording will take up more space so an extra hard drive is an option if more recording space is needed for the extra recording. Real-time recording means real-time viewing in playback.

Jnealon

If this is a diy install have a look at cctvdirect. Their own brand cameras and dvr get some good reviews
Realtime recording is not necessary and will only reduce recording time.

altor

By fitting a bigger hard drive real time is the better option, especially when it comes to the playback on a system.

Jnealon

altor wrote: »

By fitting a bigger hard drive real time is the better option, especially when it comes to the playback on a system.

This statement just proves that you know very little about cctv

altor

Real time recording when viewed in playback is like looking at live view.

You say :

Jnealon wrote: »

Why would you want real-time recording, it offers no additional benefit
6 or 7 fps would be an absolute minimum with 12 fps being optimum.

Real time recording 25fps offers more benefits than a lower rate of 12 fps.

Jnealon

altor wrote: »

Real time recording when viewed in playback is like looking at live view.
QUOTE]
Again this statement just proves my point.
When viewing playback the vidoe has been compressed and anything over 2cif will have interlacing

Actually most people can't tell the difference when viewing 16fps and 25fps

Show me an application where you need to capture 25fps

altor

Jnealon wrote: »

Again this statement just proves my point.
When viewing playback the vidoe has been compressed and anything over 2cif will have interlacing

Actually most people can't tell the difference when viewing 16fps and 25fps

Show me an application where you need to capture 25fps

What point does this prove

25 fps at D1 compared to 12 fps at D1 is giving the owner twice the amount of frames per second. How is them having half this is better for them If someone runs in front of a camera at 12 FPS and then does the same at the 25 FPS. Can you tell us what the difference is
The more frames per second you record the better the chance you have of maybe catching a vital frame.
With regard to the interlacing, if you find your having problems with this maybe it is the equipment your using.

25FPS can be used any any time, it does take up more space on a hard drive but installing a larger one or a second one will give the extra space needed.
It is very important for covert surveillance, facial recognition, can also be used in garages for catching reg plated if the owner does not want the extra expense of ANPR cameras. The list is endless really.

Jnealon

ANPR is down to shutter speed and quality of camera and not fps
There's plenty of white papers and studies on fps, I suggest you read up on them.
Facial recognition, again quality and positioning of the camera

altor

I know how the ANPR cameras work, I am just giving you an example of if a customer does not want the extra expense of them. For example, a camera zoomed in getting reg plates at 12 FPS will miss some reg plates if the car is traveling at speed, at 25 FPS it has a better chance of getting the reg.

Jnealon

Again it's not the fps it's the shutter speed, lighting positioning etc. ANPR is a totally different subject
Back to fps and cctv you need to read up on it.

altor

I suggest the best thing you can do is invest in better quality units to help with the problems your having.

Jnealon

altor wrote: »

I suggest the best thing you can do is invest in better quality units to help with the problems your having.

What problem.
As I already stated realtime offers no benifit over 12fps apart from making the system more expensive.
The need for realtime recording is very rare and none of the applications you have listed need realtime

altor

Jnealon wrote: »

What problem.
As I already stated realtime offers no benifit over 12fps apart from making the system more expensive.

That is your opinion. If expense is an issue I can see why you install the cheaper systems.

Referring to customers :

Jnealon wrote: »

Actually most people can't tell the difference when viewing 16fps and 25fps

It is up to you as an installer who knows the systems to point out the differences. That is why people who dont know employ someone they trust to install a system for them. Knowing your installing a system lower than its ability (depending on the system your installing) is like pulling the wool over there eyes. I know I would rather catch as much information as possible if it was my system as recording at 25 FPS over 12FPS gives over twice the frame rates per second at D1 on the system I use. 2 weeks footage at the highest rate is better than 4 weeks footage at the lower rate. It Is not good as you the installer should be making them aware of what is available regardless of the price and what recommendations your taking from the UK.

Can you give us something to back up your claim that 12 FPS is better than 25 FPS at D1
Again dont refer to the interlacing as newer units dont have this issue.

Jnealon

altor wrote: »

That is your opinion. If expense is an issue I can see why you install the cheaper systems.

Not my opinion, it's widely stated in reports, white papers and books on the subject of cctv. One book is from Axis, probably the leaders in IPCCTV. There's also the Home Office policy in the UK. I can go on but what's the point

The studies state that detection rates increase when frame rate increases but once you reach 8fps it starts to plateau and when you reach 12 fps it flattens out
Source here
It's also stated in many books

I can loan you some of these reports and books if you like or post up isbn numbers and you can ask the library to get them for you

fred funk }{

12 FPS is more than enough for 99% of installations. Anything else is over-kill or over-selling, whichever way you want to look at it.

KoolKid

I don't think the argument is what's sufficient . Its that 25fps at the same settings is any better than 12fps . Has to be IMO

Jnealon

Detection levels do not increase once you go over 12fps, various studies have proved this.
Every one is entitled to their opinion but we are talking about the difference between taking a photo every .04 seconds compared to .08 seconds.
Unless the application is forensic in nature 12fps is more than enough

KoolKid

Jnealon wrote: »

Unless the application is forensic in nature 12fps is more than enough

So there is a difference?

Jnealon

KoolKid wrote: »

So there is a difference?

Which would be that 1% that Fred referred to

KoolKid

Regardless of how negligible the difference is 25fps is better than 12fps then?
So if price is not the issue what is the benefit of 12fps over 25?

Jnealon

Jnealon wrote: »

The studies state that detection rates increase when frame rate increases but once you reach 8fps it starts to plateau and when you reach 12 fps it flattens out
Source here
It's also stated in many books

Define better, is it increased detection, in that case no it's not better.

KoolKid

Jnealon wrote: »

Unless the application is forensic in nature 12fps is more than enough

This suggests it better.

Jnealon wrote: »

Which would be that 1% that Fred referred to

This suggests better.

Jnealon wrote: »

Define better, is it increased detection, in that case no i

So
if the application is forensic what's the benefit?
Is 25fps better than, worse than, or the same ad 12fps in your opinion?

Jnealon

KoolKid wrote: »

Is 25fps better than, worse than, or the same ad 12fps in your opinion?

I would define better as an increased detection rate. Detection rates have been proven to increase up to a rate of 8fps where they start to level off. Once they reach 12fps detection rates remain static and do not increase.
I have listed my references above.

KoolKid

So what point are you making here?
If the application is forensic what would be enough?

Jnealon wrote: »

Unless the application is forensic in nature 12fps is more than enough

Jnealon

Maybe forensic is the wrong word but I was simply paraphrasing one of my references

KoolKid

I am baffled..
So 25 fps is in no way better than 12fps?
Is that your conclusion?

fred funk }{

The point is that, in reality, real time recording offers little more than 12 FPS. If it is a case of choosing a DVR that has real time recording over one with 12 FPS and both had exactly the same spec and price I'd choose the real time. But to recommend to anyone looking for a CCTV recommendation that realtime is essential is wrong.

It's a bit of a red-herring.

KoolKid

My point exactly Fred.

Jnealon

KoolKid wrote: »

I am baffled..
So 25 fps is in no way better than 12fps?
Is that your conclusion?

I have provided the references to back up my point that 12fps is more than enough.
As already stated detection rates to not increase once you go over this threshold.
Can you provide any references to prove that there is anything to be gained by using a higher frame rate, apart from expense.
As fred pointed out telling a customer they need real time is wrong

KoolKid

I would say 25fps is better than 12.
Whether its required in certain applications is not the issue.
Costing more is not the issue.
If 12fps is as good as it gets , why are there higher spec machines?
Are the manufacturers having us all on so?

Jnealon wrote: »

Detection levels do not increase once you go over 12fps, various studies have proved this.

So there is absolutly no difference ??

Jnealon wrote: »

we are talking about the difference between taking a photo every .04 seconds compared to .08 seconds.
Unless the application is forensic in nature 12fps is more than enough

So there is a dufference?

Jnealon wrote: »

Which would be that 1% that Fred referred to

So there is a difference?

Jnealon wrote: »

I would define better as an increased detection rate. Detection rates have been proven to increase up to a rate of 8fps where they start to level off. Once they reach 12fps detection rates remain static and do not increase.

So theres no difference?

Jnealon wrote: »

As already stated detection rates to not increase once you go over this threshold.

So theres no difference

Jnealon wrote: »

As fred pointed out telling a customer they need real time is wrong

Telling a customer they need anything they don't is wrong.
Recommending higher specs & explaining the difference is the right thing to do.
Telling a customer there is absolutly no difference between a lower spec & a higher spec device would also be wrong.

Anyway, With all the contridiction above my head hurts.
One question.. A simple yes or no would be nice.
Regardless of price & regardless of what is enough requirement. Does 25fps offer any improvement over 12fps?

Jnealon

Your head hurts.
I've posted references, links to papers etc etc.
I've had this discussion with other trade groups and working groups I am involved with and we all agree that 12fps is more than enough, so you seem to be in the minority
All you have to back up your claim with is your opinion. no facts.
As I said to you earlier in this post we'll have to agree to disagree

KoolKid

Your still not answering the question.I wonder why that is?
Regardless of what is considered enough.
Is 25fps better than 12fps?
I have answered yes.
Why can you not answer a simple yes or no.

Jnealon

Jnealon wrote: »

Define better, is it increased detection, in that case no it's not better.

Posted earlier

KoolKid

Still dodging the questions ???

KoolKid wrote: »

If 12fps is as good as it gets , why are there higher spec machines?
Are the manufacturers having us all on so?

KoolKid wrote: »

A simple yes or no would be nice.
Regardless of price & regardless of what is enough requirement. Does 25fps offer any improvement over 12fps?

No mention of the word better in those questions.

Jnealon wrote: »

we all agree that 12fps is more than enough, so you seem to be in the minority.

Are you actually reading the posts here?? I have already said what's enough is not the issue. Its whether 25fps offers more than 12fps .
Myself , fred & altor have already said it does, so it would appear you are in the minority here.

Jnealon

KoolKid wrote: »

Also look for frame rate of at least 100 FPS (Frames per second) to will give you real time recording on 4 cameras.

Jnealon wrote: »

Why would you want real-time recording, it offers no additional benefit
6 or 7 fps would be an absolute minimum with 12 fps being optimum.

My point is stated above within the first few posts of this thread in response to your statement. I have posted references, links etc to prove my point.
Here is a comparison frame rates to back up my statement LINK

KoolKid

Maybe my eyesight is just too good. But I can see a difference between 15 & 30 fps.
Why are you still not answering the questions??

Is there any benefit , whatsoever (Regardless of cost or whether its needed) of 25fps over 12 fps?

Yes or No...
I am confused by your references, links to papers etc etc. Yet you don't seem to believe them enough to answer a simple yes or no..


If you are saying no, which you seem to be, then why are manufacturers making higher spec units of 25fps or higher?
Have all manufacturers got it wrong ? or are they just ripping us off so?

fred funk }{

I think it depends on the application. 12 FPS is actually quite a high frame rate and if it was being used to capture peoples faces walking along a corridor then 25 FPS wouldn't make any difference hence, not being better.

Now, if 25 FPS was being used to capture a registration plate along a road where cars are likely to drive past the camera quite quickly then one could argue that the higher frame rate would be better.

There isn't a yes or no catch all answer.

KoolKid

But my question all along is. regardless of whether its needed, is does 25fps offer benefits over 12 fps.?
jnealon is suggesting 12fps is as good as it gets. Higher frame rates are better IMO .They have to be you are capturing twice the images.This standards may not always be required,but thats not in dispute. The only question is whether 25fps offers any benefit over 12 .? If I am wrong , and there is no benefit whatsoever why are higher spec machines made. ?

Ill give an example .. We were recently looking at images from a PiPs system in Enniskerry to ge a car reg. These are recording at 25fps. The reg was only available on 1 frame. At 12fps catching this reg would have been 50/50 , its basic maths from that point of view.

altor

Jnealon wrote: »

Not my opinion, it's widely stated in reports, white papers and books on the subject of cctv. One book is from Axis, probably the leaders in IPCCTV. There's also the Home Office policy in the UK. I can go on but what's the point

The studies state that detection rates increase when frame rate increases but once you reach 8fps it starts to plateau and when you reach 12 fps it flattens out
Source here
It's also stated in many books

I can loan you some of these reports and books if you like or post up isbn numbers and you can ask the library to get them for you

I have had a good read of the thesis you linked to. To save everyone else the need to read this as it is very long I have found this link, which is a breakdown of his results found.

I dont think there is anything to back up 25FPS is better than 12FPS. He made a lot of references to using low quality equipment, untrained users. A video recorder was also used in his tests

5.4 Recommendations for CCTV owners Explains it all for owners of systems.

At the end of the day it is down to the equipment installed. Cheaper equipment will not give the same results as better quality units.

altor

fred funk }{ wrote: »

12 FPS is more than enough for 99% of installations. Anything else is over-kill or over-selling, whichever way you want to look at it.

Which do you think is better Fred, 12 or 25 ?

It is not over selling if the DVR installed can perform these tasks, do you not agree ?

fred funk }{

altor wrote: »

Which do you think is better Fred, 12 or 25 ?

It is not over selling if the DVR installed can perform these tasks, do you not agree ?

I expressed my opinion earlier in the thread. As I said earlier the whole 'real time' thing is a red herring. It reminds me of the obsession with the Megapixels of digital still cameras.