CCTV questions

[Stephen H]

I have acquired a 8 channel Pentaplex CCTV hybrid recorder with 2 x 1GB drives in it.

This can support 4 analogue cameras with full audio support and 4 IP cameras again with full audio support.

I would like to put up 4 analogue cameras outside. external IP cameras are outside my affordability price range but the internal IP ones don't seem too bad price wise.

I would use PoE enabled internal IP cameras within the house for when on holiday as this allows me to check the house remotely via the net and with PoE support, I can just unplug them when in occupancy to avoid undesirables looking inside our occupied house over the net, ensuring our privacy. The house is fully wired for ethernet.

Now I'd like to use the audio support on the analogue cameras. I'm having one hell of a job to find cameras with integrated audio support. Does this mean I need to buy a separate microphone for each camera?

I've also been looking at CCTV cable. This appears to be like shotgun cable where its a video coax bonded with a twin core red and black wire (for power to camera obviously) but no audio cable attached.(!)

Regarding camera choices It appears I have a choice of 420TVL, 480TVL

600TVL and 720TVL, all increasing in price.

The cheapest 420TVL dome cameras are around £20 quid each whereas the

720TVL dome is around the £50 quid mark.

Is it worth spending a bit more to get the 720TVL cameras given that the recorder boasts H264 support and to capture video in greater detail, and hopefully identifying undesirables more easily?

Stephen.

[Nick Odell]

A discussion in another group recently referred to a CPS decision to drop a prosecution because the video evidence was not of high enough quality so google found me this:

a nutshell, the document suggests that for facial recognition one needs a minimum of 40 pixels per foot; for numberplate recognition 80 ppf. It should be a matter of simple arithmetic to work out where your perpetrators will be when they get filmed and how many pixels are involved. A door entry camera will, for instance, demand far fewer pixels than a camera that is monitoring the back garden fence.

Nick

[Owain]

Yes. Are the mic inputs at line level? You can get electret microphones with pre-amp boards attached from CCTV suppliers eg

Note the ICO guidance on recording audio - it's much more stringent than recording video.

You can also run video down CAT5 cable on one pair using a balun. Sound down 2nd pair. Leaves 2 pairs paralleled for power. You will suffer volt drop but for a domestic system it should be satisfactory.

[Bill]

In message , Stephen H writes

Easy answer to the resolution is YES, the more lines the better. You maybe able to recognise someone from quite a poor image, but if you ever want it as evidence later then good definition is needed.

As someone else has suggested, you can run power, video and audio over one length of CAT5 for your analogue cameras. This is easy to install and also allows you to change to IP cameras later when you can afford them.

PS if any one has a Vista keyboard npx/kbd/j3de to spare I am on the lookout for one.

[alan]

[alan]

Assuming that the limiting factor is the number of "real" pixels on the detector. Is the specifiction related to the camera system with the supplied lens fitted, the camaera wqth a lens costing £100 (and not fitted as standard) or to the detector element without lens.

A cheaper option may be a different lens giving a narrower field of view. It really depends on what the system is required to do.

[ARW]

> Note the ICO guidance on recording audio - it's much more stringent

Does the ICO guidance apply to private CCTV systems?

[Part Timer]

>>> Note the ICO guidance on recording audio - it's much more stringent

"Data protection" tends to be used as a wheel-out excuse for many things. Mustn't forget crims have rights not to be recorded, you know!

Is the group due another youtube episode any time soon?

[Owain]

Arguable point; although notification isn't required for personal use, if you want to use the recordings for evidence being able to show they're broadly compliant with ICO and Home Office standards may be useful.

Owain

[ARW]

> >

The latest neighbours are no fun so there there will be no further broadcasts:-(

[Java Jive]

I used to have CCTV covering my front door. It was very useful in keeping the area free of petty crime by youths, etc, as it happened to look down a good length the street. One day a couple of police officers knocked on the door, saying that they'd had complaints about my CCTV. They said it was illegal under the RIPA:

promised to read the act, and, if appropriate, take whatever steps might be required to ensure legality, but, read the above for yourself, it clearly doesn't apply to a private individual using CCTV covering a public area in the manner that I was, so I did exactly nothing. What I gathered from this and other similar situations is that generally many police officers are appallingly ignorant of many aspects of the law!

When I asked a retired *senior* police officer about my use of CCTV, he replied that it was perfectly legal, as l> > > > Note the ICO guidance on recording audio - it's much more stringent

[Bob Eager]

There is indeed ICO guidance for private CCTV. There are limitations on use and distribution.

Not that it bothered the police who came round yesterday to ask if I'd seen anything when a neighbour's car was vandalised.

[tony sayer]

So why do you think my 'learned friends earn a bloody sight more than a bobby;!?...

[Peter Parry]

Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 a new code of practice for CCTV surveillance systems will be issued in the next few months. As far as evidence image quality is concerned search for "rotakin".

[Graham.]

Good grief, we could have had that instead of Carole Hersee.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

A few of those life-sized cardboard coppers would do instead, as cctv set-up targets. Actually, any photo life-sized dummy, as used in shops would do, and there are plenty of them around after promotions have finished with them.

[ARW]

"The use of cameras for limited household purposes is exempt from the DPA. This applies where an individual uses CCTV to protect their home from burglary, even if the camera overlooks the street or other areas near their home."

Would be the relevant bit.

The police have never complained about my camera covering the street. One officer did ask if I had the neighbours permission to cover his garden (I do have permission).

[Jules Richardson]

One thing we found last week was that the cameras we have do quite well in the dark - but they're utterly useless when it comes to rear number plates on vehicles, because the plate light(s) overwhelm the camera sensors.

I expect that some cameras do better than others in this regard, although I don't know if reviews generally take into account such things.

cheers

Jules