Building a web-based CCTV system

[alicemet]

Hi alt.security.alarms folks,

I've been working on a web-interface for a CCTV system for a while.
I'm not much of a salesman, rather a tech guy that thought this would
be a cool idea.

So I'm wondering if I can ask some folks here to take a look at my web
site - and tell me if you think it's useful, or if you have any
suggestions to make it more user friendly and intuitive.

I built this because I wanted to watch what was going on at home while
I was away - perhaps across the state, or anywhere else. I can walk
into a library while I'm on the road and see everything that's been
happening in my neighborhood.

This is distinguished from other CCTV systems because of it's low cost
- a user could "subscribe", and not have to worry about running a DVR,
or the web / internet hassles involved with viewing the footage
remotely. That's the angle I'm hoping will make this desirable for
small companies or residences. Excuse the footage on there right now
- it's not interesting, it just gives me something to use on my demo
account!

Anyway, the site is at http://www.camsentry.com

Please provide feedback here, or with the addresses on the site.

Thanks!

Aaron

 

[Petem]

well its simple easy to understand,most user will understand how to operate
it..
and one cool feature is the frame by frame option...
now i wonder hows the movement detection work,whats the hardware beind all
this?
what type of setup?
one machine that do the video grabbing then a web server running an
application on it? or its all on the same machine?
can you tell us more?

 

[alicemet]

Nah, it's quite a bit more distributed than that. It's meant for
anybody with a computer and camera to use. They just point their
camera at my FTP site and I take care of the rest.

The camera's motion detection is accomplished with i-catcher software.
I wrote the web GUI to go along with it - so a user could be off in
who-knows-where and still access their footage.

On my end I have several servers: an FTP server, A storage server to
hold the videos and frames, a 2000 IIS server, 2000 MSSQL server, and
two workstations that build the .jpg frames into .wmv streams.

It actually takes quite a bit of oomph. Storing millions of small
files, indexing them for immediate retrieval, and compiling the .jpg's
into .wmv's on-the-fly all takes some significant IO crunching. It's
cool to watch them all work!

 

[required]

Both. If it's financially viable for you without costing the end user
an arm and a leg you might have a winner. I have an extra server at
the colo host site and an online shopping cart system in case you're
interested in a host for the front end stuff.

Or if you're interested in getting ripped off.

 

[J. Sloud]

Hi alt.security.alarms folks,

I've been working on a web-interface for a CCTV system for a while.
I'm not much of a salesman, rather a tech guy that thought this would
be a cool idea.

Your site seemed to be down when I checked. Sounds interesting,
though. We've done a few systems where we streamed video over the
Internet to a recording device using SmartSight, Megachip's Opennet,
and Pelconet. Bandwidth and network connectivity always seem to be
issues with these systems. Have you given any though to image
authentication? How about liability from missing data you were
"supposed" to have archived? There are some obvious markets for this
technology since the video record is kept offsite, and it could be
made compatible with most any existing camera system. Keep us
informed.

Good luck,

J.

 

[alicemet]

Your site seemed to be down when I checked. Sounds interesting,
though. We've done a few systems where we streamed video over the
Internet to a recording device using SmartSight, Megachip's Opennet,
and Pelconet. Bandwidth and network connectivity always seem to be
issues with these systems. Have you given any though to image
authentication? How about liability from missing data you were
"supposed" to have archived? There are some obvious markets for this
technology since the video record is kept offsite, and it could be
made compatible with most any existing camera system. Keep us
informed.

Good luck,

J.

Hey,

The site *shouldn't* be down, but I may be having some trouble with
the redirector. Try browsing directly to

http://www.camsentry.com/monitor/cs_login.aspx

and see if you have any better luck there.

I do expect bandwidth to be a primary concern. I've put a lot of
effort into making it bandwidth sensitive. The FTP uploads from the
camera feeds are bandwidth throttled so all customers will get a chunk
even if one customer has a lot of motion and tries to saturate the
line.

When browsing the site, all graphics and thumbnails are resized on the
server before sending to the client, so they load fast and take
minimal bandwidth. Presently the whole thing is running on a 400Kbit
line anyway. I'm not throwing more money at hosting faster speeds
until I get a "real" client!

My "Video streaming" isn't shoving the .jpg files at the client as
fast as they'll load. I've seen other solutions do that - and it's
horrid. Mine are compressed onto .wmv format on-the-fly and streamed
to the client. Much more efficient.

As for security, the .jpg's and .wmv's are sent to the browser via an
..aspx script that validates the users session, and checks to make sure
the user owns the file before returning it. To view another's footage
would require hacking the .aspx scripting engine. MS's products are
not known for their lack of vulnerabilities - but nonetheless I've
paid very close attention to keeping it as secure as possible.

As for compatibility, I've thought one of the advantages would be to
hook it to some of the newer IP cameras on the market that have motion
detection built in. With a motion sensitive IP camera and a DSL line,
the client would not need a computer at their end to take advantage of
the system. The camera senses motion, and uploads to my FTP site, all
as one self-contained unit. This reduces complexity, and may keep out
malicious users too - like employees trying to turn off or circumvent
the system by screwing with the computer.

And yes, I've been concerned about the legal aspect too. I cannot
guarantee that all the footage will be captured and that the system
will be foolproof. That fact has to be agreed upon and signed in a
SLA before I accept any money from a client. Still, our legal system
being what it is, one lawsuit could destroy my entire venture . . .

Anyway, please keep the feedback coming. I'm anxious to hear any
comments or criticism!

Aaron

 

[Socrates]

Hi - streaming video recordings to an off-site location its a great idea.

However, what video camera should be used to say protect the vicinity
outside a house? Should the camera be digital or analogue?

Good quality CCTV is essential but it is non-existent at present. There
would be a tremendous reduction in criminal activity if cctv could capture
clear images of suspects such as burglars, kidnappers etc.

The most important point currently affecting cctv is the lack of quality.
Even expensive 'multiplex' recorders (see
http://www.dedicated-micros.com/dedicatedmicros/product/proindex.html)
cannot obtain good quality due to the compression factors involved.

De-interlacing of footage from an analogue camera is essential to capture
good quality images, otherwise one ends up with images which are practically
useless for identifying suspects (see
http://deinterlace.sourceforge.net/screenshots/index.htm)

You need a package suitable for interiors like shops and factories and also
a package for monitoring outside houses. The package (camera/connections
etc) will be decided by the end user upon taking advice from a CCTV
specialist - but it would be good to make your own suggestions as well.

The way forward to overcoming quality deficiencies and storage capacity may
involve a system of taking still image snapshots of a scene (say once every
3 seconds) rather than relying on a video camera.

I would be interested in linking up a digital camera that can be set up to
take snap shots of a scene and then feeding those images to your storage
system. I don't know if analogue cameras are the solution because of the
problem of interlacing of images which occurs in the process of converting
analogue information to digital using a video capture card/pc.


Yours faithfully,


JOHN AIDINIANTZ
www.londoncctv.com

 

[Splitpair]

Check into the Panasonic line of internal web-server cameras.

SP

 

[alicemet]

Hi - streaming video recordings to an off-site location its a great idea.

However, what video camera should be used to say protect the vicinity
outside a house? Should the camera be digital or analogue?

Good quality CCTV is essential but it is non-existent at present. There
would be a tremendous reduction in criminal activity if cctv could capture
clear images of suspects such as burglars, kidnappers etc.

The most important point currently affecting cctv is the lack of quality.
Even expensive 'multiplex' recorders (see
http://www.dedicated-micros.com/dedicatedmicros/product/proindex.html)
cannot obtain good quality due to the compression factors involved.

De-interlacing of footage from an analogue camera is essential to capture
good quality images, otherwise one ends up with images which are practically
useless for identifying suspects (see
http://deinterlace.sourceforge.net/screenshots/index.htm)

You need a package suitable for interiors like shops and factories and also
a package for monitoring outside houses. The package (camera/connections
etc) will be decided by the end user upon taking advice from a CCTV
specialist - but it would be good to make your own suggestions as well.

The way forward to overcoming quality deficiencies and storage capacity may
involve a system of taking still image snapshots of a scene (say once every
3 seconds) rather than relying on a video camera.

I would be interested in linking up a digital camera that can be set up to
take snap shots of a scene and then feeding those images to your storage
system. I don't know if analogue cameras are the solution because of the
problem of interlacing of images which occurs in the process of converting
analogue information to digital using a video capture card/pc.


Yours faithfully,


JOHN AIDINIANTZ
www.londoncctv.com

Hi John,

Thanks for your reply. Indeed I have considered this dilemma - even
the best CCTV systems are poor quality when it comes to positivily
identifying an individual. They're better suited to seeing *what*
happened than who did it!

Digital CCTV systems appear to my amature status to have a lot of
promise. I was at a security convention recently where I saw a camera
from IQVision at http://www.iqeye.com . I'm not affiliated with them
in any way, but their camera was very impressive! A full 1288x968
resolution picture of a parking lot or storefront would be quite able
to positively make an identification. I've tested images this size
with my site, but I don't know what kind of framerate would be
possible when monitoring that many pixels for motion. At $1000 for
the camera, I won't find out any time soon. But I'm very keen to find
out . . .

These hi-res pictures would also suck a lot more bandwidth. But . . .
that's getting cheaper by the day . . .

Did you look at the picture quality on my site? It's satisfactory
IMO, better than analog (except in low-light because I'm using cheap
cameras). A completely digital system should be able to expand and
provide excellent quality as it becomes available too.

If you have a camera that you'd be willing to feed to my site, then
send an email to support at my domain name, which is camsentry.com,
and we'll try it out!

Aaron

 

[Si Ballenger]

Digital CCTV systems appear to my amature status to have a lot of
promise. I was at a security convention recently where I saw a camera
from IQVision at http://www.iqeye.com . I'm not affiliated with them
in any way, but their camera was very impressive! A full 1288x968
resolution picture of a parking lot or storefront would be quite able
to positively make an identification. I've tested images this size
with my site, but I don't know what kind of framerate would be
possible when monitoring that many pixels for motion. At $1000 for
the camera, I won't find out any time soon. But I'm very keen to find
out . . .

These hi-res pictures would also suck a lot more bandwidth. But . . .
that's getting cheaper by the day . . .

Use the cheap analog cams as spotter cams, and when they detect
motion, have a higher resolution cam take stills of the scene.

 

[Socrates]

Did you look at the picture quality on my site? It's satisfactory.....


Hmm... I can't agree on that - the people in the front yard images are only
identifiable by their hairstyles - nothing more - and I doubt that they
would be able to identify themselves from the images! The quality is very
poor probably because it is a cheap analogue camera feeding images to a pc
via a capture card. Even an expensive analogue camera would not be able to
provide clear images if those images are being compressed using a video
capture card.

At night time the images would be even worse and unrecognisable.

I was at a security convention recently where I saw a camera
from IQVision at http://www.iqeye.com .

I will look at that - some other poster has mentioned about internet web
cameras and that also needs looking into.

Your idea for recording and storing images is still a good idea and as soon
as I rig up a suitable camera I would like to try your service mainly
because the recording results are stored off-site.

Many householders will not need to be so sensitive about this aspect however
because it will be sufficient if their cameras can record to a suitable pc
system at home.

I am still looking for a good pc-based system but currently the limitation
seems to be finding a digital camera which can record snapshots to the pc. I
think video recordings are not really necessary for cctv - what is more
essential is to be able to capture good quality still images/snapshots to a
pc with sufficient clarity to identify suspects.

"Cheapness" and "affordability" is not the main factor because people who
need cctv are not looking for bargains or for something on the cheap but
simply a system which clearly identifies suspects - when that is found there
will be a lot less crime in society.

Use the cheap analog cams as spotter cams, and when they detect

motion, have a higher resolution cam take stills of the scene.

Taking snapshots at intervals of say 1 - 3 seconds seems the way to go -
relying on motion detect methods has the risk that the camera will not pick
up suspects as they move past the camera field - although motion detect can
be set up on a wider angle to allow a camera to start before the suspects
move across the field of vision.

Yours faithfully,


JOHN AIDINIANTZ
www.londoncctv.com

 

[Si Ballenger]

motion, have a higher resolution cam take stills of the scene.

Taking snapshots at intervals of say 1 - 3 seconds seems the way to go -
relying on motion detect methods has the risk that the camera will not pick
up suspects as they move past the camera field - although motion detect can
be set up on a wider angle to allow a camera to start before the suspects
move across the field of vision.

The high resolution cams now being used to catch red light
runners might be what you need. They appear to be fast and have
the high resolution to get the tag numers on cars zooming past
even when mounted up on a pole.

 

[Frank Olson]

Yep... They are very high res... Couple that to the directional "strobe"
they use to "freeze" the action and you get an excellent picture... We had
red-light cams as well as radar-cams here in BC for awhile... The people
took their tickets and challenged them all the way up to the Supreme Court.
As a result we have cameras at numerous intersections that are just
"sitting" there now and about a dozen very expensive vans "parked" in a
Government lot. What a *waste*!! :-(

--
Frank E. Olson
http://www.alt-security-alarms.com
Free listings for qualified industry professionals, dealers & suppliers.
Please visit the unofficial web site to view FAQ and participant
information.

 

[Si Ballenger]

Yep... They are very high res... Couple that to the directional "strobe"
they use to "freeze" the action and you get an excellent picture... We had
red-light cams as well as radar-cams here in BC for awhile... The people
took their tickets and challenged them all the way up to the Supreme Court.
As a result we have cameras at numerous intersections that are just
"sitting" there now and about a dozen very expensive vans "parked" in a
Government lot. What a *waste*!! :-(

Since the driver can't be seen in the photo, laws need to be
passed that allow the use of the cams to take action agains the
offending cars and not the drivers. Something like "cars that are
being operated improperly will be impounded until a $100 release
fee is paid". Somebody (probably the owner) would have to come up
with the $$$.

 

[Frank Olson]

Excellent ideas... Unfortunately the argument used against the use of
cameras had to do with the fact that "guilt" was determined by the camera,
not by an individual that would be able to apply common sense in a given
situation. For instance... a vehicle stopped in an intersection making a
left had turn has to wait for traffic to "clear" on a yellow before
proceeding. This often puts that driver in the position of moving on a red
to exit the intersection. "Snap" - you have a picture of an apparent
red-light violation... A police officer observing the maneuver would no
doubt let it pass. A camera can't exercise that judgement.

--
Frank E. Olson
http://www.alt-security-alarms.com
Free listings for qualified industry professionals, dealers & suppliers.
Please visit the unofficial web site to view FAQ and participant
information.

 

[Frank Olson]

I saw some license plate holders on a car from Arizona the other day. It
had verticle "louvers" made of some white plastic material in it. When
viewed from "straight on" the plate number was completely visible. As the
car turned right (away from me), I noticed it didn't take much "angle"
before the numbers disappeared completely... I would think something like
that should be illegal as it constitutes deliberate obstruction, don't you
think?

 

[Mark Leuck]

http://www.jammersstore.com/anti_photo.htm

I saw some license plate holders on a car from Arizona the other day. It
had verticle "louvers" made of some white plastic material in it. When
viewed from "straight on" the plate number was completely visible. As the
car turned right (away from me), I noticed it didn't take much "angle"
before the numbers disappeared completely... I would think something like
that should be illegal as it constitutes deliberate obstruction, don't you

 

[J. Stevens]

Yeah, more power to the assholes that blow red lights, that's the spirit.
js

 

[J. Stevens]

Where I live in CA, front and rear plates are required. No covering of any
kind is allowed. Cams are set to record front and rear, plus a video clip.
The driver is clearly visible, and cars simply making a right turn on red
after stopping do not trigger the camera. Police review the tickets and
throw out the ones that are close. If you get a red-light camera ticket,
your ass is caught.
js

 

[Frank Olson]

Yeah, but what happened to "innocent until proven guilty in a court of
law"??