How Much Digital Storage Space Is Needed ? Options

[Mick]

A question that regularly crops up in my world, involves the Digital Storage Space Required for evidential quality CCTV images (and although not quite as often, but closely linked, I also get asked about the Bandwidth Requirements to move such quality images around networks).

Please Note - I have never seen a definition of Evidential Quality CCTV, so in my own mind (in old money) I would always regard this as Real Time (25fps or more ) Recording (generally captured on SVHS), with a robust audit trail to support it's integrity.

Of course when we move into the digital world there are lots of variables that can impact on this EVIDENTIAL QUALITY REQUIREMENT, including - Type of street scene being recorded / Camera Movement / Compression Techniques and of course HOW MUCH recording you actually want to do.

And there are some others that come into play when the transmission of the images is discussed (for example latency and usage of the bandwith for PTZ).

For the transmission of images I generally take the easy way out and offer the suggestion that BT's RS1000d is generally the digital equlivant of BT's old RS1000. (Finger crossed that I haven't been telling too many porkies here).

However, GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL storage question - assumming that the street scene is a typical busy Central London (day time) shopping area, and no compression is used. Has anyone any ideas on the amount of storage space required to store digital CCTV images equlivant to the old SVHS tape standards ?

I appreciate that digital video image formats are regularly changing / being updated, but I was wondering if anyone has done any work on this ?

I remember some years ago talking to Jim Aldridge about this, and at that time his best guess re digital storage equlivant to SVHS (if I remember correctly) was 25Mb's for every second of footage.

Does that still seem about right ?

Other views would be greatly appreciated.

[MichaelC]

Please Note - I have never seen a definition of Evidential Quality CCTV, so in my own mind (in old money) I would always regard this as Real Time (25fps or more ) Recording (generally captured on SVHS), with a robust audit trail to support it's integrity.

Of course when we move into the digital world there are lots of variables that can impact on this EVIDENTIAL QUALITY REQUIREMENT, including - Type of street scene being recorded / Camera Movement / Compression Techniques and of course HOW MUCH recording you actually want to do.

However, GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL storage question - assumming that the street scene is a typical busy Central London (day time) shopping area, and no compression is used. Has anyone any ideas on the amount of storage space required to store digital CCTV images equlivant to the old SVHS tape standards ?

I remember some years ago talking to Jim Aldridge about this, and at that time his best guess re digital storage equlivant to SVHS (if I remember correctly) was 25Mb's for every second of footage.

Does that still seem about right ?

Other views would be greatly appreciated.

I'm sure the Dok will have something to say on this (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) but in the meantime I'll just mention that almost all recorders are only capable of recording at a maximum of 25 pictures per second, unless they are US standard in which case their maximum is 30.

I doubt that there is an easy answer to your question Mick, as digital recorders all tend to use some level of compression and depending on the method used and the amount of content and movement in the image, the file sizes are probably going to vary enormously.

[Ilkie]

I'm sure the Dok will have something to say on this (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) but in the meantime I'll just mention that almost all recorders are only capable of recording at a maximum of 25 pictures per second, unless they are US standard in which case their maximum is 30.

I doubt that there is an easy answer to your question Mick, as digital recorders all tend to use some level of compression and depending on the method used and the amount of content and movement in the image, the file sizes are probably going to vary enormously.

From the town centre marketplace, when I plan systems and as a rough rule of thumb I allow around 1Gb of storage per camera per day.

This allows for around 8-12fps at 4CIF (around or just above SVHS quality). There is a whole heap of variables that will change the capacity required but this I think is not a bad estimate.

As far as BT's RS100D this is an unmanaged 100B/s Ethernet circuit.

Ok back to rule of thumb, you can only use 60% of the total bandwidth on a Ethernet circuit and in town centre configuration needing high resolution high frame rate (in excess of 12 frames per second for real time use) you should allow 4Mb/s per camera..

So as an estimate you can get between 15 -20 video circuits down one RS1000D.

Unfortunately the cost of one of these is around £7.5k install and £4k per annum on top of the cost of an analogue circuit (you cannot order a RS1000D as a stand alone) so this is very expensive.

Now the killer, this is the only digital circuit that BT offer in this market, so the chances of going digital in the town centre market in the near future are in effect nil until BT change their offering (which they cannot for political and legal reasons).

Hope this is a little clearer than mud

Ilkie

[Doktor Jon]

A question that regularly crops up in my world, involves the Digital Storage Space Required for evidential quality CCTV images (and although not quite as often, but closely linked, I also get asked about the Bandwidth Requirements to move such quality images around networks).

Please Note - I have never seen a definition of Evidential Quality CCTV, so in my own mind (in old money) I would always regard this as Real Time (25fps or more ) Recording (generally captured on SVHS), with a robust audit trail to support it's integrity.

As always, very interesting points raised Mick (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

I'll come back to the 'space required' point in a second, but just to elaborate on MichaelC's comment, almost all security video recorders work on the basis of 'Real Time' as being 25 ips (images per second, we won't get into the frames / fields debate here (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ) for UK standards PAL / CCIR , and 30 ips for NTSC / EIAJ.

There are very few specialist recorders that can capture a much higher image rate, and these are normally used specifically for analysing high speed motion.

I don't actually subscribe to the argument that a system is only of any use if it records in real time, as in 90% of cases, I'd much rather have high res. images at perhaps 10 ips, then much lower quality at 25 ips. More images per second is nice, but quality IMHO should be paramount.

Maybe between us we ought to develop a 'definition' for Evidential Quality Recording (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)
Off the top of my cranium, I'd initially suggest perhaps, "Recordings that are of sufficient quality and content, as to provide significant benefit to anyone involved in the process of conducting an investigation".
Any thoughts ...?

Personally, I probably wouldn't lump the auditing issue into 'Evidential Quality', but rather view that as the key component of 'Evidential Admissibility' ... it's late, I'm being picky (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Of course when we move into the digital world there are lots of variables that can impact on this EVIDENTIAL QUALITY REQUIREMENT, including - Type of street scene being recorded / Camera Movement / Compression Techniques and of course HOW MUCH recording you actually want to do.

However, GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL storage question - assumming that the street scene is a typical busy Central London (day time) shopping area, and no compression is used. Has anyone any ideas on the amount of storage space required to store digital CCTV images equlivant to the old SVHS tape standards ?

I appreciate that digital video image formats are regularly changing / being updated, but I was wondering if anyone has done any work on this ?

I remember some years ago talking to Jim Aldridge about this, and at that time his best guess re digital storage equlivant to SVHS (if I remember correctly) was 25Mb's for every second of footage.

Does that still seem about right ?

Other views would be greatly appreciated.

I also get asked this question about storage requirements fairly regularly, and to be honest I'm actually loathe to approach the issue from that conventional perspective.

If we were looking at a straightforward non compressive record system, perhaps similar to the NVR units used by company's like Avigilon with their very high performance Megapixel cameras, these recorders are designed with law enforcement use in mind, so there is no inherent loss of content in the recording process (RAW format). As such, it is fairly straightforward to define the appropriate record capacity for a given situation.

In the real world, there are so many varients of DVR's with differing compressions, set to various levels, that it becomes almost impossible to generalise for a standardised situation, much less the reality of cameras looking at widely differing views.

Individual manufacturers may well provide reasonable indications of what their specific recorders may require in terms of record capacity, but unfortunately many base their figures on units set to lower performance's (often CIF resolution) and so they don't really relate to what should be demanded in terms of the requirements for 'Evidential Quality Recording'.

I actually did a calculation recently for a clients branded MPEG-4 based 16 channel DVR, and to be honest I couldn't get anywhere near 1Gb per camera per day (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

Leading on from Ilkie's useful comments about renting digital circuits, and particularly the cost, I'm interested in how this relates to the future potential for properly exploiting Wireless Mesh Networks.

In the short term, I've got a sneaky suspicion that for some key applications (for example TC and general Public Space surveillance), it may be advantageous to simply de-centralise part of the primary record function, so optimised high quality recording actually takes place locally to the camera/s (reducing network loading), and then stream the generously compressed real time camera feeds back to the Control Room for monitoring.
As and when required, the highest quality recordings could then be network accessed, possibly even on a seperate circuit.

It must be late, I'm rambling now (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Any thoughts chaps?

[Ilkie]

Leading on from Ilkie's useful comments about renting digital circuits, and particularly the cost, I'm interested in how this relates to the future potential for properly exploiting Wireless Mesh Networks.

In the short term, I've got a sneaky suspicion that for some key applications (for example TC and general Public Space surveillance), it may be advantageous to simply de-centralise part of the primary record function, so optimised high quality recording actually takes place locally to the camera/s (reducing network loading), and then stream the generously compressed real time camera feeds back to the Control Room for monitoring.
As and when required, the highest quality recordings could then be network accessed, possibly even on a seperate circuit.

It must be late, I'm rambling now (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Any thoughts chaps?

Interesting thoughts indeed.

I think that in the future this will be the only route to go.

However, currently think that there may be some issues.

Edge storage in this case at the camera location is indeed possible, but would need to be solid state. Taking the premise that one camera requires 1Gb per day implies a storage requirement of 31Gb to carry the inevitable month's worth, certainly possible now and cost effective (we do not want to put servers at the camera location as the environment does not suit).

Data security may be an issue as attacking the camera would wipe out the evidence.

Transmission is still an issue though.

We are involved with 3 radio and mesh pilot schemes but bandwidth is still an issue.

One product we are playing with (long range) only offers 14Mb/s aggregate on the backhaul per gateway certainly not enough for low bandwidth monitoring and high bandwidth downloads

Another mesh system we are using has 54Mb/s backhaul but very short range.

If you then throw into the equation the use of mega pixel or line scan cameras then the whole thing gets out of hand (ie 16 Megapixel cameras and 22Mb frame sizes from sentryscope).

Multiple this by the average size of a Town Centre system (say 120 cameras, although some are in excess of 300 cameras) and the size of the bandwidth requirements becomes apparent.

This is not to say that radio does not have a place as our pilots are showing!

Just trying to out ramble the Doc.

Ilkie

[Doktor Jon]

Edge storage in this case at the camera location is indeed possible, but would need to be solid state. Taking the premise that one camera requires 1Gb per day implies a storage requirement of 31Gb to carry the inevitable month's worth, certainly possible now and cost effective (we do not want to put servers at the camera location as the environment does not suit).

Ilkie,
I don't know if you saw details of this new camera from IQVision, but apart from the somewhat ... optimistic claims (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink2.gif) it certainly does seem to have ... potential. I suppose the idea of an onboard record module is not really new; if I remember correctly, a few years back Sanyo were producing a scaled down 'film replacement' camera for use in banks, which I think was XGA resolution, but not primarily intended for networking.

Data security may be an issue as attacking the camera would wipe out the evidence.

Transmission is still an issue though.

We are involved with 3 radio and mesh pilot schemes but bandwidth is still an issue.

One product we are playing with (long range) only offers 14Mb/s aggregate on the backhaul per gateway certainly not enough for low bandwidth monitoring and high bandwidth downloads

Another mesh system we are using has 54Mb/s backhaul but very short range.

Agreed the security of the recording package will need to be absolutely spot on, if for no other reason than to ensure 'Evidential Admissibility'; the possibilities for exploiting 'Mesh' technology do look very interesting, and although the higher speed links are only short range, it will hopefully offer the opportunity to get a bit more creative with the transmission infrastructure.

If you then throw into the equation the use of mega pixel or line scan cameras then the whole thing gets out of hand (ie 16 Megapixel cameras and 22Mb frame sizes from sentryscope).

Multiple this by the average size of a Town Centre system (say 120 cameras, although some are in excess of 300 cameras) and the size of the bandwidth requirements becomes apparent.

This is not to say that radio does not have a place as our pilots are showing!

Just trying to out ramble the Doc.

Ilkie

Given the present limitations with MegaPixel technology, I think there may be some obvious justification for looking at perhaps 2 - 5 MP for some key locations, although given the technical demands of using super dooper high res. models, I couldn't agree more that it's a bit of a non starter for the vast majority of real world situations.

It would certainly be interesting to do a hypothetical design based on some of the points we've already discussed, but whether any Operators are actually ready for a cutting edge application driven alternative, I'm not entirely sure.

It's a brave man indeed that tries to out ramble me Ilkie (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) ... perhaps we should start a CCTV Ramblers Association?

[Mick]

Hmmmmmmmmm.

When I put my use of PSS CCTV in the Command & Control environment hat on, I get a bit jumpy when recording at the first point of contact (often the CCTV camera) is being considered.

For such a system to provide real cost savings, it generally means that lower quality images will be viewed Real Time in the CCTV control room. And that could give rise to the is it a gun or is it a stick scenario.

Let me explain -

All the time high quality recording is going on in the CCTV control room, then generally the same high quality images are being viewed in that CCTV control room in real time. Similarly the police have to ensure that if they are viewing in real time, images pushed into them from a CCTV control room, then those images should be (as near as damn it) of the same quality as those being viewed (and recorded) in the CCTV control room, and latency needs to be less than a second (a figure I have made up, just off the top of my head).

Now just imagine being a CCTV operator (or police radio despatcher) and giving evidence in a court.

You say that what you actually saw on your spot monitor, resulted in you positively believing that the suspect had a gun, and so resulted in the deployment of an armed response team.

But when the recorded product is played back in the court, it quite clearly shows the suspect carrying a stick !!!!!!!!

Mike Mansfield initially accuses you of lying.

After a little while of you explaining that the recorded images being viewed in the court, were recorded (and recovered) locally from the CCTV camera after the event, he may eventually accept the fact that what you saw WAS NOT the same (higher) quality of image that is now being played (one year later on) in the court of law.

"But Why Not" says Mike Mansfield !

Well, we couldn't afford to get the high quality locally recorded image, in real time back to the CCTV Control Room !

Mike Mansfield smiles and sits down, thinking about the next (civil) court case.

At this stage I won't even mention Fast - Time reviews of CCTV product. I'll save that for another day.

[Doktor Jon]

Hmmmmmmmmm.

When I put my use of PSS CCTV in the Command & Control environment hat on, I get a bit jumpy when recording at the first point of contact (often the CCTV camera) is being considered.

For such a system to provide real cost savings, it generally means that lower quality images will be viewed Real Time in the CCTV control room. And that could give rise to the is it a gun or is it a stick scenario.

That shouldn't really be an automatic assumption Mick.

The concept of applying an effective, practical and workable remote recording system, would really have been unthinkable just ten years ago, but then as we are constantly being reminded, we now live in a digital age (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

If we think about the various basic stages, Imaging (camera) - Transmission - Recording - Display, each of the four will be limited to some degree in terms of resolution and achievable quality.
In practice, you could have a very high quality record system located remotely (possibly local to the camera/s) which could provide investigators with access to optimised very high quality recording.

The images streamed to the control room could be optimised to exploit the maximum available potential in the transmission medium, and in a purely practical sense, the actual images coming in to the control room will in some cases, probably exceed the quality capability of the monitors being used.

As a simple example, even using a conventional analogue 540 lines resolution camera with a run of the mill transmission system, the flatscreen monitor at the end of the link may not actually be capable of resolving the full quality of the image. That doesn't mean that the full quality can't be recorded, and played back on an alternative monitor if needs be, but generally in the real world, there are far too many considerations that contribute to producing quality images, many of which are just never really properly considered.

Even in terms of compression using IP Video equipment, you probably couldn't tell from looking at a monitor whether the equipment was using Wavelet, M-JPEG, MPEG-4 or H264, and yet the file size of the individual images would vary enormously, and so contribute to wider 'issues' in terms of the network and recording.

Whether remote recording becomes a practical option, or even a preferred option with the passage of time, I somehow think is based on an inevitable acceptance that leveraging the most out of current technology, will require some more creative thinking in terms of designing systems, hopefully with the operational objectives in mind, and not simply buying in to the technology simply because it's available.

I suppose the bottom line is in order to achieve maximum quality in the displayed images, pretty much everything has to be optimised and maintained as such ... even something as simple as failing to keep a housing window clean, can seriously degrade picture quality over a period of time, and without it really even being noticed (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[Mick]

That shouldn't really be an automatic assumption Mick.

Agreed D/J - but unfortunately in the real world, it often is the case.

I think this is because it is virtually impossible to write a rock solid image quality requirement (be it for viewing or the recorded product).
Especially a requirement that installers/ suppliers will comfortably sign up to.
Quite naturally the installers / suppliers point out all the variables you have mentioned above. Going from cleaning the camera lense, to cleaning the monitor screen ........................... and about another three hundred variables in between those two end points.

All this sort of thinking has resulted in me generally encouraging system owners to record where they view. Then at least they are more likely that have the same quality of recording, to that being viewed in Real - Time. And so hopefully avoid any tricky days in court.

Incidentally, if it hasn't happened already, I am sure that in the not too distant future we will probably see a CCTV supplier / installer at a Crown Court (or Coroners Court / Civil Court / Public Enquiry) hopefully only as a witness, explaining the full details of the system they have put in / maintained, and possibly even the rationale behind certain decisions reached during the procurement /installation process.

Like all new technologies, the legal profession has generally not got too involved with the technical details of CCTV. But you can be sure that at some time in the future, they will want to start examining it in far greater detail than they do at the moment.

We now regularly see computer experts explaining all about the innermost workings of a PC, and telecoms experts explaining cell site analysis. It won't be long now before there is a requirement from the legal profession for expert CCTV practitioners to (independently) examine CCTV systems, and then give their views to a court.

[Doktor Jon]

Agreed D/J - but unfortunately in the real world, it often is the case.

I think this is because it is virtually impossible to write a rock solid image quality requirement (be it for viewing or the recorded product).
Especially a requirement that installers/ suppliers will comfortably sign up to.
Quite naturally the installers / suppliers point out all the variables you have mentioned above. Going from cleaning the camera lense, to cleaning the monitor screen ........................... and about another three hundred variables in between those two end points.

In the real world, I spend half my life playing devils advocado (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) but yes I'd have to agree, too much is assumed, and in many respects, that's an underlying reason why so many avoidable problems just keep getting repeated.

Writing an "image quality requirement" isn't a problem in itself, provided it is customised to each individual camera feed, and unfortunately, being as that has a cost implication, it's just not going to happen.
In practice, most supply and install companies would be loathe to sign up for any technical commitment, unless they were convinced that the spec. was drawn up by someone that can articulate the requirements, and who understands the practical limitations of existing technology.

In practice, I tend to find it is only experienced, confident and 'professional' installers who will take the trouble to explain things in detail; and sadly there are just not enough of those in the Industry.

All this sort of thinking has resulted in me generally encouraging system owners to record where they view. Then at least they are more likely that have the same quality of recording, to that being viewed in Real - Time. And so hopefully avoid any tricky days in court.

Incidentally, if it hasn't happened already, I am sure that in the not too distant future we will probably see a CCTV supplier / installer at a Crown Court (or Coroners Court / Civil Court / Public Enquiry) hopefully only as a witness, explaining the full details of the system they have put in / maintained, and possibly even the rationale behind certain decisions reached during the procurement /installation process.

In general terms, given the cost / technical limitations / 'legacy' issues with expanding existing installations, there hasn't really been any practical alternative in the past.

That said, even taking a slightly cynical view of many claims made for the wondrous world of 'digital' (and they don't come much more cynical than moi (IMG:style_emoticons/default/whistling.gif) ), there are now increasing opportunities opening up for taking an alternative approach, particularly where existing infrastructure can be enhanced by grafting on selective new technologies and techniques.

Incidentally, if it hasn't happened already, I am sure that in the not too distant future we will probably see a CCTV supplier / installer at a Crown Court (or Coroners Court / Civil Court / Public Enquiry) hopefully only as a witness, explaining the full details of the system they have put in / maintained, and possibly even the rationale behind certain decisions reached during the procurement /installation process.

Like all new technologies, the legal profession has generally not got too involved with the technical details of CCTV. But you can be sure that at some time in the future, they will want to start examining it in far greater detail than they do at the moment.

We now regularly see computer experts explaining all about the innermost workings of a PC, and telecoms experts explaining cell site analysis. It won't be long now before there is a requirement from the legal profession for expert CCTV practitioners to (independently) examine CCTV systems, and then give their views to a court.

I've no doubt you're absolutely correct Mick, although if the truth will out, I can guarantee there will be some very unpalatable and avoidable revelations, which could take quite a bit of explaining.

I don't know why but certain key points in the National CCTV Strategy suddenly spring to mind; as I've said for many a year, the Industry needs to get it's act together voluntarily, before events start forcing hands.

If the media ever decided to do a detailed investigation into the way in which certain aspects of CCTV usage have developed along political lines, rather than detailed operational objectives, I think we could expect to see a significant drop in public support ... at best!

[MichaelC]

One product we are playing with (long range) only offers 14Mb/s aggregate on the backhaul per gateway certainly not enough for low bandwidth monitoring and high bandwidth downloads

Another mesh system we are using has 54Mb/s backhaul but very short range.

very interesting thread this (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes.gif)

Any idea Ilkie what sort of range the 54Mb units are capable of achieving in an urban environment?
and how reliable are they?

[Ilkie]

very interesting thread this (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes.gif)

Any idea Ilkie what sort of range the 54Mb units are capable of achieving in an urban environment?
and how reliable are they?

I'll let you know soon as the use of this unit will be part of the second stage of a large pilot project we are running.

The issue sought of revolves around the intended use of the Mesh network.

If you are looking to use it to 'illuminate' the street scene with wi fi this factor becomes the limiting factor (say 250m radius from each radio) so this is the extent in which the backhaul radio is required to work (hence the 54Mb/s) is no more than this.

If the wi fi bit is not the determining factor, alternative product is specified to a maximum of 10 miles on backhaul at 14Mb/s, the wi-fi bit is still 250m though.

Hope this makes sense.

Ilkie

[Doktor Jon]

If you are looking to use it to 'illuminate' the street scene with wi fi this factor becomes the limiting factor (say 250m radius from each radio) so this is the extent in which the backhaul radio is required to work (hence the 54Mb/s) is no more than this.

If the wi fi bit is not the determining factor, alternative product is specified to a maximum of 10 miles on backhaul at 14Mb/s, the wi-fi bit is still 250m though.

Hope this makes sense.

Ilkie

It's late (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ... I'll have to think about this tomorrow (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Just curious, but do you have any experience of using the Fluidmesh equipment Ilkie?
It certainly looks interesting on paper, but I don't know if it's been used in anger anywhere around our septic isle.

[Ilkie]

It's late (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ... I'll have to think about this tomorrow (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Just curious, but do you have any experience of using the Fluidmesh equipment Ilkie?
It certainly looks interesting on paper, but I don't know if it's been used in anger anywhere around our septic isle.

No not yet.

I believe Fluidmesh is designed specifically for CCTV use and is of the shorter range/higher throughput type.

I think they have some installations in the UK, but there is not a lot around yet by any manufacturer.

Give me a couple of weeks and I will be able to give an indication of how things are going.

Ilkie

[Mick]

................................. If the media ever decided to do a detailed investigation into the way in which certain aspects of CCTV usage have developed along political lines, rather than detailed operational objectives, I think we could expect to see a significant drop in public support ... at best!

As an aside -

Back in the late 80's one of the first REQUIREMENTS I heard from a local council official who wanted a PSS CCTV system was - "It had to be capable of keeping an eye on the thieving binmen ........... "

Note Poetic licence has resulted in me adding the word Thieving, But I assure you, that was what the official had in mind.

No names, no packdrill !

[Doktor Jon]

I believe Fluidmesh is designed specifically for CCTV use and is of the shorter range/higher throughput type.

Give me a couple of weeks and I will be able to give an indication of how things are going.

I'm not really in the habit of promoting any individual manufacturers products, but 'their's' is indeed designed specifically for video surveillance, and if I remember correctly, it was developed by a joint team including technical bods from the MIT in the States.

I might make a point of asking them where the equipment is currently being used, but in the meantime, I for one would be very interested in how you get on with the Mesh experience Ilkie (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes.gif)

[Doktor Jon]

As an aside -

Back in the late 80's one of the first REQUIREMENTS I heard from a local council official who wanted a PSS CCTV system was - "It had to be capable of keeping an eye on the thieving binmen ........... "

Note Poetic licence has resulted in me adding the word Thieving, But I assure you, that was what the official had in mind.

He obviously wasn't demonstrating any significant psychic tendencies then (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Unless of course he was sub consciously more interested in using the systems to clean up on the future detritus of our modern society (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

Just as another aside, I have to confess I once installed a system in an LA waste recycling station.
Fitting the camera in the bin lorry garage, mid summer, was one of my more .... 'heady' life enriching experiences; twenty five ish years later and I can still smell it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

And I actually thought then it couldn't get any worse (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Ilkie]

He obviously wasn't demonstrating any significant psychic tendencies then (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Unless of course he was sub consciously more interested in using the systems to clean up on the future detritus of our modern society (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

Just as another aside, I have to confess I once installed a system in an LA waste recycling station.
Fitting the camera in the bin lorry garage, mid summer, was one of my more .... 'heady' life enriching experiences; twenty five ish years later and I can still smell it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

And I actually thought then it couldn't get any worse (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Try Council Mortuary and crematoria (2 off)

Ilkie

[Doktor Jon]

Try Council Mortuary and crematoria (2 off)

Ilkie

Probably not many Data Access Requests there then (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Ever done a sewage works Ilkie ...?

I had to do a consultancy project on one not that many years ago, and the only advice they gave me before I started, was not to smile if the winds blowing (IMG:style_emoticons/default/eek.gif)

Followed the suggestion to the letter, but I was still sick as a dog for about a fortnight afterwards (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

If you're ever offered one, my advice would be to turn your nose up at it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif)

[Mick]

I am pretty sure Local Authority re-cycling centers (or council tips to you and I) will all be CCTV and ANPR monitored within the next few years.

A great way for the authorities to keep tabs on who's throwing what ................... and support any future pay as you throw legislation.

Incidentally, I was up at mine last week, and most of the kit needed to set one up, was in their high tech skip !