|
|
When I see gov't CCTV cameras, I think:
| 2475 votes / 16% |
| 3120 votes / 21% |
| 1685 votes / 11% |
| 1366 votes / 9% |
| 3374 votes / 22% |
| 2666 votes / 18% |
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
- Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
- Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
- This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Re:How about (Score:5, Interesting)
Just smile to them, it makes it harder for them...
Re:I Live In the United States (Score:4, Interesting)
it's not Tripwire, it's Trapwire [gawker.com]. And it ain't picky about what systems it hooks into.
CCTV Resolution (Score:2, Interesting)
At 20m, you'd be hard pushed to separate eyes on a face at 320x240 with 90-degree field coverage
At that distance and angle of view, even 1920X1080 (1080p HD) won't be able to separate the eyes on a face. Put a 15X optical zoom on either of those cameras and you'll be able to count their teeth, but that camera will have to be manually operated.
16 or more megapixel cameras are available that can do the job really well. But, 16MP network cameras run in the $7-10,000 range.
The solution? Lots of low res cameras so that there is one close to the action.
I haven't logged into that one yet! (Score:5, Interesting)
That is my usual reaction. Many cameras actually have a tiny web server on them, and are hooked up on IP/PoE networks. There are several in my city that are accessible because they were never locked down correctly :)