Is Cheap Video Surveillance Possible?

timholman writes "After a series of burglaries and auto break-ins in my neighborhood, I'm thinking about adding some video security cameras to my home. To me, the object isn't just deterrence — if someone tries to break into my house or my car (parked on the street in front of my house), I'd like to provide a high-quality image of the perpetrator to the police. Inexpensive video surveillance systems, with their atrocious image quality, are nearly useless. The problem is being able to get good image quality at an affordable price. After some research, I've decided that using network cameras to FTP images to a central server over a HomePlug network is the best solution. However, good megapixel network cameras (e.g. Stardot or Axis cameras) can easily cost more than $1,000 each. Has any of you dealt with a similar situation? Is there any way to get reasonable quality (preferably open source) daytime and nighttime video surveillance equipment for home use without paying an arm and a leg? Is it better to go with a couple of expensive cameras, or a multitude of inexpensive cameras? Is paying two to three thousand dollars simply unavoidable if I want to monitor my front and back yards?"

IQeye

[kmsigel]

I've been working with IQinvision's IQEye 511 camera (www.iqeye.com) for the past couple of months. It is a 1.3MP camera capable of 15 fps. It communicates over and is powered by 100mbit PoE. I think the street price is somewhere around 600-700 dollars, depending on what you get with it (PoE injector, lens, etc). The camera seems to take pretty good pictures and can deal with pretty varied lighting conditions. It has various ways to retrieve images, like emailing or ftping them to you on a set schedule. Hope this helps.

Re:IQeye

[timeOday]

I'm surprised it has to be 600-700 dollars when 8mp consumer digicams are $180 and have an intricate zoom lens you don't even want for surveillance. What we need is a 6mp monchrome sensor with no IR filter, a fixed-length lens, and wifi, for about $100. OK, $130 with a motion sensor. Come on China, you can do it!

Re:IQeye

[Xzzy]

There's pretty good motion detecting software out there already.. a bit of time with google should solve that problem.

I've solved the security camera problem with a $50 webcam, but I was only monitoring a desk in a cubicle that had a bad habit of things going missing. Worked pretty well, though lighting wasn't an issue in that case. Neither was cable length, because the camera only had to be a couple feet from the host PC.

Maybe one could rig up something like that, get a couple Fit-PC's (they run around $300 each) and a couple webcams and go from there.

Not sure how to solve low light situations.. but it's a long shot cheaper than $1000 if you can live without it.

Re:

[timeOday]

Not sure how to solve low light situations.. but it's a long shot cheaper than $1000 if you can live without it.

My understanding is normal CCDs are IR-sensitive (until they put a filter over them block it). So it just needs an IR light on it. Seems like camcorders used to come with a nighttime mode just like this.

Re:IQeye

[innerweb]

Camcorders, and other digital optics used to not have the IR blocked. It was not until it became popular to post IR pictures of people in normal clothing became popular. The problem was/is that IR tends to let us imagine we are seeing through the clothing. As one could understand, not something most people want being done. So, congress rattled its saber and the camera manufacturers removed or filtered the IR. This is also related to why digital cameras make clicking sounds that in many cases you can not disable. It was to warn victims of someone taking illicit photographs.

Which just goes to show, anything can be used in ways that were never intended by the inventor/manufacturer.

InnerWeb

Re:IQeye

[mmarlett]

Yeah, but a shotgun won't save you from a non-violent thief. It will just give them something extra to take.

Re:

[Jerry]

mmmm... I wasn't aware that a "non-violent" thief was immune to shotgun pellets or slugs. Is that just the .410 shells or does the immunity include 12 gage as well?

Perhaps you should inform the Police and security agencies that their favorite choice of weapon is useless against such a well shielded adversary. I'm sure they will be glad to know BEFORE they trust their lives to such a useless weapon.

Re:IQeye

[Ihlosi]

If your home is such a big problem that you NEED a shotgun to protect yourself you really NEED to move.

The only other available places require machine guns or anti-tank weaponry ...

I guess "need" is for each of us to decide

[doug141]

Repeating this story is worth being modded down for:

Where We're Headed
Robert A. Waters
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds a weapon--it looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choir boys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once-great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already desensitize

Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide

[hansamurai]

Okay, that's a great story and all, but it needs some updating. Tony Martin was released from jail in July of 2003 (shooting occurred in August of 1999) after his life sentence had been reduced because of him supposedly suffering from paranoid personality disorder. The one burglar did attempt to sue, but also dropped that. Tony Martin also supposedly sold his story for 125,000 pounds.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with your story, just making sure it is updated appropriately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer) [wikipedia.org]

Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason Tony Martin took a lot more shit than maybe he deserved (i fully support his defense of his home and the robbers were definitely scum) was because he shot them in the back as they were running away. He was also a cause celebre in much of the English media, not how the article makes him out, and that is why, several years ago now, he was released after only serving 3 years - life of course not even meaning close to life in England anyway. If he had shot them in the face not the back and they were actually inside his home not running away from it then it is unlikely that he would have had a custodial sentence at all - the right of reasonable force being a very long and well respected one in England, despite Blair putting the right of criminals before the law abiding. I'm from Norfolk myself and Tony Martin nothing but support round here. Also, and this i'm not sure of in his case, but farmers are allowed to legally own shotguns, as are sporting shooters etc. Handguns and rifles are nearly impossilbe to obtain legally though.

So the story as presented is incredibly biased, obviously written to rally the NRA crowd in America. Maybe you made the post for the sake of completion but it should really be modded down for being only half truths and propoganda.

Re:I guess "need" is for each of us to decide

[asynchronous13]

In fairness, you should include all the facts. Namely that Tony Martin's shotgun certificate had been previously revoked for gun-related misbehavior. And he shot the robbers as they were fleeing out a window. It's a bit harder to claim self defense when you shoot someone in the back.

While the outcome does seem unjust, the case was not as lopsidedly unjust as this version of the story makes it appear.

Re:IQeye

[ZorbaTHut]

No, really. Citation needed.

Here [vox.com] is a blog where someone's mentioned a lot of the statistics. The number of gun accidents, as he discovered, is somewhere around 1150/year. The number of crimes prevented is apparently somewhere around 1.5 MILLION per year.

So, yes. Citation needed. Your gut feeling that guns are evil is not, in any way, proof.

Uh, you realize your error, right?

[raehl]

You're comparing accidental deaths to crimes prevented.

That's like comparing fatal car accidents to broken tail lights.

Let's say I have a household with myself, my wife, and my two kids. Now, I have the option of purchasing a handgun to 'protect my home'. In the next year, let's say there's a one in 10,000 chance that I will successfully use my handgun to prevent a criminal from stealing my stuff. But there's a one in 50,000 chance that my gun will accidentally kill someone.

Is the life of someone in my f

Re:Uh, you realize your error, right?

[ZorbaTHut]

First off, I was replying the comment before me, which said that for each person who saved their home with a firearm, there were 10 who were hurt by accidental gunfire. I was pointing out that instead of the ratio being 1:10, it was more like 1000:1. I never actually said that this ratio was acceptable.

However, I do believe that it is.

First, you're making up wild numbers to "prove" your case. Gun ownership is estimated around 200 million - given that previous number of 1150 accidents, that implies that there's a one in 170,000 chance that your gun will accidentally kill someone. Also, given the 1.5 million crimes prevented, that's a one in 133 chance that you will prevent a criminal from committing a crime. Not, necessarily, from stealing your TV. Looking at the paper quoted there, this appears to be about a 2:3:3 ratio of rape, assault, and robbery. So out of that 1.5 million crimes, that's about 375 thousand rapes averted.

Is preventing the rape of 300 women worth a single innocent life?

Is preventing the rape of 300 women, plus the assault of 450 people, plus 450 robberies, worth a single innocent life?

(Also, consider the chance that some of those potential rapes would end in murder. Apparently only two percent of rapes end in murder [www.rrj.ca], so that means there's about six murders prevented there as well. Versus a single accidental death. That is a trade I would be willing to take.)

If you can sit there and say "okay, I have looked at the numbers and I still think guns are fundamentally a bad idea", then, okay, you've made a decision, and I'll respect your decision. But as long as your decision is based on wild extrapolation and guesswork, it's not a particularly valuable one.

As a side note: one of my friends was robbed while home a few months ago. The criminals broke in, held them at gunpoint, and discussed raping his girlfriend, which they decided not to do because they didn't want to risk hanging around too long. At least some criminals aren't particularly afraid of head-to-head confrontation.

I agree that we need reasonable, well-thought-out laws on this matter. That reasonable regulation should be based on facts and actual numbers. Please research before inventing numbers and making claims.

Re:Uh, you realize your error, right?

[ZorbaTHut]

Actually, that wasn't a made up number, though I did forget to link the paper itself. Here it is [ncjrs.gov], direct from the DOJ. Check out the chart on page 9. (2:3:3, not 2:2:3.) Sorry for not making that clearer, though, I should have linked the paper there.

And yes, the 1.5 million number is possibly an overestimation. It's rather impossible to say, unfortunately - a good deal of that aforementioned page 9 discusses the problems involved in getting that number, and why it's probably inaccurate. However, you can't honestly be claiming that it's an overestimation by two orders of magnitude, which is what your original estimate would require.

Re:

[ZorbaTHut]

Why do people keep taking what I'm saying out of context? When did I ever say this would have been solved by having a gun? I brought this story up as a counterpoint to raehl's comment:

If a criminal is breaking into your home, and you wake up, that criminal is going to leave. Criminals don't want head-to-head confrontation any more than you do.

I know of at least one case where this was simply not true. That's why I mentioned this. I wasn't attempting to make any other point with it - please stop trying to we

Re:IQeye

[ZorbaTHut]

You have proven that guns kill people. Congratulations.

Duh.

Of course guns kill people. That's all they're capable of doing. That is what they are designed to do, period. So of course you can find statistics that relatively a large number of people are killed by guns in what is, by far, the largest country with any significant gun ownership. This should be obvious to you.

Your statistics say nothing about how many crimes they stop. Your statistics say nothing about how many people are killed by other things when guns are not available.

Does the good outweigh the bad? I think so. I can't prove it, of course, but I think so.

But even assuming I'm wrong, the fact that 11,344 people are killed by guns in the US every year is not a proof of such. It's barely a data point.

48 thousand people were killed in car accidents in 2004 [cdc.gov] (page 33). Let's ban cars!

If you want to prove that guns are a problem, you'll have to sit down and figure out exactly what good it is that they provide, quantize that, and compare it to the harm. Also, remember to not include deaths that would have been caused by other means if guns weren't available, appropriately pro-rated by likelihood. Good luck, because you'll need it.

Re:

[ZorbaTHut]

Why do you insist on framing this as "people defending their homes from burglary"? Robberies are not the only crimes that occur.

Also, if you're allowed to multiply the chance of a gun accident by the number of years someone lives, I am allowed to multiply the chance of rape, murder, assault, and so forth. Multiplying by age is a red herring that you're using simply to make the number larger. Stop doing that, it's immaterial to the comparisons.

We're not looking at the raw "bad things" that guns cause. We're

Re:

[Ihlosi]

Germany has no guns,

I wouldn't be so sure of that. There's about 10 million registered ones, and police estimates that there are about 20 million unregistered, illegal ones (not necessarily owned by people who would use them to commit other crimes, there's enough crazed "collectors" out there).

Re:

[macdaddy]

They want to steal from unoccupied homes. Just being awake will chase most criminals from your home.

You might want to do a little more research if you plan on laying that claim again. I suggest you start here [google.com] and work your way over to this gem [google.com]. People with motives other than robbery break into homes every day. A simple Google search [google.com] will demonstrate that quite effectively.

Re:

[4D6963]

Your 1.5 million crimes prevented count every instance where a person with a gun feels they prevented a crime. But lets be realistic. Was it the gun that prevented the crime? Or just the mere presence of a witness?

Criminals don't want head-to-head confrontation any more than you do. They want to steal from unoccupied homes.

People who ever step out of their house might be raped, assaulted, jacked or car jacked. The 1.5 million crimes in questions aren't all about people getting through your window to ste

Re:

[ZorbaTHut]

Then he should be arrested and tried for murder?

I'm not quite sure what logic you're trying to follow here. Are you saying that people should [i]not[/i] be allowed to defend themselves? Because if so, I don't want to live in any country that you have any ability to set laws in.

Re:IQeye

[montyzooooma]

But long story short, your great grandfather still got shot. Having a gun didn't protect him at all.

Re:IQeye

[q-the-impaler]

A large majority of gun owners, DO NOT USE GUNS FOR PROTECTION. They keep them locked in a case with a gun lock and the ammunition in a separate location.

Yes indeed. That must be a really horrible way to live. I really can't imagine having to live in such a climate of fear.

I assume you are not from the States because of your absolutely idiotic idea that everyone in the States lives in fear and owns guns. Fine, perpetuate that myth. Please don't ever bother visiting. You may get shot.

Re:IQeye

[clary]

I apologize for feeding the troll, but idiotic moderation has him pushed up to "3, Insightful," and I just can't stand it.

No, this is why the rest of the world *pities* the US.

This profound utterance deserves a well-considered response, one that will bridge the obvious and unfortunate cultural gap. How about this: Why don't you stick your pity up your ass?

Yes indeed. That must be a really horrible way to live. I really can't imagine having to live in such a climate of fear.

I have traveled internationally enough to understand that the United States is blessed with great natural resources and with a history of freedom and opportunity. I am humbled and grateful to live here.

That said, there are places in this country with crime rates high enough that gun ownership for protection is an obvious and reasonable choice. What I really don't understand is the response of those to whom using the best tool for the job is somehow unthinkable. Would these same people oppose table saws for woodworking because they can accidentally take off fingers?

By the way, I have had formal gun safety training. I make sure my children also get it at an appropriate age. I reinforce that training during recreational shooting. Life is full of risks, but owning a gun need not be any more dangerous than owning an automobile, a table saw, a swimming pool, or any other useful but potentially dangerous objects.

Re:

[Hatta]

I've never really understood this point of view. If some kid breaks into your home to steal your TV - are you really going to shoot them, potentially kill them? You would potentially kill someone to keep your $1000 TV?

How do you know what the kid is in your house for? Are you really going to let some kid rape your wife or daughter because you thought he just wanted your TV?

If someone is in your house, you have to assume that your life is in danger and respond appropriately. Anything else would be insanely

Re:

[rtb61]

It is all the result of an overly competitive dog eat dog culture with a break down in the social welfare net. Those who are incapable of effectively competing simply resort to violent crime and that combined with a gun culture results in a huge number of violent deaths and a world record prison population.

They have locked themselves into the idea that the cost of all that violence and the massive prison population is cheaper than an effective social welfare net and the marginal risks of decriminalising b

Re:IQeye

[hdon]

Imagine that! Video cameras more expensive than still cameras!

Incidentally, timholman, I recommend you invest in a quality still-picture digital camera if you want an economic solution for high quality digital imaging.

I'd take a look at buying one of the cheaper Canon Powershot cameras between $100 and $200 for which there exists open source firmware [slashdot.org]. For networking, you might explore whether or not the USB mechanism in the camera can be coerced into the host role (as opposed to acting as a device) which has been accomplished in similar situations for devices such as the BlackDog [projectblackdog.com] and many iPods with Linux installed [ipodlinux.org]. With USB device hosting capability in hand, you could then easily connect it to a USB Ethernet NIC for a little over $20.

With your own firmware installed, you might even do something really novel and program the camera to do something that will get the intruder's attention before snapping a photo so that they are sure to be looking right at it, giving you an excellent shot of his or her identity.

Let us know how it goes!

Sorry, wrong URL

[hdon]

I meant to give this URL for the "open source firmware" link. I must have messed it up somehow:

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_in_Brief [wikia.com]

A way to get the intruders attention

[threaded]

A way to get the intruders attention is to build the camera into a clock and place it in the window.

They always look at what time it is and you get a full face closeup too.

I used to build these camera in clock things years ago, but now you can get them really cheap from china. The camera doesn't need to be such a high resolution as 'chummy' always comes up real close to see what time it is.

Re:

[Ed Avis]

Then to freak them out even more, you can make the clock tick backwards...

Re:

[NeverVotedBush]

Actually, contrary to some of the posts here, security cameras are quite sensitive in the near-IR and they don't use a flash. They use near-IR LEDs to provide illumination.

Anyone interested in security cameras and equipment ought to check out http://www.supercircuits.com/ [supercircuits.com]

Re:IQeye

[bendodge]

Lighting isn't that hard; get a B&W CCD camera and use a lot of infrared LEDs. Invisible to the naked eye, but they work fine for many video cams.

Also, using a still cam with custom housing and a motion sensor is a pretty good idea. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, a firearm is your best bet. ;)

Re:

[arivanov]

After that you need 200£ on vandalproof housing for it.

A good security camera can take pictures quietly, unobtrusively, without any extra light and send them somewhere else.

I recently looked at the same problem and this is what I ended up with:

1. I have played with the low-end Axis and IMO the older model used to be useless. It did not have sensitivity under low lighting conditions. Same is the case for most other webcams. Using them unless you have security lighting triggered by a different sen

Axis 207MW

[ptbarnett]

I stumbled across a webcam in my neighborhood on Weather Underground [wunderground.com], and was impressed by the image quality: an Axis 207MW [axis.com], up to 1280x1024 at 12 fps.

It supports both WiFi (WPA2-PSK, if you want it) and 100BT. There's no IR illuminator, but they claim 2 LUX sensitivity. You can find them on the 'Net for about $400.00.

Re:

[ozmanjusri]

an Axis 207MW [axis.com], up to 1280x1024 at 12 fps.

I have one of those too. Axis cameras are good for the price. I also use Linksys WVC200s, which are good pan/tilt/zoom cameras for around AU$350. A real cheapie is XNET's NTC101W Wireless IPCamera for around AU$200. The XNETs are low quality, but good for motion detection, which is then used to trigger the Axis.

I mainly use Motion [lavrsen.dk] on the software side, along with a couple of shell scripts. At the moment, it's all custom stuff, and my personal setup r

Here is a start...

[neapolitan]

Well, you've got to do a cost-benefit analysis similar to a business. In low light it is going to be difficult to get a high-quality images without extra light (obvious you are monitoring them) or a really, really expensive camera which is vulnerable to spray-painting or vandalism itself.

I was going to do something similar at a previous residence, but found that I would have to worry about people stealing the camera, or simply wearing a mask and gloves when they break in, which will really render the best camera useless. In the end, I used a hidden cheap Linksys webcam that was discreetly hidden inside my house, enough to alert me and catch a careless criminal.

I have also had good success with the D-Link products, which are very cheap.

http://www.dlink.com/products/category.asp?cid=60&sec=0 [dlink.com]

Also, keep in mind that making your house / area "different" may actually attract more attention. Numerous cameras outside a particular residence screams "important stuff here" if you can't hide them effectively.

Re:

[greyhueofdoubt]

>>In low light it is going to be difficult to get a high-quality images without extra light

I agreed with the rest of your post, but from what I've seen of small CCTV cameras these days, they use IR LEDs for illumination. I have one from DealExtreme ($12) that comes with them built in.

-b

Re:Here is a start...

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

I use mainly low-end Axis cameras in my department. I have 6 set up constantly updating a dedicated server. 2 are done at the only points of entry for an automobile so we can get license plate numbers, 2 are set up on the doors of laboratories, and 2 are set up at the main entrances. The two times we've had to use data from the cameras showed that the thieves were actually people that we knew. The video quality isn't great (800 x 600). But realistically if the burglar isn't somebody you know, the highest quality video in the world won't help the police unless you live in a very small town.

The surveillence is the easy bit

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Unless we're talking murder or some serious crime, you're probably going to have a hard time getting the police interested in investing the resources to try to identify the perp and hunt them down and arrest them.

Re:The surveillence is the easy bit

[ePhil_One]

Unless we're talking murder or some serious crime, you're probably going to have a hard time getting the police interested in investing the resources to try to identify the perp and hunt them down and arrest them.

One of the reasons is because of the difficulty in gathering evidence. About 90% of bank robbers are caught because banks have good surveillance systems. If you can provide the police decent video/photos of the crime/criminals you have a much better chance of getting them involved. They may recognize the criminal already (you may too, criminals tend not to travel far), and if they go to court the chance of success are very high.

Re:The surveillence is the easy bit

[evanbd]

Exactly. I sat on a grand jury a couple years ago and heard numerous burglary indictments. Most of the cases the police clearly weren't terribly interested until the perp happened to hit a place with good surveillance, and then they usually knew who it was immediately and the case went very quickly.

The county I'm in does grand juries a little oddly -- they have two standing grand juries for all felony indictments (investigatory grand juries are different). You serve one day a month for a year (one jury meets at the start of the month, the other in the middle), and you hear a couple dozen cases each day. So I saw plenty of burglary cases, and the ones that actually came to us tended to have either video surveillance or an ID from a pawn shop. There were some stupid crook stories too (hint: if you're stealing a car, with boat attached, remember to hook up the trailer lights), but mostly the indictments came from video footage accompanied by a comment from the officer that they thought the perp was responsible for several other area breakins but couldn't prove it.

Re:

[evanbd]

In general, you're wrong. The people stealing from houses that we heard about got caught either because someone called it in in progress, or because they did a bad job selling the stuff. The video surveillance tended to be at convenience stores in the poor, high-crime parts of town; in one case that I remember, the convenience store installed video cameras after the second breakin, and caught the guy on the third.

Police aren't interested in investigating burglaries where no one got hurt, be they poor ne

Re:

[Nethead]

no, octal.

Re:

[Technician]

In low light it is going to be difficult to get a high-quality images without extra light (obvious you are monitoring them) or a really, really expensive camera which is vulnerable to spray-painting or vandalism itself.

Built in IR is not good for color. A motion yard light is the norm and is often not thought of in conjuction with a security camera. A well lit area and cameras is an area often avoided, but a motion light is often ignored in backyards. Get good color photos. Color logos on clothing and o

WiLife

[HaeMaker]

http://www.wilife.com/Default.aspx [wilife.com]

Where do you live?

[QuantumG]

Unless you live in a small town a picture of the perpetrator is all but useless. The police really don't care about break and entry anyway.

Re:

[MrSteveSD]

That's true (at least in the UK where I am). Even if the windows were smothered in fingerprints, they wouldn't bother taking them.

Re:

[Artuir]

If you know the cameras won't do anything, don't you think in most cases the burglars know that too? Sure the "profession" attracts a lot of stupid types, but it ought to be common knowledge to even them that cameras don't really mean anything for home security other than a deterrent.

Re:

[C_L_Lk]

They do when you post photos of the perpetrator in the act of the crime all over town with a "reward" offer affixed.

But how to monitor the surveillance cameras ....

[karvind]

I was thinking of putting good megapixel network cameras for surveillance but then I needed to buy another set of good cameras to monitor the surveillance cameras and then another set of cameras ...

Re:

[Digestromath]

I've solved this recursive camera protecting camera issue. I've rigged all my camera sites with low cost, high efficiency, surplus claymore mines. Most burglars aren't to familiar with tripwires or explosive ordinance disposal. It's very effective!

Quick answer - No

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of CCTV, even professional installed stuff simply isn't of high enough quality to secure identity, let alone a conviction.

If you want the quality then pay the money for good cameras. Megapixel is the way to go, especially if you want to cover a whole front or back yard.

Also don't forget good lenses for them as well. Lenses that did a good job for standard definition often don't cut it with megapixel cameras.

Check out http://www.arecontvision.com/ and http://www.iqeye.com/
I don't work for e

Dog

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a dog. The TCO may be higher than the camera, but the deterrence factor is way higher (and it's better to not be broken into at all, than have footage of your breakins afterwards).

Re:Dog

[ross.w]

a flock of geese FTW Best burglar alarm evar, and no-one will mess with a flock of angry geese defending their territory. really.

Re:Dog

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you can replace the geese with seagulls. It'll make them run. Run so far away.

Good images are important

[evanbd]

I sat on a grand jury a couple years ago. (Not an investigatory one; we issued general felony indictments. The county I live in does things a little oddly -- they have a pair of standing grand juries, each of which meets once a month to hear potential indictments. You're on the jury for a year, and hear a couple dozen cases each day, so I saw a bunch. All felony indictments go through one of the two.)

The most common case for small time burglary was that there would be a set of crimes that the police were convinced were related, and then finally the thief would hit some place that had video cameras that were placed well enough to produce a usable image -- at which point, odds were they had already had dealings with that person, and the case got fairly easy. So usually they would present it to us as an indictment for just the one crime, but explain that the investigation was being treated as part of a group.

So if you want the guy caught, there's really no substitute for good video surveillance. Sure, plenty of cases were based on things like the thief pawning stolen goods, but video was the most prevalent and easiest to work with.

GPL Monitoring Software

[JumboMessiah]

ZoneMinder [zoneminder.com] It has some really nice features.

easy and cheap solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell the local FBI office you're thinking of opening a Taliban mosque and they'll keep 24/7 high-res real-time video with CD quality audio of your entire property with an emphasis on identifying anyone coming or going. Then if anything happens they'll already have the suspect's name, address and phone number on record. Just ask the police to get the info from the FBI.

Seriously, get a dog

[greyhueofdoubt]

You need to get yourself a dog. It doesn't have to be big or scary looking- a small, yappy-type dog will do just fine. Unless you advertise the presence of valuable goods inside your house, a burglar will not break into your house if it is occupied. I think you'll find that most burglars will go for the lowest-hanging fruit, which will be your neighbor's house (unless they also have a dog, in which case the next house over is the low fruit). They want to get in, grab the stuff that is easiest to make off with and pawn, and then get out. I doubt you have any state secrets or anything like that in your house; this is a simple cost/benefit analysis for you and the burglars.

Another thing to look into is a neighborhood watch program. Of course, if you live in a neighborhood like mine that might not be a viable option. In that case, you need to get yourself a dog and a steel-core door. Skip the expensive cameras. Are they really going to save you money? Or is this a vindictive side of you, the side that might put a "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot twice" sign on your fence?

-b

Re:Seriously, get a dog

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. Ever watched the show It Takes a Thief? They broke into so many people's homes [with permission] with 'family dogs.' The animals were so use to people, they just wagged their tail after being pet, or he'd quickly find them a treat in the fridge.

Re:

[kklein]

I have a friend whose father trains guard/attack dogs. They have a gigantic German Shepherd on the farm that is their "show dog."

Goddamn I hate that dog.

You drive up for a BBQ, everyone's inside, and he doesn't know you because you've only been there twice in 5 years. Damn dog charges, snarling, and backs you back into your car. What do you do? You're invited to someone's house, and they have the equivalent of a killbot outside, that makes his own decisions on who is friend and who is foe.

I am ver

Re:

[Idiot with a gun]

Or you could label yourself as a poor odd philosopher with a "All Prosecutors will be Transgressicuted" sign.

Re:

[zamboni1138]

You need to watch the TV show 'It Takes a Thief' (Discovery Channel, 2PM EDT Monday-Friday). Time and again I see dogs portrayed by their owners as the ultimate security device, only to have them rendered 100% ineffective within 15 to 30 seconds after John enters the target house and isolates the dog into a room not used by the thief. I even saw him steal a dog once. Dogs, unless trained to absolutely kill anything that enters the house (including you) are not an effective deterrent, period. And if, unlike

The cost of good security...

[Pollux]

"Is paying two to three thousand dollars simply unavoidable if I want to monitor my front and back yards?"

Yes.

What do you really want to capture? A video feed of something that looks like it came from an Atari video game, or an actual image of a face that police can use to track the perpetrator? And would you really trust a couple-hundred dollar camera to stand up to outdoor conditions? Security cameras are expensive because the companies that offer them know that clients want SECURITY. And security costs money.

I wouldn't pay for cameras that expensive, because the value of the property that I have in my apartment doesn't justify the cost. But if you have property that you want to protect, you'll have to determine for yourself whether the cost of the cameras is worth the cost of protecting your property.

Advice from law enforcement

[JoeShmoe]

Actually, quality isn't the issue. Angle is.

What you need to do is ensure that you capture a face shot as close to eye-level as possible, without having the camera obstructed by people walking by.

The police and FBI don't like to talk about it, but there is a program where if they input a digital photo of someone, even a poor quality one, the computer will compare it against the database of digital photos taken by the Department of Motor Vehicles and spit out the six closest matches.

These system rely on facial characteristics like eye-nose-mouth ratio, hairlines, etc so as long as the computer can accurately calculate the centers of these areas, it works.

But when cameras are mounted up on the roof or in a corner as is typical, they are worthless unless the suspect looks right at them.

Also, you want to think about having a camera just for vehicle traffic on your street or culdesac. A license plate is going to be your best method for apprehension. Sure, the car may be stolen, but if it is recovered then it can lead to your property. And if it happens to be a crime of impulse, you will have a suspect.

If you were really clever, you could find some way to rig a standard digital camera with a flash similar to a red-light camera. This would be your most inexpensive option but also a dead give-away and not recommended for busy roads. Instead, find the least expensive camera that offers changeable lenses, and then focus them on a spot on the street that you know vehicles must drive through. Add some inexpensive infrared lighting and you should be able to playback a log of all vehicles (suspects and potential witnesses) when there is an incident.

I think having more inexpensive cameras with decent quality will have a greater chance of success than a couple high-quality ones. Also, don't overlook physical security sensors. Infrared beams and even motion sensors are the best way to deter the crime, instead of relying on catching the criminal.

I have been on the victim side of countless incidents in my profession and, frankly, you won't get the time of day from law enforcement. If a light turns on, or a camera flashes as someone approaches your vehicle...they will move on. And don't forget if you are worried about your vehicle and not just what's in it...pick up a used Sprint/Nextel phone on eBay and split off power from your car's 12V plug. Hide the phone inside the dash somewhere on continuously. Get the least expensive plan, or just write down the IMEI so that you can later activate the phone by calling Sprint. If the car does get stolen, activate service and add-on the GPS tracking features.

Cheapest Lojack you will find.

Good luck.

-JoeShmoe
.

Re:

[Qrlx]

These system rely on facial characteristics like eye-nose-mouth ratio

This system must really excel at catching criminals who don't have a 2:1:1 ratio like the rest of us.

How about home owners insurance?

[nolife]

I know you stated you goal is good quality footage to catch a thief but is that really your ultimate goal? I believe preventing theft or to limit the loss from theft would be a better goal.

Take the standard precautions everyone else takes and get home owners/renters insurance from a reputable company.

A camera shot of the perp MIGHT help catch him eventually but what are the chances that your stolen stuff is going to be found and in returnable condition after that?
The odds do not seem to justify the cost an

Cheap cameras

[davmoo]

I have a pair of AirLink101 AIC-250 wired network cameras monitoring my driveway/garage area and my barn area (I live in the sticks). I've been pleased enough that I intend to acquire two more of them. Normal price is in the $80 range, but Fry's runs them as cheap as $49 at times.

Their performance in almost darkness sucks, but that's going to be true of almost any camera unless you spend big dollars. Their performance from pre-dawn to post-dusk, however, has been phenomenal for such a cheap camera. Howe

Good Luck!

[aaarrrgggh]

My wife's bicycle was stolen at her work (directly across the street from the police station, with regular police officer foot-traffic in the building). We had fancy cameras and a close-up of the guy's face within an hour of the theft.

Did it help anything? No...

The cameras were also in plain sight, and he was especially brazen in how he went about it all.

Technology won't solve the problem.

Step 1) Get used camera 2) download this software

[Bananatree3]

Here is some good software [steves-digicams.com] for turning many consumer cameras into a computer controlled camera.

Steps: 1)Go through the list of cameras on the above site, and select one that has the specs you want (good resolution, zoom, etc.)

2)Check eBay or find a used one.

3)setup software and install camera where you want it.

4)Enjoy cheap but hi-res image security.

Many of the cameras on the list above go for less than $100 in good used condition, and offer many megapixels and good optical resolution. Many of them also have other features like low light mode, or other things that can be controlled by computer software. Good luck!

Re:Step 1) Get used camera 2) download this softwa

[RGRistroph]

I tried to do this (using a Nikon Coolpix 4500 and gphoto). One thing I noticed is that there would be a long pause, and occasionally "usb bus resetting" messages, before the camera took a picture. This pause can be longer that 30 seconds and made it useless in my opinion, given how I wanted to trigger it.

However, I noticed that the same camera would also pause as long as 10 seconds when triggered manually from the button. I will have to go through the menus and see if there is something I can do to fix

Do it cheaply

[Yossarian45793]

You can do it cheaply, but don't expect to get any amazing images. I have 4 cameras outside my house recording full motion video 24x7. I spent only about $800 on the hardware ($125 per camera, $50 per video capture board, and $25 for coax cable). I record at 640x480x30fps and I can store about 3.5 days worth of video on an old 120 GB hard drive. I caught a kid breaking into my car at night, but there was no way to identify him, and police didn't want to pursue the case because he only took a few dollars out of my change tray. Even if his face had been clearer on the video I still doubt they would have done anything unless I also gave them a name and address. I believe the police view petty theft under a few thousand dollars as an issue for your insurance. Your best bet is to install motion sensing lights outside your house. They're a lot cheaper than cameras and they have better deterrent value. If you still want cameras, get the lights too because they're much more effective than infrared-LED-based night vision, which have very limitted range. After having these cameras running for more than a year the thing I use them most for is checking whether the UPS man left a package on my front steps.

Good luck with that

[ArchieBunker]

You do realize the cops are going to do the absolute minimum possible even with video evidence? They will come out, maybe watch your tape and file some papers and thats about it. Don't expect CSI to come out and swab for saliva or prints.

Don't Live in a Crappy Neighborhood?

[morari]

Or better yet, don't live in the city at all! Don't park on the street, use your driveway or garage. People that park on the street simply take up space on the street and often essentially turn it into one lane for those of us who are driving. Also, buy a nice big handgun and wear it strapped under your shoulder while out cutting the grass and such. Make it known, because no one is going to assess the risk factor in that and still proceed with robbing you.

From a Professional Security Installer....

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the issue you will face is that yes, a good security camera will cost several hundred dollars each.... that said, professional systems are not particularly difficult to install yourself.

Couple tips:

1) Avoid network cameras, the Cat-5 medium is not as noise free as other methods, and the circuitry involved to convert it to a digital/network capable camera adds cost... I recommend using RG-59 grade coaxial cable and any 18guage-2conductor wire for power. Get a moderate DVR, or better yet use one of the PCI-card kits and an old PC to save more. 4 Camera cards can be had for around $160.

2) Consider the benefits of good nightvision. Examine cameras with IR LED's, they will provide some of the better night-vision capabilities, however viewing range is limited outside the IR's angle. That said, Speco sells a line of cameras called the "Intensifier" that has some of the best night vision I've seen. We use many of these in some very high-profile homes (let's just say as far as world's wealthiest goes, we're in the top 10). The Chameleon indoor/outdoor model can be had for under $400 each.

3)It's not about quantity vs quality, it's about paths and coverage. Our general camera strategy is to have a couple cameras for general coverage, and a couple cameras in major pathways, close-up, for good ID. So you know who it was, and what they did.

Will the police do anything?

[dr_dank]

Even if you do manage to get a picture of someone in the act, I doubt that the police are going to put out an APB with the snapshot that your system took. At best, if you know who is doing this in your neighborhood, you can help build a case against them. If it isn't, they're not going to play CSI with the pics from your security system and will focus on violent crimes and/or revenue-producing law enforcement opportunities.

On the plus side, the presence of such a system could scare off the less motivated

Chain of Custody

[Steauengeglase]

First off I'm not a lawyer, but I was wondering the same thing a month or so ago. I asked around to a few cops and a friend who had been researching forensics. My big question was that it seemed to make more sense to keep any recording off site in case the thief though of stealing my PC, so should I? It seems that there was the question of the Cain of Custody. In the end it boiled down to the further away, the more work law enforcement has to do to get the evidence and the less likely they will ever bother

Prevention is better than prosecution...

[aXis100]

Forget the cameras. Put in an alarm system with lots of PIR's (I have them in every room that has valuables), and make the internal siren(s) loud enough to make your ears bleed. Same with the car - put a 120dB siren (or two) on the inside.

Unfortunately sirens and strobes on the outside get ignored by the general public, and the cops dont care about the petty crime as much as you would like. When the internal sirens are so loud you nearly vomit, the crooks will leave prematurely and unsuccessful.

Re:Prevention is better than prosecution...

[Lord Prox]

the crooks will leave prematurely and unsuccessful.

uhhhhh, could you call that Kleptus Interruptus?

How about a fake dog

[EEPROMS]

I was listening to a radio interview with a professional house theif. When the said thief was asked what was the best deterant the reply was "a small dog as they are next to impossible to catch or bribe". After hearing this news the mental gears started whirring and I created a fake YAPPING dog security system. Its very simple with a IR motion sensor on the back and front entrance hooked into a MP3 player and a small PC speaker system. The hard part was finding a good yapping dog recording until I asked someone at the park if I could record her dog barking and she was happy to oblige once I explained why. Another trick is to have multiple varying MP3 files and make sure the MP3 player is set to shuffle so it sounds more realistic.

Re:

[Danny Rathjens]

I remember a story from a few years ago about a survey of criminals that showed the two things they most fear are dogs and AIDS. Therefore the best deterrent was putting up a sign that says, "Warning: Dog has AIDS." :D

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

My $500 video system caught 3 thieves in 4 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what works great for me - total cost, about $500. I live in a fairly-grotty neighborhood in Oakland, not far from Nina Reiser's former home.

    One cheap color video camera, aimed out the window on my front door. The camera cost $40 on eBay and is wired directly to my DVR. It sees my front stairs, the sidewalk, and street in front of my house.

    One modestly cheap color video camera with IR Leds (about $60 on eBay). Hardwired to the DVR. This is on the driveway of my house, pointing towards the street. Its far coverge is similar to the front door.

    Neither video camera has Pan/Tilt/Zoom ... I manually aim 'em. Rarely have I wished them to be changed.

    A 4 Channel Security Video Recorder - records mpeg4. About $250 on eBay. I only use 2 of the 4 channels. A 100Gbyte IDE disk drive adds another $60 to the total.

    Cheap car-headrest style 5 inch LCD/TFT monitor, which is set next to my computer monitor.

    Wire & connectors to connect everything (to my surprise, cheap CAT-3 cable works fine, even though it isn't shielded!)

    An infrared doorbell which chimes whenever someone walks up the drive. When it sounds, I glance at the monitor to see who's there.

    The recorder saves a week's worth of imagery. It's a bit of a pain to scan to what I want to see (the DVR software is horrible).

    Over the past three years, this setup has:
  - Caught one postal thief! The guy came up on my porch and tried to steal two boxes. I caught him in the act, and he ran away, dropping my two boxes along the way. Thanks to the video, the US Postal Inspectors successfully prosecuted him for mail theft. The guy lived in the suburbs and trolled the city looking for mail to steal.

  - Caught a purse-snatcher! The SOB chased after a woman on a cell phone; she fought back and held onto her purse. The guy ran away, but I gave the video to the police, who eventually tracked the guy down.

  - Stopped a guy from stealing my neighbor's tire (I glanced at the monitor and saw someone removing a tire ... I chased him away. He left his wrench behind)

  - Saved me innumerable trips to the front door, to deal with Jehovah's Witnesses, salespeople, and other such annoyances.

Super Circuits

[Vskye]

A buddy of mine has purchased some security cameras from these folks, good quality stuff. http://www.supercircuits.com/ [supercircuits.com] Some good lower cost cameras would be the PC177IR-4, 5 or 6 model that are weatherproof IR color day/night cameras. The most expensive piece of gear you'll want will be a DVR capable of internet / network access. They support X number of cameras, depending on the model also. (normally 4, 8,9, and 16) Hope this helps some. (not affiliated with super circuits btw)

how about non-webcams?

[Sparr0]

A cheap Canon Powershot digital camera, plus the CHDK firmware replacement* to get motion activation, plus a SD wifi card to capture the pics directly to your securely hidden PC. You'll want to take it apart and remove the IR filter, there are guides on how to do that for various models. Best cheap solution I can think of.

* - technically it's a binary that runs on top of the existing firmware. so sue me.

Deadly force

[SystemFault]

Get a medium sized bottle of some well known brand of vodka. Carefully remove the cap, pour out a fourth of so of the contents and replace with good old poisonous rubbing alcohol. Reattach the cap so that the bottle looks like it had never been opened. Place the adulterated vodka so that a burglar will certainly include it in his haul. Ensure that no one in your household will accidentally imbibe.

A similar scheme could use attractive snacks and different poisons; but again, make sure that no innocent person becomes a victim.

It won't stop the burglar immediately, but it will stop him before he can victimize yet again.

Re:

[Culture20]

You say that "Lethal traps are not a permissible form of defense". Impermissible by your fiat? Do you think that anyone cares? If an armed guard uses his weapon on a burglar, is that also impermissible by your assertion?

No, impermissible by LAW, even in Texas. http://books.google.com/books?id=RtoPluLrG7kC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=%22shotgun+trap%22+law&source=web&ots=xK0Bk0RDjL&sig=rh_tx3hNWYV_-n_vAgPWq03LUE4&hl=en [google.com] http://www.4lawschool.com/torts/kat.shtml [4lawschool.com]

It is well established principle of law that there is no privilege to use deadly force solely in defense of land or property unless there exists a threat to ones personal safety as well (Prosser on Torts, Third edition, pages 116-118).

You don't need any cameras

[Charcharodon]

Buy a dog, a shotgun, and a flash light. (Well as long as you live in Texas.) After you bag a couple of criminals the rest will know not to come around.

If you live in the UK, leave the keys in the ignition, with a note apologizing for not having the car warmed up for them, along with $100 on the seat so they can by 1/2 tank of gas.

IMHO, don't be so picky about digital...

[WoTG]

I've setup three retail stores with security cameras for a small retail chain. At the first store we tried a camera at, almost as an experiment, we used a TCP/IP one from D-Link. About $200. It was OK as a deterrent, but not really all that useful if we actually had to use the footage for identifying people.

The next stores used a kit which bundled 4 analog cameras with a PCI DVR card. Think TV tuner with 4 inputs. The whole kit was about $500. It's great but "only" 640x480. The newer ones have modest IR support for night-time recording. The DVR software provides remote TCP/IP access, though, via a proprietary client.

From my admittedly limited experience, you get better value from analog cameras -- the market is much bigger for them, so they're higher volume, and therefore cheaper. Plus, the camera's are interchangeable (it's just analog, afterall). You can mix and match easily and get standardized lenses and filters, etc.

Re:

[zappepcs]

I agree, deterrence is the first line of home security (thus big signs saying protected by xyz alarm company etc.) and the second is having actual security video. High quality video is hardly necessary for security purposes. Generally one half decent quality face photo will be good enough for the police, but there is ALWAYS the question of whether or not they will do anything with it.

When my car was broken into, the thief had greasy fingers and left large as life well made finger prints on the window. I cou

Re:Why not deterrence?

[holophrastic]

There is only one important reason to have video surveillance. I've got a camera outside each entrance to my home -- four. It's not as a deterance. And it's not for security. And it's not to catch the thief.

It's for one thing and one thing only -- insurance. It's really easy to make a claim when you have video footage of someone stealing your stuff. That's it. It doesn't need to be a good quality picture at all. It needs to show a humanoid holding a television.

There are, of course, gravy tastes. Most insurance companies will give you a small discount for having such video. Also, when the cat got out (movers left the basement doors open after they'd left), watching eight hours of video at 16x speed allowed me to figure out that Snickers had crawled into a furnace vent. She came out when we turned off the flow of fresh air.

But not phony ones

[Animats]

deterrence is the first line of home security (thus big signs saying protected by xyz alarm company etc.)

But not phony ones.

Last year, I saw water running down a driveway into the street, and walked up to the house to check it out. Water was leaking out of the garage. Nobody was home, but they had signs for an alarm company. So I called the alarm company, and after much checking at their end, they insisted that they'd never had a system at that address. Looking around, I found a window sticker for

Re:

[jacksonj04]

"Beware of the dog" is a bad sign to have, it's an admission on your part that the dog is dangerous and may attack an intruder (Even if your dog is absolutely docile). This may cause problems if your dog so much as barks at an intruder ("It was barking and foaming at me, I thought it was going to kill me!") since you've already said it may be violent.

Just a picture of the dog and "I live here" isn't any suggestion your dog is violent, but should have the same effect.

Re:

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

"To me, the object isn't just deterrence"

(Bold added by me to further highlight the already obvious). He's saying he wants a camera that might actually produce images that will identify the intruders on top of being a deterrent. That wasn't so hard to figure out was it? And it certainly isn't as unreasonable or suspicion-worthy as you seem to think.

Re:

[v1]

isights go for $300-500 now, they used to retail for $150. Really good camera tho. Beats the stuffing out of any of the cameras built into the new macs now. I kept mine when I got a macbook pro.

$40 "crittercam" type USB cameras, with a $10 piece of shareware make them work just the same as firewire cameras. Save a lot of money that way and don't lose a lot of video quality. Not nearly as good as an original isight in low light conditions, they can be used for night vision. (tho most webcams are sensiti

Re:

[Director of Acronyms]

Catching your neighbour screwing your wife : Priceless

Re:Save your money

[Waffle Iron]

Get a pit bull and a gun.

That solution won't save money. Do you have any idea how much it costs to train a dog to safely and effectively handle a firearm?

Re:

[Big_Breaker]

He is probably from the US. It helps to understand that the US has many areas that are not dense enough to support a significant police presence. The police will take twenty minutes to mount a response. Historically the majority of the country was this way.

Because of this the US has a tradition of firearm ownership for protection of the "homestead" that is respected and maintained even as larger areas are urbanized and existing urban areas become more violent. Honestly, the police in many areas probably