Disqus - Latest Comments for mdb

Re: Measuring Low Light Surveillance with a Lux Meter

mdb — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:21:10 -0000

One more quick comment: When testing indoors, cameras nearly always perform better at the same lux level than in an outdoor test because of higher levels of residual IR light coming from certain kinds of lightbulbs, etc. that remain in the room rather than dispersing through wide areas.

MDB

Re: Will IP Video Software Become Free?

mdb — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:29:39 -0000

Do you believe that installations of IP video will become simplified enough that the initial risks and fears of installing this free software could be overcome, that the installation base would become wide enough that the product would have an effect on the market as a whole? I do not foresee standards having this much of an effect, and I also do not think that the hesitance of the security industry to change should be underestimated. The ease of accessibility that generally makes this model successful does not seem evident with IP video software.

There are only two ways that I see this happening:

The first is if (as cameraman hints at) all of the IP camera manufacturers would decide to adopt the same free software, recognizing that this would help the overall market grow and provide them a chance to be more cost competitive against those who did not adopt the free software. With the current strength of the IP video software companies, and the desire of IP camera manufacturers to distinguish themselves from one another, I do not really see this happening either.

The second is if distributors, integrators, and even traditional installers are entirely skipped in the sales process. However, this would only be possible for very small jobs and would also require a much greater level of awareness and market penetration for IP video before this even becomes a small issue.

Re: Will IP Video Software Become Free?

mdb — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:19:11 -0000

For the sake of argument:

The only reasonable barrier that I see to this happening within the next 5-10 years is the issue of responsibility in the case of product failure. This is particularly important as we are dealing primarily with security related installations.

In the case that the software is provided by a hardware manufacturer, this is obviously not a problem. However, if the free software is provided by a third party, I think that many integrators/distributors will be hesitant to offer it to their customers. This could of course be overcome by aggressive support contracts or premium versions, but these may defeat the purpose of the software itself being free (depending on the structuring of such contracts/versions), while lowering the level of trust in the product.

One more quick point: The initial costs to distributors or integrators using the free product in this case may actually be higher as they will likely feel the need to more thoroughly test any free software on their own before offering it to end-users. This need to test on their own would be encouraged by the extra perceived risk of offering a "free" product and the lower expectations of responsibility for the manufacturer of a "free" product. Of course, this would only be an initial cost, however, I see this as another potential barrier to the use of free software.

Ok, one last point: Due to the relatively limited application base for this type of product compared to an SQL server, anti-virus, email, etc., there may not be enough draw for highly qualified programmers to create this type of free software. This is not to say that there are not many qualified programmers working in this field, but that they may not be willing to start from scratch to create a program that, even as John states, would not be aimed at the highest markets. I think that within the field, they would probably be more drawn to the challenges offered them by some of the more cutting-edge software companies already in this market.

MDB

Re: What Differentiates Video Surveillance Products?

mdb — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:58:49 -0000

I remember the first time I talked to John, he likened cameras to automobiles (ACTi were the potential Honda of the camera industry). It was an interesting and useful comparison. Though on paper it may be difficult to distinguish from similar American, Japanese or German models as they all provide a similar list of features with different names that fulfill the same function, they are differentiated through long-term use. As a huge number of vehicles have been purchased, and most people have at least some experience with them, we now share the common knowledge that Japanese vehicles probably provide the best ROI/lowest running costs, German vehicles provide excellent "drive" (though this can to a certain point be proven through performance numbers, much of this is based on intangible or immeasurable information, however, this opinion and experience is shared by a large enough percentage of the population that it certainly factors into the general population's perception of these cars and the sales numbers as well), and American cars often require the lowest initial investment.

One of the difficult things in the IP video industry is that some of the most important differentiators are difficult to prove to customers before installations, and there have not been enough installations/the systems are a niche market, so the general population does not have enough experience with them to differentiate value between different systems over time and through real use. Though these are perhaps not exactly what John is talking about in his article (which was excellent), things like reliability/stability, handling of data and data failures, ease of use, quality of long-term support, system wear/burden on hardware, performance in a wide variety of conditions, etc. are among the most important features of any security system, but are nearly impossible to prove until systems have been used for a reasonable amount of time.

Due to this, the value of marketing and sales channels and a long list of case studies as a differentiator becomes even more important in winning the trust of customers and therefore more jobs, and meaningful differentiators in functionality (rather than just features that accomplish nothing new) are often overlooked or pushed aside.

Part of this is also the result of uneducated end-users who do now have access to more information through the internet. Many of them do simply make decisions based on initial investment cost or a list of features rather than taking the time to research in-depth and figure out running costs, functionality, and long-term usability. This encourages manufacturers to pour out more relatively meaningless feature lists even though they sometimes do no more than muddle the real message/functionality of a product.

It will be interesting to see how more interactive web 2.0 marketing effects this process. Will end-users be able to have more meaningful interactions with manufacturers, resellers, integrators, etc. to distinguish which systems best meet their needs and why, or will this simply serve to further obscure real differentiators between systems by more actively bringing the sales and marketing force into the e-realm of the user?

Regardless, I think that it is important for more manufacturers and 3rd party objective analysts to provide more valuable system benchmark performance numbers based on systems of various sizes in various conditions over an extended period of time. Only then will end-users be able to easily see beyond features to functions.

Re: How to Select Video Analytics

mdb — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:27:31 -0000

I am referring to what a system needs to be able to accomplish to minimize false alerts and maximize detections by being able to properly classify objects. Hope this clarifies anything that was not previously clear!

Best,
MDB

Re: How to Select Video Analytics

mdb — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:03:04 -0000

Hi John,

As usual, good article. I would just like to add one quick thing:
When deciding which systems to test in-house, I have found that two things in particular have a significant effect on the performance of these systems. One is the ability to somehow create a depth factor when analyzing 2D images from cameras, and the other is the ability to recognize moving parts of the background as background (i.e. to analyze the background as a moving image rather than as one still frame).

Best,
Michael

Re: How Good is ACTi's Video Quality?

mdb — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:50:39 -0000

John,
I think that Bill actually has a good point here. My interpretation of his plan/the best plan of action here is for you to set certain standards and a rating system based on those standards. This would of course include environmental aspects, camera settings, etc. Camera manufacturers who are confident in the performance of their products under any conditions will be willing to pay whatever your charge is and submit to your testing standards in exchange for your rating. In this case, the manufacturer will be aware beforehand that they can fail even if they have paid, but they are aware of the conditions of the test beforehand as well, so will have nothing to fall back on. Even the manufacturers may appreciate this kind of standard (we have been asked by a certain Japanese camera manufacturer to do this kind of testing, but as a distributor of various cameras in an extremely competitive and closed market, are not in the position to do it). In this case, you can a) maintain your independence b) provide extremely useful information for your audience c) get honest cooperation from manufacturers d) increase demand for your "name" and create new standards and e) make money.

While you are in Asia, see if you can talk to some of the manufacturers. If you want to try to make some deeper connections, let me know and we can talk about how to work this out.

Best,
MDB

Re: Coming Battle Between DVRs and IP Video

mdb — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:48:02 -0000

Anyone who ignores DVR's and the analog market is ignoring 80% of the overall market with a huge customer base and a long history. All of us here believe that IP has already revolutionized this market to a certain extent and will continue to do so until capturing a majority of the market, however, the analog people will not just throw up their hands and willingly give up their business. Rather, as John is essentially saying, they will use the tools that they have at hand to compete. For now, that means developing hybrids which do offer value for some customers. Some of these companies have also gone all out and started producing IP cameras on thier own, this is a trend that will certainly continue and actually speaks to the strength of IP (though it may eventually pose a bit of a challenge to the current IP players). I think that we can expect these DVR's to continue to add IP or IP type functionality and that they will eventually evolve into complete IP systems some time in the future. Seeing as you obviously support IP so much, you would surely agree that if you had committed yourself to DVR's, you would now attempt to pursue an IP-like roadmap and develop software only solutions and IP camera support?

As far as any "love-affairs" that John has, I believe that the one that is most prominent seems to be his committment to providing thought-provoking insight (this means that whether or not we agree with what he is saying, it can make us reflect more on the overall situation of things to attempt to make better decisions with what to do with our businesses), backing it up with research and statistics as much as possible (for instance, Milestone does have the largest share of the NVR software only market, particularly if you include onssi), and then providing a forum for all of us to discuss the real issues at hand without interference from marketing material (unless this also proves to be valuable, in which case it can be included as this is truly an open forum).

John, do you have any numbers regarding the number of units sold for the DVR's listed in your premium report? Perhaps this may help illuminate a bit of what we are talking about here.

Best, MDB

Re: Does Video Surveillance Threaten Privacy?

mdb — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:56:13 -0000

With concerns to privacy, I believe that more people are worried about the possibilities that cameras represent for the future of things like tracking and monitoring rather than the current situation. Moreover, cameras are one of the more visible representations/symbols of the security world, which generally is in a converse relationship to what we consider our "rights" as citizens - only one of those being the right to privacy (which I agree we give up when we walk outside, as CameraMan has suggessted). As such, people are concerned that when there are more cameras which are both a tool and symbol of security, this means more weight being given to security over privacy rights, which in turn suggests possible infrigement upon other rights.

Just how I interpret the largely misinformed, but not wholly off-base claims made by those opposed to surveillance cameras...

Re: Should IT Take Over Physical Security?

mdb — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:37:55 -0000

One issue with IT taking over security is the expectations placed upon the security "solutions" by IT techs. They are used to matching specs with needs, integrating where absolutely necessary, setting a system up, and watching it work until it breaks, at which point many vague possible points of failure are explored until the system is up and running again. This process is all based on the flow of information and the workings of a primarily abstract system with little human interaction/reaction based on the function of the systems, hence "information technology".

As John states, and I agree, "The technologies used in physical security help security execute their responsibilities but do not and will eliminate the need for these characteristics." This goes beyond the characteristics of the security manager himself to the very goals behind a security project. The amount of active human integration and physical response (hence Physical security) to the output of any system and security situation overall is something not conceptually contained within the confines of IT departments.

To take this further, I would actually argue contrary to seemingly popular opinion and say that it will be easier to give younger security professionals the necessary IT knowlege to sell/operate/make effective security solutions than it will be to change the thought patterns and goals of the IT department. I am not saying that security professionals can easily acquire the depth of knowlege of IT required to fully integrate and spec out a system without the help of the IT department, but rather that they will have enough knowlege to figure out what will work effectively, present that to the IT dept. and have them hook up the system, and then take over from there, whereas I don't really feel that IT pros even have the desire to become involved in the greater processes of physical security after some "solution" is installed.

Re: Examining Mobotix's Megapixel Offering

mdb — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:15:57 -0000

Milestone has said that they will support these features of the Q22 in their next device pack release.

Re: Examining Mobotix's Megapixel Offering

mdb — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:07:07 -0000

A couple more quick points regarding Mobotix:

Outdoor models require no housing
All models operate without moving parts and with minimal power usage, ostensibly improving their longetivity and reliability
Excellent heat management which should also improve longetivity

Re: Examining the Impact of the Recession

mdb — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:35:32 -0000

Hi Roni,

Certainly sympathize and of course mourn the losses that your country has had to deal with recently. I can also respect that security as an industry exits in order to protect/save lives and property when possible.

Reading the article that you presented, however, actually worried me quite a bit. The direction that it proposes, that is, using (ostensibly) high cost video surveillance and analytics in high population density areas with an extremely wide variety of movement in order to prevent terrorism instead of security guards (as is suggested in the article) seems quite misinformed. I am looking forward to John's report on the events in Mumbai and what kind of systems he recommends, but taking into account the types of locations that would have to be monitored in order to prevent terrorist acts such as the one that occured does not seem possible with current analytics systems.

Personally, though this is perhaps not profitable for those of us who sell IP video solutions, I feel that if India truly wants to increase their security levels, they must first improve the infrastructure of the country on all levels. This includes transportation, information, etc. Before it is possible to improve the infrastructure in the country, which is a daunting task, it may make sense to invest in more security guards, police, etc. particularly in the North, to take care of any immediate security issues.

India is one of my favorite places in the world and I have spent a good amount of time there, but must say that I was a bit worried knowing that I was able to walk across the border from Nepal into India without any ID check etc. I could easily have been a Maoist extremist or someone of the like.

What do you think?

Best, mdb

Re: test

mdb — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:04:56 -0000

One more thing that must be considered, and I think is often assumed, is stability of they system when handling large amounts of cameras/data. Though this is often difficult to find out before testing a product, or even by testing in a small office environment (unless you can simulate cameras), it is important to look for successful case studies or better yet to talk directly to satisfied customers before committing to a system. At the very least, make sure that there is adequate (knowlegeable and available) support for a product before selling to/installing for an end-user.

Re: How Obama Impacts the Security Industry

mdb — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:16:15 -0000

Hi Jonathan,

I actually think that your own statement supports my point 2 as you yourself state that:

Many americans believe that the world hates the US because of Bush, as they hate Bush themselves and can't comprehend other reasons for anti-american views.

This is the one of the factors that influences the overall perception of danger within the United States and will obviously be alleviated once Obama takes office. Whether or not this perception is correct, this is how human beings make judgments, including those regarding budgets.

I do not disagree with your statement that there are deeper roots to anti-americanism than Bush himself. This is of course true, however, the Bush administration has exacerbated the other causes of anti-Americanism (see John's statement below in response to John Griffin).

Best,
mdb

Re: How Obama Impacts the Security Industry

mdb — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:05:06 -0000

-(1) The real risk of a terrorist attack upon the US will is reduced by the innauguration of Obama

-(2) Even if the real risk is not reduced, the percieved risk is reduced. As funding is actually based on percieved risk, if you accept either point (1) or (2), then you must also accept that funding for security will be reduced

-(3) This is not a question of "can" or "should" as this is simply a prediction of what will happen, thus the question is "Will funding be reduced or not". If you objectively consider this question, I believe that the only reasonable answer is "Yes, security related funding will be reduced"

Regarding (1): Terrorism is like anything else, when it fulfills a function that cannot be acheived through other means, its demand or use increases. Under the Bush administration, terrorists and those who had potential to become terrorists ostensibly felt that terrorist acts were the only way to express their will against something that they saw as evil. The reasons that they feel that the US is/was seen as evil are probably varied, but undoubtedly are related to the outright Christian conservatism of the Bush administration as well as what I will call their attempt at value colonialism. By value colonialism, I mean heavy-handed attempts to control the economics, politics, and paradigms of the rest of the world (particularly the Middle-East). The methods of the administration left little room for any meaningful dialogue regarding these situations, thus those who would become terrorists most likely saw no hope for an improvement of their situation in relation to the US.

Under Obama, it is reasonable to believe that the policies that fomented this view of the US will be significantly altered, thus lessening the "demand" for terrorism. As the demand for terrorism decreases, the necessity of anti-terrorist measures will also decrease.

Regarding (2)
Whether or not the real threat of terrorism decreases or not, the perception of the threat of terrorism will certainly decrease. Many people view the various policies of the Bush administration, and even Bush himself, as at least partially responsible for the increase in hatred of the US. If one of the causes of the perception of increased hatred of the US is removed, then the perception of perception of hatred of the US will be reduced. As the perception of being hated decreases, the perception of necessity for protection from hatred will also decrease. As this includes security, security funding will be decreased.

Moreover, it is not unreasonable to state that the Bush administration has purposefully attempted to maintain a certain fear level to keep support for defense spending as high as possible in order to save foundering approval ratings. Though the ratings did continue to go down, the technique of creating fear was never abandoned by Bush.

With the induction of Obama, this necessity to create fear in order to maintain a certain level of public support will be eliminated. Thus, the culture of fear will gradually disappear (unless there are significant attacks sometime within Obama's presidency, though for reasons stated in (1), this is less likely under Obama than Bush), and the spending on security associated with the culture of fear will also be reduced (though of course it will not totally disappear).

Regarding (3)
With new urgency placed on other economic conditions, the basic failure of the war in Iraq, and the expressed interest in ending that very war, it is undeniable that overall security/military budgets will be reduced and other projects increased. This will most likely become reality very shortly if not immediately whether or not we believe that this is the correct action or not.