Re: surveillance for st tim's pre-school

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Nov 14, 8:49=A0am, Uno <merrilljen...@xxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/14/2011 3:42 AM, JoeRaisin wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/14/2011 3:38 AM, Uno wrote:
> >> Hello newsgroup,
>
> >> Haven't read anything. Don't know much about the topic. I'm a handyman
> >> who implements things that other people tell me to do.
>
> >> As a veteran of technical fora on usenet, I would like to claim an
> >> exception to the unrealistic maxim that I must do a bunch of reading o=
f
> >> this particular forum before I post. That isn't realistic for my abili=
ty
> >> to look at a screen now.
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DDxPm8FEtYVg&feature=3Drelated
>
> >> This is a walk-through. As far as other security clearances go, the la=
bs
> >> are well-represented and forcing me to confront this, the air force is
> >> also almost endemic, and casey is on the case.
>
> >> Peace. Love. 1.732,
>
> > I think my meds wore off during that last paragraph.
>
> > Everything suddenly got disjointed and surreal...
>
> There are aspects of this inquiry which I regard as surreal but couldn't
> say for certain without the cameras and data that I'm looking for.
>
> 1.732 is the square root of three and also washington's birthday.
> --


I think that you don't realize what you are not going to be able to
see with just a few cameras.

I'm presume that your objective is to identify and possibly prosecute
the intruders.

As much as night viewing of cameras is advertised, unless you have
cameras that can give you a close up view of the intruders, all you
are going to have as a result of a relatively expensive investment is
recorded shadow views of unidentifiable people doing what ever it is
that they have been doing to your property. For facial indentification
you are going to need cameras that can give you close up views of the
intruders. Which means that the number of cameras needed is more than
you have indicated and the quality of lighting be much better.  For
instance, if you have one camera covering an entire parking lot, all
the objects in the parking lot are going to be very small relative to
to size of the screen you are viewing it on. You'll see a car and a
person but you will be very unlikely to identifiy them. And that's in
the daytime. Even if you get a camera with what is advertised as
"capable of seeing 100 feet" you can probably discount that claim by
50% and even then you're only going to get a blury view a 50 feet at
night.

That is not to say that there aren't cameras that can do what you want
them to do .... it's just that I don't think you want to pay $700.00
to over a thousand dollars per camera to do it and then start adding
in the recording equipment and installation labor.

What I beleive the problem is nowdays, is that the layman thinks that
anything is possible when it comes to CCTV because of all these TV
programs that make people believe that they can see the license plate
number on a car, in the reflection of mirrored sunglasses, two blocks
away on a dark moonless night.

I would suggest that you first try to find other physical means to
deter your intruders before you make a large investment in technology
that will likely give you very limited results. ...... OR ...... call
in a professional who might be better able to evaluate a solution with
an on site inpection. But ..... do your homework ..... there are lots
of cameras out there and don't let anyone sell you a bill of goods.
Ask for a demonstation of what your are going to be able to see.

Good luck.