Re: surveillance for st tim's pre-school

[nick markowitz <nmarkowitz@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 14, 2:08=A0pm, Jim <alarmi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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 handym=
an
> > >> 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=
 of
> > >> this particular forum before I post. That isn't realistic for my abi=
lity
> > >> 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 =
labs
> > >> 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. =A0For
> 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.

I second Jim on this .  he is correct what you want to accomplish is
going to take considerable designing and funds.