Cop Show Image Enhancement

[TomL]

Alright. Since this thread is no longer about Terminator 2, apparently, I feel compelled to speak up here. Shia LaBeouf wasn't in Enemy of the State. What you're most likely remembering is Eagle Eye. I know they both start with the letter “E”, but I can assure you, these are two very different movies.

Argh, you're right. "Enemy of the State" had Will Smith in it. Although, come to think of it, Will Smith & Shia LaBeouf were both in "I, Robot", so that's probably another reason I got them confused.

As penance for my mistake, I leave this clip right here.

 

[StarDust4Ever]

Argh, you're right. "Enemy of the State" had Will Smith in it. Although, come to think of it, Will Smith & Shia LaBeouf were both in "I, Robot", so that's probably another reason I got them confused.

As penance for my mistake, I leave this clip right here.

That looks like a sweet movie. Thanks for showing me the highlights; now I don't have to waste money to go see it!

 

[superballs]

Why are people starting to explain that cop show-like enhancement of images isn't possible in real life? You do realise it was only brought up as a joke to begin with, right? Please don't try to convince me that anyone actually believes it's possible.

Also, I have a theory that the creators are basically trying to test how far they can get away with their computer babble. There's no way a scene like this could have gotten past both actors, writers, directors, producers and QA without everybody being in on it:

...but then again, NCIS is such a braindead series that I have every reason to believe it exists entirely on its own secluded plane of society.

Funny story actually.

Someone set the house next door to my dad's on fire one night and the arsonist was caught on a whopping vga camera at night from a nearby business. The guy's face was made up of approximately 10 pixels total and someone was furious about how they didn't use image enhancement to find out who it was. Of course these were comments left on a local newspaper website which explains the target audience.

On topic though...terminator 2.

 

[grashopper]

@superballs: I really don't understand why they use cameras when every time you see the suspect they are a unidentifiable mess. What's the point?
At least get a nice camera and aim it right at the door and get the guy right as they come in with a clear picture.

 

[Sean DonCarlos]

@superballs: I really don't understand why they use cameras when every time you see the suspect they are a unidentifiable mess. What's the point?
At least get a nice camera and aim it right at the door and get the guy right as they come in with a clear picture.

A nice camera and a nice surveillance system behind it (nice in terms of recording quality, performance and storage capacity) costs more than most businesses were willing to spend, at least during the time I was involved in the industry. I still do not understand why that was, since in terms of loss prevention alone camera systems normally have a really good return on investment, even if you don't count "soft" factors like deterrence, increased sales because other customers feel safer, etc.

With today's imaging technologies, storage capacities and broadband connectivity, there's even less of an excuse.

 

[grashopper]

A nice camera and a nice surveillance system behind it (nice in terms of recording quality, performance and storage capacity) costs more than most businesses were willing to spend, at least during the time I was involved in the industry. I still do not understand why that was, since in terms of loss prevention alone camera systems normally have a really good return on investment, even if you don't count "soft" factors like deterrence, increased sales because other customers feel safer, etc.

With today's imaging technologies, storage capacities and broadband connectivity, there's even less of an excuse.

Yeah, I really can't imagine it costing so much these days. If your camera quality is going to be that poor you might as well just put up dummy cameras. I always thought put up a high quality camera at the door that only recorded when the door was open plus lower quality around the place would work decent. If you find a baddie just match him up with the clear recording from the door.

 

[Fungi]

Wow. I don't remember a topic change so quick and so drastic.

 

[StarDust4Ever]

A nice camera and a nice surveillance system behind it (nice in terms of recording quality, performance and storage capacity) costs more than most businesses were willing to spend, at least during the time I was involved in the industry. I still do not understand why that was, since in terms of loss prevention alone camera systems normally have a really good return on investment, even if you don't count "soft" factors like deterrence, increased sales because other customers feel safer, etc.

With today's imaging technologies, storage capacities and broadband connectivity, there's even less of an excuse.

One thing to bear in mind, is that affordable high definition camera technology didn't exist until a few years ago. Before 2006, HD telivisions were almost non-existant. Even after HD sets came out, most HD cameras still cost thousands of dollars. Hard drives were not large enough to store tens of hours of video, and as late as 2004, it was still standard to use a VHS capture system with 4 cameras multiplexed into a single SD screen. Typically, the VHS tapes were recycled hundreds of times so the tape quality was often severely degraded. Plus, the cameras used night vision tech even during daylight, and the grayscale images did not give any indication of what colors suspects were wearing. On some IR systems, you can't even tell if a suspect is black or white.

Fast forward to 2010 and beyond, and you have 1080p or greater HD surveillance systems that capture in full color daylight + IR night vision, and mutliterabyte hard drives and highly efficient video codecs, allowing weeks worth of HD surveillance footage to be stored. Some cameras are also capable of snapping high resolution photos at a slower frame rate. Even so, the cameras are often zoomed all the way out to yield the largest field of view possible, and as such suspects in distant areas (such as a crime committed across the street) still may not be discernible.

Some municipalities have even considered installing cameras on lightpolls in crime-ridden areas, although there is usually an outcry from the populous that "always on" public surveillance is a violation of privacy rights, which opens another can of worms entirely.

 

[Sean DonCarlos]

I worked on digital surveillance systems for a living from 2003 to 2006, so I'm aware of the history.

And actually, the biggest challenge in those days was not video quality or storage capacity. The problem was that hard drive manufacturers did not make a drive designed for near-100% duty cycles. (Even server drives tend to be very bursty in their read/write patterns.) Our systems, in contrast, wrote to disk all day every day. So our machines would literally destroy their own drives from all the constant video recording, especially at higher framerates. I wrote software to optimize the write patterns to cut down on the amount of back-and-forth the read/write heads had to do, but it wasn't until Seagate came out with their SV35 drive, specially designed for video storage, that we could stop regarding hard drives as a consumable.

 

[Gord Lacey]

I busted a cleaning lady stealing from the guests at a surf camp I went to in Dominican Republic using my laptop and a demo piece of software. It was pretty awesome. The cops were coming to arrest her, but sadly we had to leave before they arrived. The owners of the place were THRILLED that I had video, as it's very hard to prosecute people there without it (especially since the owners weren't from there, and she was).

 

[Mark W**a]

A nice camera and a nice surveillance system behind it (nice in terms of recording quality, performance and storage capacity) costs more than most businesses were willing to spend, at least during the time I was involved in the industry. I still do not understand why that was, since in terms of loss prevention alone camera systems normally have a really good return on investment, even if you don't count "soft" factors like deterrence, increased sales because other customers feel safer, etc.

With today's imaging technologies, storage capacities and broadband connectivity, there's even less of an excuse.

My girlfriend got caught one time stealing eye liner from K-Mart. They took her (and me) into the back, where they had this whole giant wall of CRT's. Two guys working back there.

They sent her a fine in the mail or something. The eyeliner was 5 bucks I think. All that over 5 dollars. And that's a big retailer. I'd say it's a huge waste of money.

Worked two other retailers. Our Buckle had security cameras. Nobody watched them.

We had stories of theft... from other employees. Some guy took 10 pairs of jeans (80 dollar jeans) and stuck them in the back, in a garbage bag. When he took out the trash he threw them in his car. No camera's back there.

I worked part time at a video game shop. Mom n pop operation. He had 7 camera's it's actually a big place, and easy to steal ****. Someone stole a boxed NES valued at 100$. They caught him. That's the only theft they've ever had in 3 years. Though I'm sure someone took some cartridges or what have you hear and there. Point is, it was a complete waste of money for that system. We only ever have 200$ in the drawer. The rest goes in a safe. It is also very uncomfortable having a camera in your face and seeing yourself every second on the TV behind you.

Moral of the story: **** big brother and **** security cams. It's stupid and 1984 is my favorite book so take that for what you will.

 

[Sumez]

On the subject of businesses choosing low res cameras and recording equipment (which I don't believe is true at all in any kind of high security area, you definitely won't see it in a bank), could an obvious explanation be that they are mainly doing it for insurance purposes with the side effect of "scaring off" potential criminals, rather than an actual intent of catching anyone?
Usually stores will have their losses covered as long as they meet a certain standard of security. So it's really an economic choice.

Also, in Superballs story, the guy was caught by a camera located an entirely different place, so there's a good chance it probably was a pretty high resolution image in general, and the guy was just far away.

 

[canuck]

It's going to be a little scary in most places in ten years or so when there are super hi-def cameras located EVERYWHERE.

 

[StarDust4Ever]

And gigapixel cameras will be able to make out the hairs on a fly from across the grand canyon, without the need for a zoom lens. Paparazzi should have fun with those. Just snap a dozen or so photos from behind the Hollywood sign and with the whole town in your viewfinder, you're bound to catch a celebrity doing something he/she ought not. From there, it's just a game of Where's Waldo!

 

[Sean DonCarlos]

Leave the personal attacks at home, folks. Even if they're objectively justifiable, they're not permitted here.

 

[jhamdotme]

Sorry to fan the flames here, since I'm sure that the moderator's intentions are benevolent, but I find this kind of funny.

If someone posts on here about piracy, which is digital theft for the most part, they're quickly asked to leave this community. But if someone writes about real-world theft – something which is, arguably, much worse – their critics are silenced instead. Why the double standard?

Yes, free speech. That's great. But even with this, moderation is sometimes necessary. I get that. But sometimes, the free flow of words is necessary to make a point. And sometimes when something offensive is said, certain other words are justified. But apparently not.

So, just so we're clear here, stealing bits is a no-no. That'll get you a one-way ticket outta here. But stealing real physical things? No problem. Good on ya. Have at it, Hoss.

 

[Sean DonCarlos]

The only post I recall about piracy on this forum was when a member told one of FarSight's developers to his (virtual) face that FarSight didn't deserve his money and that he should pirate FarSight's software. He got banned for the insult, not for "discussing" (if you want to call it that) piracy.

The way I interpreted Mark's post is that he disagrees with my assertion that security cameras are a cost-effective method of loss prevention, and illustrates with several examples, one of which involves his girlfriend's past behavior. He appears to believe that businesses would be better off basically accepting a certain amount of loss due to theft rather than spending the money to invest in a camera system and to do the necessary followup work when the system catches someone shoplifting. While I strongly disagree, his viewpoint is not at all the same as actively encouraging members to go out and shoplift (which would be a bannable offense), nor is it something that warrants editing/deletion of the post.

You are at perfect liberty to criticize his views. In fact, I wholeheartedly encourage it, and will probably be criticizing his views myself later today. You are not at liberty to attack the character of the member holding those views (and not his girlfriend, either). That's where your post went wrong and why I removed it.

 

[superballs]

A nice camera and a nice surveillance system behind it (nice in terms of recording quality, performance and storage capacity) costs more than most businesses were willing to spend, at least during the time I was involved in the industry. I still do not understand why that was, since in terms of loss prevention alone camera systems normally have a really good return on investment, even if you don't count "soft" factors like deterrence, increased sales because other customers feel safer, etc.

With today's imaging technologies, storage capacities and broadband connectivity, there's even less of an excuse.

I work for a company that makes insurance quoting software. I've done a decent amount of underwriting experience through this. Home insurance carriers typically provide discounts for having certain security systems installed and some even further discounts if they are monitored systems.

I'm not 100% certain because I don't deal with commercial property insurance (auto yes but not property) but I'm pretty certain they would offer a discount on a company's premiums just for having a monitored system. That would pay itself even beyond loss prevention but also in mitigating insurance costs.

Wow. I don't remember a topic change so quick and so drastic.

I tried to put it back but failed, guess it doesn't matter now.

Sorry to fan the flames here, since I'm sure that the moderator's intentions are benevolent, but I find this kind of funny.

If someone posts on here about piracy, which is digital theft for the most part, they're quickly asked to leave this community. But if someone writes about real-world theft – something which is, arguably, much worse – their critics are silenced instead. Why the double standard?

Yes, free speech. That's great. But even with this, moderation is sometimes necessary. I get that. But sometimes, the free flow of words is necessary to make a point. And sometimes when something offensive is said, certain other words are justified. But apparently not.

So, just so we're clear here, stealing bits is a no-no. That'll get you a one-way ticket outta here. But stealing real physical things? No problem. Good on ya. Have at it, Hoss.

I hate to break it to you but freedom of speech does not apply to message boards.
Assuming you are from the US, first amendment protections only protect against the government persecuting individuals for speaking against the government or having conflicting opinions with officials. It does not protect against repercussions from any other group. A message board is private property and you are subject to it's rules.

If Gord wanted to ban people for using the word peanut, he's well within his rights to as this is his board. Fortunately, he's not that type. You should have seen the Dreamcast Technical Pages back in the early 2000s, that was a tightly moderated forum. Chances are a post removal here would equal a lifetime ban from there with no warning.

 

[canuck]

I know in the hotel biz, they call it 'breakage' and it usually accounts for 20% of inventory (ie. broken plates, glasses, stolen item from rooms ect...).

 

[jhamdotme]

First of all, I’m the bad guy?

I hate to break it to you but freedom of speech does not apply to message boards.

If you hate to break this to me, maybe don't. Because you’ve completely missed the point, and your straw man is built on a premise that I was somehow arguing about legality. Clearly, I wasn’t. And if you'll read again what I wrote, you'll see that I conceded that moderation is sometimes necessary.

And for the record, I maligned no one's character. The person in question did that well enough on their own. I merely pointed out the absurdity of what they were saying.

But whatever. Pinball, am I right?