How long should I retain video

[zgebis 0]

I have a pretty large camera system on my home both inside the house and outside. My question is how long should I retain video for. We recently spoke with a detective of our sheriffs office who told us that he was able to obtain video from a Walmart store that was 4 months old and claims they can go back about 6 months.

 

We also found out a neighbors house can only go back one week. I remember that my high school was only able to go back 3 days and the video recorded was CIF at 1FPS.... they paid nearly 1 million dollars for an inferior system if you ask me. This was analog with two 16 channel dvrs. But they also required lots of cable runs so it might have been mostly work that resulted in that number

 

Anyhow I decided to tweak my settings and was getting about a month and a half of video "useable" . This was a mixture of resolutions from CIF-WD1 and the highest frame rate of 3FPS.

 

How long should I have video retained for. I mean I would know if my windshield was broken out, but might not notice if say something small happened. For example I had a few "Warning Cameras in use" signs stolen. I noticed them missing after two weeks past!

 

Should I have 1 1/2 months of "Useable" video or about 1-1/2 weeks of "good" video?

 

"useable" - CIF and D1 mixture no more than 3 FPS

"good" - Cif and WD1 mixture about 5 FPS.

[Kawboy12R 0]

If anything serious happened I'd want GOOD video. No compromises, unless I was going away for, say, a month and nobody would be watching the house until you got back. At least that way you MIGHT have something rather than nothing if they broke in or vandalized the place more than a week and a half before you returned. I'd much rather add storage than suffer through any amount of CIF. If your DVR will handle a larger HD then upgrade it and do D1 and WD1 all the time if possible. If you can't add to the DVR and you're suffering through low frame rates to get even a week and a half of back footage without fulltime D1 recording then I'd try and get a DVR capable of more storage, or add a computer with LOTS of storage running Blue Iris to monitor and record the DVR from over the LAN for the extra storage time. But, if there was no increase in budget allowed, I'd pick less than a week of storage at D1 and WD1, or maybe tweak the motion detection so that I wasn't recording useless footage.

[spyindiaankur 0]

 

Should I have 1 1/2 months of "Useable" video or about 1-1/2 weeks of "good" video?

 

I would prefer short time but high quality videos so 1-1/2 weeks of "Good" video would be better option.

[ilk 0]

If anything serious happened I'd want GOOD video. No compromises, unless I was going away for, say, a month and nobody would be watching the house until you got back. At least that way you MIGHT have something rather than nothing if they broke in or vandalized the place more than a week and a half before you returned. I'd much rather add storage than suffer through any amount of CIF. If your DVR will handle a larger HD then upgrade it and do D1 and WD1 all the time if possible. If you can't add to the DVR and you're suffering through low frame rates to get even a week and a half of back footage without fulltime D1 recording then I'd try and get a DVR capable of more storage, or add a computer with LOTS of storage running Blue Iris to monitor and record the DVR from over the LAN for the extra storage time. But, if there was no increase in budget allowed, I'd pick less than a week of storage at D1 and WD1, or maybe tweak the motion detection so that I wasn't recording useless footage.

 

I would agree 100%.

 

I fail to understand that given the industry moving to higher resolutions (ie megapixel cameras) to increase the likelihood of recognition, why the industry even considers recording at CIF resolution.

 

We still see the default settings for DVRs set out of the box as CIF, the result of which end users who don't know (or lazy installers) implement CCTV systems with minimal effectiveness.

 

I have yet to see an assessment of a project that indicates that CIF recording will meet the operational requirement better than 2CIF, D1 or MP)

 

Ilkie

[zgebis 0]

I have yet to see an assessment of a project that indicates that CIF recording will meet the operational requirement better than 2CIF, D1 or MP) Ilkie

 

I caught some "punks" on out CCTV a few years ago. They broke into several cars in the neighborhood. This is when we had the small 4 channel dvr and a multiplexer to push one channel into 4 additional channels. I think the image is clear the police said it was clear.... Did they catch him. Nope because no one could identify him. BTW that was a snap shot from a CIF recording.

 

Now if you are from the midwest you should know or herd of Menards home improvement stores. They record at CIF resolution at 2 FPS. and they are a multi-billion dollar company.

[ilk 0]

I have yet to see an assessment of a project that indicates that CIF recording will meet the operational requirement better than 2CIF, D1 or MP) Ilkie

 

I caught some "punks" on out CCTV a few years ago. They broke into several cars in the neighborhood. This is when we had the small 4 channel dvr and a multiplexer to push one channel into 4 additional channels. I think the image is clear the police said it was clear.... Did they catch him. Nope because no one could identify him. BTW that was a snap shot from a CIF recording.

 

Now if you are from the midwest you should know or herd of Menards home improvement stores. They record at CIF resolution at 2 FPS. and they are a multi-billion dollar company.

 

Hi Zgebis

 

I agree that all CCTV video is useful (however poor quality picture is presented) and can be used for evidence if acceptable to the court.

 

However, a higher resolution picture may have been able to read the logo on the chest of the guy in your picture, which may have led to identification.

 

Frame rates as low a 2fps will almost certainly mean that action is missed, especially when recording video of targets that move quickly across the surveillance area.

 

As the labour cost increasingly becomes a larger proportion of the total cost of installing CCTV, why would anyone specify equipment (or program systems) which lessen the chance of capturing video which can lead to recognition? (unless the system is installed to meet a planning or licencing requirement only).

 

Ilkie

[Kawboy12R 0]

The resolution is crap but there's little to no blurring and the lighting is good for a night shot. The subject isn't washed out. He's also nice and close so it's a decent enough shot that if you knew him you should be able to ID him. Nothing to write home about but it can get the job done. A better face shot would've been much better at removing doubt, as would better details on his clothing. I've been able to read nametags and small jacket logos from people visiting my place if I sacrifice FOV with my front door camera and go for a closeup.

 

As for Menards, if they have a full-time security guard manning the cameras and someone else at the front door preventing known shoplifters from leaving, 2fps @ CIF is probably all that's needed if they watch them stealing and the buggers are caught at the door with their pockets full. They use the much better live video quality to determine what's going on and the CIF footage is just icing on the cake to present at court along with the thieves they caught red-handed. I bet a lot of the actual footage is just good enough to show suspicious activity but not what they took. Hopefully they also have at least D1 closeup footage of everybody entering the store and they just use the CIF for "what happened" info and not depend on CIF for every ID.

 

On the other end of the scale, Walmart isn't exactly known for spending money when it doesn't have to but our local small-time Walmart has a very expensive Axis megapixel IP system in place. I doubt they'd spend the bucks if there wasn't payback in loss prevention over a 2 fps CIF system.

 

Local banks are all over the place. Some still haven't updated their oooold technology and publish photos of bank robbers that they should be ashamed of and, quite frankly, don't show anything that'd help someone to identify the robber if they were picking them out of a lineup of even remotely similar faces. Others have modern megapixel systems in them that can count zits and calculate the last time they shaved.

[zgebis 0]

Exactly true. I kinda see both sides. So now that I am recording at higher resolutions and frame rates. How long should I retain that video. Should I upgrade storage capacity now so that I can get more images on the recorder. I did ONE time and only one time have to go back a few months to find who stole an item because we weren't really paying attention. I don't want to go to Motion only recordings because sometimes with motion you can miss an object or person. I also have a few PTZ cameras so motion wont work that well.

[zgebis 0]

As for Menards

 

Here is some video from a Menards store.