[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Video surveillance options



On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 01:18 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Friday 21 January 2005 04:54 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 04:06 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > On Thursday 20 January 2005 09:40 pm, Curtis Vaughan wrote:
> > > 
> > > > What role can a linux server play in this?
> > > 
> > > Speaking as someone who has had to use security footage on a daily 
> basis 
> > > before, none whatsoever.  Digital video is useless to law 
> enforcement 
> > > as it cannot be enhanced later.
> > 
> > Doesn't it all depend on the format and the compression rate?
> 
> Not really.  Digital pictures suffer from pixelation at a distance.

And analog images suffer from graininess when you zoom them in too
much.  It all depends on:
- the light 
- the quality of the lens
- the quality of the:
   - film (if analog still) or
   - video tape (if analog video) or
   - video algorithm
- the size of the:
   - negative (if analog still) or
   - size of the tape (if analog video) or
- the speed of the:
   - shutter
   - tape
   - CCDs and CPU in the digital camera.
- your goal
- your budget

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment
by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding."
Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v US (1928)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: