Clicky Web Analytics
IP Video Surveillance News and Reviews
Search:
Login
The Source for Video Surveillance Free Video Surveillance Guide Download
Email Address:

Realities of License Plate Recognition (LPR)

by John Honovich, IP Video Market Info posted on May 08, 2008 About John Contact John


LPR is a very demanding application that can only succeed in limited operational conditions deployed by expert security integrators.

Historically, publicly available information clearly explaining the operational impact has been hard to find. Thankfully, Milestone has released their LPR administrator's manual providing an honest, clear and concise explanation. I recommend you read pages 29-35 to get a very rapid but deep review of the key factors. Though this is for Milestone the points are generally consistent with the state of the art in currently available commercial systems.

The Milestone document helps to reveal 3 key practical elements:

  • LPR can only succeed when a number of strict operational conditions are met.
  • The costs of achieving these conditions makes LPR unfeasible for many scenarios.
  • You need deep security integration expertise to succeed but only modest IT depth.

The Conditions

Here are the key conditions that need to be meet in approximate order of difficulty:

 

  • US license plates need to be at least 130 pixels wide. This translates roughly into an image no wider than 5-6 feet assuming 4CIF standard definition video. That's a very tight shot.
  • The horizontal angle between the camera and plate is within 20 degrees. This means that if your camera is 10 feet away from the plate, the plate cannot be more than 3 feet to the right or left of the camera. This significantly limits where you can put the camera.
  • The vertical angle between the camera and plate is within 30 degrees. This means that if your camera is 10 feet away from the plate and the plate is 3 feet off the ground, the camera cannot be mounted than 8 feet high. This usually can be accommodated but is low relative to normal heights for outdoor surveillance.
  • There are a host of lighting adjustments that need to be made. Simply using a stock camera with stock settings will routinely cause very poor performance. For example, Milestone recommends CMOS cameras, disabling auto gain, using WDR and higher shutter speeds (if the car is moving). There is a lot of advanced details that need to be set correctly.
  • You must use MJPEG and you cannot use H.264 or MPEG-4. Since the analytics in this design are being done outside of the camera and since the analytic can only process images, MJPEG is required. You could theoretically use H.264 or MPEG-4 but then you would have to decode it and the processing power can be very significant. Bottom line is this can have a big impact on bandwidth utilization especially if you are looking for a wireless system.

Feasibility

Clearly, LPR is feasible for the traditional license plate camera use case: A camera installed immediately adjacent to an entrance or toll booth that is only a few feet off the ground and dedicated to looking at the plate. Automated LPR makes reading these plates easier.

However, for broader market usage, this has major limitations. Lots of companies like the concept of monitoring the license plates of people who enter their premises. Setting up cameras in the specific constraints required can be very expensive. Assuming you can find a location that meets these constraints, it requires a construction project that can be $5,000 or more per camera simply for the installation and equipment.

The holy grail is reutilizing your PTZs mounted on roofs and poles. However, these conditions should make it clear that is not feasible. One, getting the resolution needed would be difficult. Does a monitor manually zoom in on license plates? Even if he does, what will the image quality be, given the lighting constraints required for LPR. Also, it will be extremely tough to stay within booth the horizontal and vertical angle requirements.

LPR analysis, with its current capabilities, cannot enable significantly new operational uses of license plate monitoring. While it should help with the traditional use case of monitoring controlled traffic flow, its constraints make it very challenging for broader use.

Security Integration Expertise

The other interesting element that the Milestone manual demonstrates is that LPR integration does not demand deep IT skill but it does demand deep expertise in security design and camera systems.

Integrating LPR is much more like using a graphics design application than it is like setting up a mail server. It depends on understanding the design objectives of security, the physical conditions of the site and the capabilities of the video tools available. The IT elements of the setup are fairly straightforward for a security integrator. The challenge lies in the design and application.

Finally, it is great that Milestone released this manual. Milestone has clearly shared operational limitations that might stop some from buying their product. It is hard for most organizations to do this. Nevertheless, in the long run, it is better for our customers and I believe better for Milestone. In this way, we can maximize the probability that projects will be successful, customers will be happy and the market expands over time.





Most Recent Industry Reports

Testing Ikena's Video Enhancement Software on Mar 17, 2010
Driven by Hollywood sensationalism, public interest and expectations for miraclous video surveillance enhancement is common. A popular YouTube video captures Hollywood's approach: By...

Education: IP Network Basics for Video Surveillance on Mar 14, 2010
Understanding IP networks is increasingly critical to designing and deploying video surveillance. In this special report, we provide nearly 2 hours of video training on the key issues, technologies...

Video Surveillance Industry Weekly - Mar 12 2010 on Mar 12, 2010
New funding, new panoramic from Mobotix, more analytic bashing and the power of IT managers examined. All updates are available to premium members inside.

Testing Avigilon ControlCenter VMS on Mar 09, 2010
While Avigilon is best known for its high resolution cameras (up to 16 MP), Avigilon offers its own VMS, Control Center, a system that is required for using their cameras. With interest in megapixe...

2010 Video Surveillance Industry Guide on Mar 08, 2010
The 612 page 2010 Video Surveillance Industry Guide provides the most comprehensive global coverage of the market, companies and products in video surveillance. It aggregates key analysis and resea...

Testing Digifort's VMS (Version 6.3) on Mar 07, 2010
As video management software matures, more choices are emerging from around the globe. In the past year, we have heard increasing discussion about the use of Digifort, a company based in Brazil, no...

Testing Vitamin D Video Analytics Software on Mar 06, 2010
With significant tech blog coverage, Vitamin D has generated widespread interest in using their video analytics. Two of the most commonly cited points is their technology, called HTM, that is based...

Video Surveillance Industry Weekly - Mar 5 2010 on Mar 05, 2010
This week: Falling Analog sales.The future of GE Security. New Investments. New info on key startup and more. Aggregates premium weekly updates.

Testing LuxRiot VMS (Version 1.7) on Mar 01, 2010
As video management software matures, complaints increase about its high price. Even a small deployment of 16 cameras in a single site can cost $1,500 - $2,500 for basic VMS software without any en...

February 2010 Video Surveillance Monthly Summary on Mar 01, 2010
Lots of research and heated discussions in February, despite little industry news. Most read topics included our megapixel camera test results comparison, the future of security integrators and the...

IP Video Market Info 2010