Clicky Web Analytics
Sign Up for the Weekly Newsletter
Email Address:
Video Analytics Review: The Key Challenge for Video Analytics :
by: John Honovich, IP Video Market Info posted on May 07, 2008 About John Contact John

It's all about false positives. Catching the bad guy is pretty easy for today's perimeter violation and abandoned object detection. Not catching anything else -- the sun, the moon, the wind, the birds, the rain, the trees -- that's the challenge.

This should not be that much of a secret. A little bit of experience with any of the dozens of video analytics vendors in today's market demonstrates this.

So it shocked me that Bosch has decided to turn the easy part into the 'challenge'. Here's Dr. Bob explaining what Bosch did at ISC West:

"For the IVA (Intelligent Video Analysis) challenge we had people lining up from 10am when the doors opened till the end – over 2,300 people took the challenge, which was to steal a Bosch power drill from under the nose of our IP camera without the alarm going off." (http://blog.boschsecurity.us/2008/04/stealing-things-at-isc-west.html)

Dr. Bob exults: "Yes, I think we can safely say we got our message across – our products are smarter than the average bear, and bringing intelligent video analytics to the masses is a good example."

This is cunning marketing but, at best, it is wildly misleading and, at worst, it is a scam.

Now, I am not judging the quality of Bosch's product nor is Bosch the first or last company who will frame the issue as such.

That being said, this challenge is worthless in judging the quality of an analytic because:

1. Any decent prototype can accurately generate correct matches in a controlled environment.

2. Economically, minimizing false alerts is critical to establishing the business case.

Reducing False Positives

Making sure you only trigger when someone is violating is hard because there are so many factors that might set off the analytic besides a valid adversary. To a computer, rain, dust and snow can all generate a similar form to a human being. Quick changes in light or the movement of water (waves) can also generate such forms. A camera that shakes because of the wind or issues with the mounting or installation also can trigger such alerts.

The hard part in such analytics is to make sure that these alerts can be eliminated. This is a key metric in testing and differentiating between analytics.

The Economics of False Positives

False positives drive up the cost of systems. Many (most?) organizations do not have a centralized monitoring system in place to respond and assess video analytic alerts. This places the burden on individual security managers to respond to alerts. Over the last 5 years, getting dozens (hundreds) of false alerts per day (especially if you deploy numerous cameras with video analytics) has been common. This can become an emotional and operational dealbreaker (even if it passed the Bosch challenge).

While it is better operationally to centrally manage alerts, if the system generates dozens or hundreds of false alerts per day, the costs can become prohibitive. Let's say an 'intelligent' camera generates 5 false alerts a day at the cost of $1 per alert (the unit cost to pay a monitor to assess). That's $5 per day, over $1,800 per year and about $10,000 for a projected 5 year lifecycle. If you have dozens or hundreds of cameras, this hidden operational cost can be in the millions.

And this is not theoretical. This is the feedback you will hear time and again from real world deployments. It's widely accepted that this is improving but it is still the major factor in assessing the quality of analytics.

Bosch may think that these tricks are making people more excited and more accepting of analytics. Most security managers have been excited about analytics for a long time. They see the obvious potential to mitigate risks and reduce losses.

Security managers are justifiably not as accepting because they are afraid of the cost and performance of analytics. Bosch is not helping this key consideration. It's baiting integrators and security managers into dangerous territory. We need more clarity and honesty about what analytics can do and how well they can do it. Start with testing false positives under the real conditions of your security operations.
Email this review to a friend



Comment #1 by Dr Bob posted on May 07, 2008
John,
Thanks for your comments. I agree that false positives (little bunny rabbits inadvertantly triggering the analytics to deploy a small army to the scene) are a nuisance - noise that has a real cost associated with them. I think you'll agree that false negatives ('I didn't see him - how on earth did he get in?') are also important - as these are the bad guys we're actually trying to catch in the first place.

I agree that Intelligent Video Analysis is becoming much more accessible to the masses, fuelled by simpler architectures and 'Model-T like affordability'. I agree there is plenty of hype and mis-selling going on, and there is a tendancy to expect IVA to be able to solve world hunger. It can't. But one way to find out what is really possible in a given scenario is to borrow an IP camera with embedded analytics, get a cross-over cable and point your web browser at it, and see if it actually works. If it does, great. If it doesn't, simply send it back. And if you don't want to swap out your camera, or install a new one, simply connect an encoder to the existing coax home-run or loop-thru from your existing DVR, and test it there.

The Live Bosch IVA Challenge brought IVA awareness to the masses. Many asked for more information and some of them are evaluating our offering. I look forward to the Fall when I may have the opportunity to walk the ASIS show with you to see how others perform live and engaging demonstrations of reliable analytics working in rain, snow and wind without over-selling. I support their efforts because it shows on behalf of all of us how much more mature IVA has become.
Best regards,
Dr Bob

Comment #2 by John Honovich posted on May 07, 2008
Dr. Bob,

The answer is real testing and independent quantitative analysis.

I am disappointed that you would engage in sarcasm: "walk the ASIS show with you to see how others perform live and engaging demonstrations of reliable analytics working in rain, snow and wind without over-selling."

The point is do not do these carnival acts.

If you really are committed to showing how mature your IVA solution is use the techniques advocated by ASIS. Specifically, conduct tests in conformance with "The Design and Evaluation of Physical Security Systems." (http://www.amazon.com/Design-Evaluation-Physical-Protection-Systems/dp/0750673672)

Independent labs using rigorous techniques, such as Sandia does, are the key to providing quality information to our customers. Your competitors have done so. Perhaps you have done as well and would like to share.

Otherwise, please stop engaging in parlor tricks and offering sarcasm. Without real analysis, you are undermining the industry and hurting security managers.

Best,

John

Companies Monitored
Find:
Company
3VR
3xLogic
ACTi
ADT
Agent Vi
Aimetis
Airship
American Dynamics
Arecont Vision
Avigilon
Axis
Bosch Security
BRS Labs
Cernium
Cieffe
Cisco
CSST
Dedicated Micros
DvTel
Envysion
Eptascape
Exacq
Extreme CCTV
Firetide
Flir
Fluidmesh
Genetec
Honeywell Video
i3DVR
iControl
Immervision
IndigoVision
Intellivid
Intransa
ioimage
IP Configure
IQinvision
Lumenera
Mango DSP
March Networks
MATE IV
Milestone Systems
Mobotix
NICE Security
NUUO
ObjectVideo
ONSSI
Orsus
Panasonic
Pelco
Phoenix IVS
Pivot3
Pixim
Proximex
QNAP
SightLogix
Steelbox
Tempest Microsystems
Theia
Verint
VideoIQ
VideoNext
VideoProtein
Vidient
Vidsys
Vivotek

IP Video Market Info 2008