Heh, whenever there’s some news story and they are like “the suspect was caught on this grainy video but no one can determine who it is” or something, my best friend says “Once again, we see that using the bare minimum in security equipment fails to pay dividends.”
And here I am with 4K cameras outside my house that cost like $60 each.
Because of how much storage costs, compared to how likely it is you’ll ever need it, compared to what is being stolen.
Think about how much data would be used in a month by a high quality video running 24/7, multiply that by 2-4 cameras. Way over $100/month, maybe $1,000+? All for what, because 2-3 teenagers might steal a kitkat? A typical kwik-e-mart doesn’t have the budget to pay for top of the line surveillance, especially if it won’t even cover loss.
They have to set a realistic budget given these things, and that usually means lower quality video and/or shorter data retention periods.
The issue here is storage. CCTVs tend to store 30 days of continuous footage which requires significant amount of storage. To save the storage, CCTVs simply lower down the video quality and most dont even come with audio recording.
The sharper the image, the more storage space it uses, which increases the cost. They will use a resolution that is good enough for the purposes of their own security. They aren’t making a TV show.
There’s very little incentive for your local 7 Eleven or Circle K to go anywhere above and beyond the cheapest made in China knockoff of a Korean knockoff of a decent domestic knockoff of a genuinely good security camera.
A big old ugly camera instead of a tiny hidden state of the art thing is a visual deterrent. Putting them off trying in the 1st place is by far the best result
A lot of people mention storage which is certainly a concern. But the biggest issue I’ve seen is upgrading an old system just isn’t deemed worth it to a lot of people. CCTV systems are built to be robust and run constantly in bad environments 24/7. A lot of them look old because they are. It’s a why fix it if it’s working. Think the same with cars. You could upgrade your old Corolla to a corvette. But that costs you money on the bottom line and the Corolla still functionally works. High res systems are significantly cheaper than they were in the past. But upgrading a full system just because is likely not deemed worth the business cost. It’s not just replacing cameras. It’s often replacing cameras, nvr system, and replacing cables (like from bnc to Ethernet) which is the crappiest part. New installs are all going to be poe and probably minimum 1080p most places. But the cost to rip and replace with all new stuff is just expensive. Likely won’t happen at most businesses unless they have to or are motivated to for security or insurance reasons.
I don’t know but my guess is a mix of being frugal with storage space(so turning down the quality/but rate so they can hold more footage with less storage). Combined with low light/poor conditions and old cameras.
You can get better CCTV, easily, at a slightly higher price. But…
Sometimes it’s because storage costs money, but storage costs have come down enough that this is not a good reason in most cases.
Sometimes it’s because many CCTV systems have been in place for a long time and replacing them isn’t a priority.
Sometimes it’s because even with good cameras, you aren’t getting an amazing image when the most practical camera placement covers a very wide field of view at a distance.
Sometimes it’s because a business owner only wants to spend bottom dollar.
But often it is because companies that make, sell, and install CCTV equipment want to change as little as possible while making as much margin as possible. There are mountains of existing cameras–or parts for cameras–built on technology of yesteryear that cost a small fraction of something modern. And they aren’t made by the same people who make the modern stuff. By the time you factor in the labor and other parts, it’s not really a huge difference to the final buyer, but the sellers of those cameras aren’t interested in directing people to something with smaller margins (or, realistically, other sellers, entirely). And the installers don’t care much, except that they can continue to get business. And the people who make the CCTV equipment for all those old analog systems aren’t always interested in making entirely new systems to support the new stuff.
Comments
Why buy nicer camera when super cheap camera works just fine?
Because the vast majority of CCTV users don’t care about quality.
The cameras exist to get a reduced insurance rate, and that’s all. Nobody actually cares what’s on the recording, and lower quality is cheaper.
Heh, whenever there’s some news story and they are like “the suspect was caught on this grainy video but no one can determine who it is” or something, my best friend says “Once again, we see that using the bare minimum in security equipment fails to pay dividends.”
And here I am with 4K cameras outside my house that cost like $60 each.
The point of CCTV is to record multiple days’ worth of footage. It takes significantly more storage space to store high frame rate HD footage.
Higher quality video means you need more storage. Some people just don’t want to pay for more storage and such.
Because of how much storage costs, compared to how likely it is you’ll ever need it, compared to what is being stolen.
Think about how much data would be used in a month by a high quality video running 24/7, multiply that by 2-4 cameras. Way over $100/month, maybe $1,000+? All for what, because 2-3 teenagers might steal a kitkat? A typical kwik-e-mart doesn’t have the budget to pay for top of the line surveillance, especially if it won’t even cover loss.
They have to set a realistic budget given these things, and that usually means lower quality video and/or shorter data retention periods.
The issue here is storage. CCTVs tend to store 30 days of continuous footage which requires significant amount of storage. To save the storage, CCTVs simply lower down the video quality and most dont even come with audio recording.
The sharper the image, the more storage space it uses, which increases the cost. They will use a resolution that is good enough for the purposes of their own security. They aren’t making a TV show.
There’s very little incentive for your local 7 Eleven or Circle K to go anywhere above and beyond the cheapest made in China knockoff of a Korean knockoff of a decent domestic knockoff of a genuinely good security camera.
A big old ugly camera instead of a tiny hidden state of the art thing is a visual deterrent. Putting them off trying in the 1st place is by far the best result
A lot of people mention storage which is certainly a concern. But the biggest issue I’ve seen is upgrading an old system just isn’t deemed worth it to a lot of people. CCTV systems are built to be robust and run constantly in bad environments 24/7. A lot of them look old because they are. It’s a why fix it if it’s working. Think the same with cars. You could upgrade your old Corolla to a corvette. But that costs you money on the bottom line and the Corolla still functionally works. High res systems are significantly cheaper than they were in the past. But upgrading a full system just because is likely not deemed worth the business cost. It’s not just replacing cameras. It’s often replacing cameras, nvr system, and replacing cables (like from bnc to Ethernet) which is the crappiest part. New installs are all going to be poe and probably minimum 1080p most places. But the cost to rip and replace with all new stuff is just expensive. Likely won’t happen at most businesses unless they have to or are motivated to for security or insurance reasons.
Exactly. The news puts up a vidro. “Help us ID this man.” Dude! Not even sure if that’s a human. Could be Big Foot. Might be Nessie.
I was in a convenience store recently. They had several screens showing their security cameras. Crystal clear 4K.
I actually complimented the guy on having good cameras. He probably thought I was nuts. Maybe I was in shock.
Most business and government CCTV is actually still very old systems.
I don’t know but my guess is a mix of being frugal with storage space(so turning down the quality/but rate so they can hold more footage with less storage). Combined with low light/poor conditions and old cameras.
You can get better CCTV, easily, at a slightly higher price. But…
Sometimes it’s because storage costs money, but storage costs have come down enough that this is not a good reason in most cases.
Sometimes it’s because many CCTV systems have been in place for a long time and replacing them isn’t a priority.
Sometimes it’s because even with good cameras, you aren’t getting an amazing image when the most practical camera placement covers a very wide field of view at a distance.
Sometimes it’s because a business owner only wants to spend bottom dollar.
But often it is because companies that make, sell, and install CCTV equipment want to change as little as possible while making as much margin as possible. There are mountains of existing cameras–or parts for cameras–built on technology of yesteryear that cost a small fraction of something modern. And they aren’t made by the same people who make the modern stuff. By the time you factor in the labor and other parts, it’s not really a huge difference to the final buyer, but the sellers of those cameras aren’t interested in directing people to something with smaller margins (or, realistically, other sellers, entirely). And the installers don’t care much, except that they can continue to get business. And the people who make the CCTV equipment for all those old analog systems aren’t always interested in making entirely new systems to support the new stuff.
because they were probably installed in the 80’s