Installation height, vandals, domes?

[ClayMan 0]

What is generally considered a safe height for mounting regular/bullet cameras? I understand that they are probably of better quality than dome cameras, but I don't want them to be easily vandalized or "re-aimed"...

[rory 0]

it really depends on the application, but for example under a single storey home's eave is normal, or even lower. However, remember the higher you go with the camera, the smaller the FOV becomes.

[scorpion 0]

This my be a trick for you if you have to mount them low. This is what I do for outdoor covert situations, and this may work for you.

 

I put my bullets inside of birdhouses. If someone does a driveby they will not see the cameras.

 

In your case it may help from someone taking a "broom" or a stick and reorienting the cameras. If I go low I will use a vandal dome.

 

http://www.avssys.net/?s=product&sub=camera&cat=ir&p=vnd49ir

 

Once this is "locked" down you cannot get to the mounting screws, and you cannot move the camera. This can be adjusted from 4mm -9mm with just a jewlers screwdriver from the outside of the camera.

 

I hope this helps!

[ak357 0]

Once this is "locked" down you cannot get to the mounting screws, and you cannot move the camera. This can be adjusted from 4mm -9mm with just a jewlers screwdriver from the outside of the camera.

quote]

 

Spray paint will work just fine

[scorpion 0]

That and a T shirt.

 

They cannot get all of the cameras at once. Also at that threat level comes more cameras, lpr cameras, and live video monitoring.

 

On simple systems you hope the camera is a deterrent to keep the honest crooks away.

 

If you are hit by someone wanting quick cash items for drugs then hopefully he will be jones ing so bad that he won't notice the camera or they wont care.

[scorpion 0]

Now that I think about it I am at a loss. There is so much graffiti around here, yet I have never seen any of our cameras hit with spray paint!!!!!

 

Baseball bat seems to be the tool of choice in my experience. I have alway wondered why. I guess crow bars are considered "burglar tools" and bats are not.

[VST_Man 1]

I gotta chime in...........I very rarely seen any damage to camera's as a direct result of vandalism. I always recommend using vandal's in low obvious places and regular housings/box on higher/untouchable. Hiding camera's is cool but most times the perp keeps moving until they find a weaker target. Visible camera's equal trouble. Hidden camera's invite stupids.

 

Hidden camera's have a place/use but the appearance of video camera's keeps "most" honest. Just take London as an example. Crime has dropped to a crazy low because they have camera's everywhere.......and I did not see any birdhouses on street lamps....yet.

 

I really think that the legallity of video will be changed and aligned more with audio recording laws.............hidden video recordings will be challenged in court and most likely will be tossed out.maybe not today, but in the future? .........I don't agree, I'm just saying.

[scorpion 0]

It appears that some of the laws may soon change in regards to audio on cameras. The event where the home owner that was arrested because of the audio recording at the residence has changed law makers to sway toward allowing audio to protect your property. I guess the outcome of his trial will set precedence. If he loses than I can see the lawmakers working on drafts (if they already haven't), and trying to muster up votes till it passes.

 

I do not endorse this newspaper. I am including the whole copy/paste to give them credit for the source of the article.

 

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070115/NEWS01/201150372/-1/sox

 

Bill would alter N.H. wiretap statute

 

 

By ANDREW WOLFE, Telegraph Staff

awolfe@nashuatelegraph.com

 

Published: Monday, Jan. 15, 2007

 

CONCORD – A Nashua man’s arrest for recording detectives at his door last year has inspired a bill to let property owners record audio and video on their premises without notice.

 

Michael Gannon, 40, was arrested June 27, after his home security camera made video and audio recordings of detectives who had come to 26 Morgan St. looking for his teenage son.

 

Gannon was arrested on felony wiretapping charges after he brought the recordings to the police station to complain that a detective was rude to him. The case drew international ire, especially online, and police later opted to drop the charges. Police also concluded that Gannon’s complaint against the detective was justified.

 

Police later returned Gannon’s cameras and recording equipment, though he said the wiring was damaged when police pulled them from the mounts. Police refused to give back Gannon’s tapes, however, saying they were illegal recordings, and thus contraband.

 

Gannon’s lawyer, Larry Vogelman of Manchester, said Thursday he’s still negotiating with the department to get the tapes back. Gannon hopes the tapes will serve as evidence for a lawsuit against police, he said Thursday.

 

Gannon had been charged with violating the state wiretap and eavesdropping law (RSA 570-A:2). The law makes it a felony to use any sort of electronic device to eavesdrop or record other people’s conversations without their consent.

 

Representative Dudley Dumaine, R-Auburn, wants to change that. Last week, Dumaine and five other sponsors introduced House Bill 97, which would add an exception to the law, letting property owners record their own premises, with or without warning.

 

“This bill creates an exception to the violation of privacy and wiretapping and eavesdropping statutes to allow any person to conduct, without notice, audio or video recordings, or both, on his or her private property and curtilage for security purposes,â€

[jisaac 0]

vandalism is hard to predict. We have put standard box camera housing twenty feet up and had them bashed and forced to look up. And we have put vandal proof cameras 6 feet of the ground and never had them touched. I would have to say that bullet cameras would be extremely easy to take out. I have been as a standard using vandal proof domes in any situation under 10 feet. But on the other hand people vandalizing cameras is good for business. But in all seriousness a vandal proof camera will in most cases be best for longevity of the system and ensure no tampering.

[ClayMan 0]

Yeah, I am thinking I will definitely go with vandal domes in sensitive areas indoors.

 

However, my main problem lies with the outdoor cameras. I will be monitoring a large parking lot, and the building I will be installing the cameras on does not have an eave or bulkhead to hang domes from. (Domes can't be mounted sideways right? And that would cause major problems with weather anyway?)

 

The building is about ~15 feet high though, so I have some height to work with if necessary. Any suggestions on what to do? Basically, it seems I need a day-night with auto-iris that is weatherproof and somewhat vandalproof... A lot of requirements to satisfy.

[scorpion 0]

Look at this thread and look at and look at the camera that Rory posted.

 

http://www.cctvforum.com/about6836-0.html

 

 

This is the camera that I am using, It can be mounted on top of, or it can be mounted under, it can be mounted to the side of, and it can be mounted to an area that may be at an angle. You just rotate the camera to the "horizontal" plane.

 

http://avssys.net/?s=product&sub=camera&cat=ir&p=vnd49ir

[kao 0]

The KT&C series of Vandal domes also support tri-axis internal cameras so you can mount them on a vertical surface and position the camera properly.

However if you are in an area with frequent rain, snow, or sun facing into the camera, then you are going to have compromised visibility.

 

Most manufacturers sell a bracket that you can mount to the wall and it provides a horizontal base so you can mount the camera the "right way" and many have inner hollow area for running cable.