Terry, I work as a security systems installer and fire alarm systems installer, I have a security Master licence and Class 2 b licence.
I must warn anyone who is contemplating using a web cam or similar device for security purposes that the information is next to being inadmissable. Why? The word is that (flame me if you must) the format of the pictures 'JPG' or similar is a construct of a part of the rest of the image, so it isn't the actual image, just a construct of it, if it can be constructed then it can be fiddled with, hence the inadmissability. If you want proper, admissable evidence then you must use DVR format which captures each frame as it is, all the way through, instead of modifications on the first of all the frames. If you think about it it is less able to be corrupted, especially if you are using a series of frames to capture a video sequence, if the first frame is corrupted in DVR, the rest of them aren't, this may not be so with JPG. It does cost as the storage is larger, there is simply more data to store because all the information for each frame is stored, rather than the change from frame to frame from the last frame, but, on the other hand if you need to take it to court, a clever barister will have less of an argument with full frame video, rather than JPG, hence your case is less likely to fail, that would cost a lot less money than trying to win a case on evidence that can be picked to pieces and thrown out of court. If you need some assistance with hardware I'm able to help, email me at your leisure. Regards, Nicholas Tomlin. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
