Do more pixels equal a better picture?

It depends...

YES, more pixels equal a better picture, IF the company laying out the cameras utilizes traditional surveillance design techniques. In other words, traditional designs use more pixels as a crutch. So, yes, a traditional design with high resolution cameras will typically result in better picture quality than the same design utilizing low resolution cameras.

However, the downside to traditional surveillance design is horrific inefficiency regarding each camera's coverage area. The customer is the one who pays the price for this inefficiency, because they are asked to invest in the maximum number of cameras with the greatest resolution to ensure their property is covered.

The financial pains inflicted by the failure to optimize the design is further magnified when the cost of the associated cabling infrastructure, along with the additional servers and storage required to archive all of the video, is factored into the equation.

NO, more pixels do not equal better picture quality, IF the company providing the surveillance design is made up of professionals who understand the fundamental relationship between imagers, optics and the inverse-square-law.

This is easier to grasp if you think about pixels in terms of raw materials. Then, for an instant, substitute the word pound for pixels, and imagine you are dealing with steel.

Comparing steel road plates to tower cranes used in the construction industry may help with the analogy. If you visit a website that sells steel road plates, you will notice the manufacturer lists the size and weight of the steel plate.

However, if you visit a website that sells tower cranes, they do not mention how much the crane weighs. Instead they focus on how much the crane is capable of lifting. It is all about how the steel is utilized!

The same is true with surveillance design. Pixels within a camera's imager are just raw material. In order to optimize the usefulness of each of the camera's pixels, precise engineering is crucial.

In order to optimize the usefulness of each of the camera's pixels, precise engineering is crucial.

Take a look at these two photographs taken at the Capitol Building in Frankfort, Kentucky. In both images the distance between the cones at the front of the scene and the doors on the Capitol Building is 1,536-ft. All of the props are in the exact same place. Both images have the same number of pixels.

The surveillance design goal is to have a minimum resolution of 20-PPF (pixels-per-foot). Based on that design goal, the top image provides a useful coverage area of approximately 11,500-ft2. Keep in mind that just because the mannequins are in the camera's field-of-view, that does not mean that their resolution provides useful information. The male mannequin above in the green shirt is captured at 7.5-PPF.

Based on the same design goal, the bottom image provides a useful coverage area of approximately 102,950-ft2. The male mannequin below in the green shirt is captured at 105-PPF and the female mannequin in the red shirt is captured at 28-PPF.

Yes, the distance between the yellow cone and the female mannequin is 1,536-ft. in both images. As shown in the top image, traditional design techniques tend to obliterate detail in the back of the scene.

Wach1design's techniques ensure useful images at the front and back of every scene as shown in the bottom image.

Wach1design's techniques ensure useful images at the front and back of every scene.

The bottom photograph shows a 9x increase in useful coverage area compared to the top photograph. Precise manipulation of the following four items is responsible for the differences in these two images. They operate in a synergistic manner: (meaning if you change one, you impact the others)

• The physical size of the camera's imager (?", ?", ?" etc, etc.)
• The amount of pixels compromising the camera's imager (640 x 480, 1920 x 1080, 3840 x 2160, etc, etc.)
• The focal length of the camera's lens (2.8mm, 4mm, 8mm, 16mm, 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 135mm, etc, etc)
• The mounting location of the camera.

By engaging with a firm which specializes in optimizing those four items for each area under surveillance, you can be assured your surveillance system will meet your objectives. As a bonus you may achieve a significant reduction in the number of cameras required to cover the entirety of your property.

At Wach1design we call this technique Mastering the Wach-Factor of the Scene. Here is a link to a video which discusses the Wach-Factor in greater detail and shows how our design ensures your entire surveillance system provides useful images at the front and back of each scene while utilizing the fewest amount of cameras possible.

Cameras are individual pieces of the surveillance puzzle.

Take a look at these two collages of images. Both of these groups of images is of the same parking lot in front of an elementary school. The group of six images was taken with each camera placed where those practicing traditional surveillance design would likely place them.

This group of four images is the product of Wach1design. Remember, these images are the same parking lot, same school, same resolution cameras.

Here are some interesting differences you may notice between traditional design techniques and Wach1design.

1. The traditional design requires six cameras to cover the parking lot. Wach1design requires only four cameras, thereby reducing the camera count by 33%.
2. The traditional design requires six building penetrations. Wach1design requires only two building penetrations, a reduction of 67%
3. The amount of detail available over the entirety of the parking lot is greater in the four camera collage than it is in the six camera collage.
4. The workload on the officers in the Security Operations Center (SOC) is much lower in the four camera collage than it is in the six camera collage. Imagine it is your job to track a little lost boy in the parking lot. Which view makes the most sense to you? Now multiply the increased efficiency times the amount of parking lots and open spaces across your property.

At Wach1design we take into consideration every camera's view to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of your Security Operations Center.

The comparison of these two collages is further evidence that more pixels do not ensure a better picture, nor do more cameras ensure greater situational awareness. Design is the single largest factor contributing to the usefulness of your surveillance system.

Design is the single largest factor contributing to the usefulness of your surveillance system.

Here is a link to a video which explains many additional benefits of Wach1design.

307,200-pixels vs. 12,000,000-pixels = Same image quality.

Still need definitive proof that you can achieve the same image quality with a 640 x 480 camera (307,200-pixels) as you can with a 4K camera (12,000,000-pixels)?

I modeled the following test using the Advanced Camera Tools in SketchUp Pro. There is plenty of information included below for anyone who wishes to conduct the test themselves, using their own cameras and equipment. I have tested physical cameras against the model cameras in SketchUp Pro and am satisfied with the results.

I started by creating a 13" x 19" version of the Snellen Chart. I then mounted the chart on a 5' 6" pedestal placed directly in front of a 1-ft x 1-ft gold and white tile grid. You can download a printable version by clicking on the chart below.

Next I used the HEED Index (which is discussed in this article) to precisely calculate the correct lens for each camera to roughly achieve the equivalent of human sight. The cameras were positioned 20-feet away from the Snellen Chart.

These two images just show the two cameras. If you click on either of the images, you can download an eight-page PDF document which shows a variety of cameras modeled. Please note that this is not a single image that was cropped multiple times, but rather each camera was accurately modeled within the SketchUp software.

If you want to see what each full-size image looks like, click on the image below and you will be taken to a slideshow where you can choose each image individually. On the larger images, you will have to scroll to the right in order to see the Snellen Chart.

What you will notice is the ability to discern the letters on the Snellen Chart is virtually identical in each image. More pixels allows you to capture a larger area. They do not necessarily make your image quality better.

More pixels allows you to capture a larger area. They do not necessarily make your image quality better.

You will also notice that there is a one-to-one ratio in pixel-count versus coverage-area. This 1:1 ratio explains the horrific inefficiencies of throwing more pixels at a scene instead of properly engineering the scene. As shown in the video discussing the Wach-Factor, it is possible to achieve up to a 45:1 efficiency increase in coverage-area without increasing pixel or camera count, by utilizing Wach1design.

If you want to know if your surveillance system is based on traditional design methods, please contact me. There are several telltale signs that are evident. I will gladly talk you through some ways to identify evidence of inefficient design.

If you are relatively new to the surveillance camera world, you may want to read this article. It focuses on the language of the industry.

Stephen W. Bond

You can download a Wach1design brochure by clicking here.

You can download a Wach1design Sample Project Book by clicking here.

Article by Stephen W. Bond, owner of Wach1design, LLC.