Quote:
Originally Posted by wannabee
In an era when almost everyone has a HD video camera in their pocket, why do security cameras still use analogue technology that can not resolve the image of the thief's face when he is standing upright and looking straight at the camera.
Police were taking these videos to us back in 1995 for us to enhance and we were perplexed then that SECURITY cameras were so crap at capturing the image. In fact, they were regularly dismissed as evidence because of the low quality of the vision. It hasn't changed in over 15 years that I can see.
|
It was about 25 years ago that I got to see close-up a video camera small enough to fit inside a hollowed-out thumb. The lens was about the size of a pencil eraser, and the resolution was excellent. Moreover, in the catalog that came with it there was an optional cone-shapped lens that ended in a point about the size of the tip of a ball point pen. You could pretty much hide this thing behind a dot on the wall. Why doesn't the FBI have these things? And the sound quality of the surveillance tapes is another thing that leaves much to be desired. Remember the tapes of Marion Berry buying cocaine? The sound quality was so poor that the news programs had to use subtitles. In this day of pristine digital video and sound recording, it seems the professionals in law enforcement are still using equipment that would have embarrassed Edison.