Advertisement

Automatic Control of Video Surveillance Camera Sabotage

  • P. Gil-Jiménez
  • R. López-Sastre
  • P. Siegmann
  • J. Acevedo-Rodríguez
  • S. Maldonado-Bascón
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4528)

Abstract

One of the main characteristics of a video surveillance system is its reliability. To this end, it is needed that the images captured by the videocameras are an accurate representation of the scene. Unfortunately, some activities can make the proper operation of the cameras fail, distorting in some way the images which are going to be processed. When these activities are voluntary, they are usually called sabotage, which include partial o total occlusion of the lens, image defocus or change of the field of view.

In this paper, we will analyze the different kinds of sabotage that could be done to a video surveillance system, and some algorithms to detect these inconveniences will be developed. The experimental results show good performance in the detection of sabotage situations, while keeping a very low false alarm probability.

Keywords

Background Model Current Frame Video Surveillance Partial Occlusion Real Time Requirement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Foresti, G.L., Mähönen, P., Regazzoni, C.S.: Multimedia video-based surveillance systems. Requirements, issues and solutions, 1st edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Di Stefano, L., Neri, G., Viarani, E.: Analysis of pixel-level algorithms for video surveillance applications. In: CIAP01, pp. 541–546 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Toyama, K., Krumm, J., Brumitt, B., Meyers, B.: Wallflower: Principles and practice of background maintenance. In: ICCV, vol. 1, pp. 255–261 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boult, T., Micheals, R., Gao, X., Eckmann, M.: Into the woods: Visual surveillance of noncooperative and camouflaged targets in complex outdoor settings. Proceedings of the IEEE 89, 1382–1402 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dawson-Howe, K.: Active surveillance using dynamic background subtraction. Technical Report TCD-CS-96-06, Dept of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harasse, S., Bonnaud, L., Caplier, A., Desvignes, M.: Automated camera dysfunctions detection. In: Image Analysis and Interpretation, pp. 36–40. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pentland, A.P.: A new sense for depth of field. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 9(4), 523–531 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roma, N., Santos-Victor, J., Tomé, J.: A comparative analysis of cross-correlation matching algorithms using a pyramidal resolution approach. World Scientific, Singapore (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Gil-Jiménez
    • 1
  • R. López-Sastre
    • 1
  • P. Siegmann
    • 1
  • J. Acevedo-Rodríguez
    • 1
  • S. Maldonado-Bascón
    • 1
  1. 1.Dpto. de Teoría de la Senal y Comunicaciones, Universidad de Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares, 28805 (Madrid)Spain

Personalised recommendations