Integration of video surveillance subsystems into ACS: pros and cons.
Of course, we will talk about the integration of PC-based systems into ACS. And not only because today this is a very common phenomenon in the market of technical security equipment.
The fact is that the integration capabilities with analog systems and systems built on DVR are very limited. Integration with analog systems is possible only at the hardware level. As for DVR, although in essence it is the same computer with hard drives, with inputs for video cameras, in terms of exchange with the external environment it does not have sufficient functionality to manage the access control system and monitor it.
Today, there are two approaches to integrating ACS with video surveillance systems. The first (usually followed by ACS manufacturers): you need to integrate video into the ACS. The second: it is more correct to integrate access into video — this approach, as readers have probably already guessed, is professed by some manufacturers of video surveillance systems. These two opposing points of view coexist quite peacefully, and I can give many examples of the successful implementation of both approaches.
But, in my opinion, it is absolutely obvious that ACS is a system much better suited for integration. I do not argue that a modern video surveillance system is a fairly intelligent product, allowing, for example, to control telemetry, PTZ cameras, and process signals from motion detectors. But from the point of view of the design, logic, and operation of the top-level software, a video surveillance system is several times, or even an order of magnitude, simpler than ACS.
The access control and management system is a much more powerful complex, which in addition to the display functions, settings, and the same controllers includes many functions related to the operation of the database. These are personnel databases, and time schedules, work logic, and various schedules, and systems (and quite powerful ones) of report generators, and working time accounting. Let's not forget about video verification, numerous service functions, such as, for example, printing on plastic cards, the antipassback function. That is, from the point of view of logic, access is, of course, much more advanced, and it is quite reasonable to take the ACS as a basis for integration with video. Such integration, naturally, will require much less material and time costs.
An important question: to what extent to integrate. It is possible to completely rewrite the software of the video system and add it to the software of the access control and management system. But it is probably not worth going to such an extreme. The developer, of course, must take into account that completely rewriting the software means creating a monster that will be difficult to maintain, configure, and operate the entire system. This will certainly happen, if only because a large number of extra windows, tabs, configuration checkboxes, etc. will appear. In addition, one program servicing both access and video reduces the survivability of the integrated system.
Until recently, the integration of ACS with other systems was more of a PR move by some manufacturers than an urgent need. Reasonable and justified demand for such systems formed about five years ago. And with it, specific customer requirements. They are the very advantages of integration that make it easier to work with the entire security system. It is clear that by integrating a video surveillance system into an ACS, there is no need to rewrite all the configuration modules. This is usually done once, at the stage of launching the facility, and in 99% of cases (if the system is not expanded) this is no longer needed. The main idea is to make it easier for the operator to work with the entire system. And what functions does it mainly perform? First of all, as far as the video surveillance system is concerned, this is monitoring. If the operator works with a single software and hardware complex, then within the framework of one program he should not only monitor the events that come from the ACS controllers and security panels, but also watch the operational video. And not just watch, but also control the recording, i.e. select the desired camera, make a certain segment of the recording, a freeze frame.
The second point that is in great demand is video verification. That is, if the access control and management system is not integrated with video, the security guard must either watch live who brings the card to the turnstile and compare the person with the photo of the owner of this card from the database, or watch on a separate monitor who is actually passing. With integration, you can combine everything in one window. If the system is integrated and configured correctly, when you bring the card to the reader, one window pops up, which contains both live video from this point of passage and a photo from the personnel database. That is, the security guard sees who should pass and who actually passes. This is a really popular thing that many people use.
Well, and probably the most important thing that is most needed and in demand is the ability to link video archive fragments with events of other subsystems. That is, if there was an unauthorized entry or a door break-in, then in retrospective analysis it is very convenient not to rummage through the entire video archive and look for the necessary fragment for the corresponding time and corresponding cameras. In the case of integration, a solution is possible when, for example, a report is compiled on alarm events, and if there was a video recording of this event in this place, then a button or some flag simply appears, and you can immediately watch the corresponding video fragment. For this, in general, one of the main functions of integration with the video system is implemented, when certain cameras are linked to certain areas and a sequence of actions is assigned. For example, if a door is broken into at some point of the passage, then a certain video camera is turned on for thirty seconds and recorded in the archive. This recording is automatically saved in the system, and subsequently, if you watch events for this alarm, the desired fragment of the video archive is clearly linked to it. Yes, at particularly important points the recording is carried out around the clock, but again the integration of access with video allows you to put a mark so that later you don’t have to watch the entire twenty-four hours of the archive, but immediately get to the desired fragment and see what actually happened at the moment of the event. Naturally, with the ability to watch 10-15 seconds before this event, since watching when something has already happened is often useless. Watching when the glass has already been broken is not interesting, it is interesting to watch before that to find out who broke it.
Integration has now begun to develop, as video systems have acquired some interesting functions. Such as automatic recognition of car numbers. Today, the reliability of recognition is already quite high. At least, not lower than in biometric systems, in which errors of the first and second kind are approximately at the same level. Another interesting function for many facilities has become automatic verification of cars entering the territory of the enterprise.
Are there any disadvantages to this approach, i.e. when video is integrated into the access control and management system? With a reasonable degree of technological integration, there should be no disadvantages.
Problems can arise (and often do arise) at the stage of creating a joint product. A lot depends on the manufacturers creating a joint solution. First of all, it is necessary to understand that video and ACS developers use slightly different approaches and often, being good specialists in their field, do not imagine all the nuances and complexities of creating other systems. And therefore, in any case, the most important thing during integration is the fruitful work of both teams. The parties must be ready for real interaction, otherwise there will be no serious and reliable solution.
The downside may be what I have already mentioned — when they try to fully integrate a video system into the access control system, starting from the settings of the video capture card, drivers, camera settings, resolution, recording speed, and the relationship of channels with specific cameras. This is absolutely unnecessary, it significantly complicates the code and the program itself, increases the likelihood of errors — as a result, the reliability of such a solution will be very questionable.
But in any case, we must take into account that the overall reliability of the integrated solution directly depends on the reliability of each of the systems.
A few words about the criteria for choosing a partner for integration.
In my opinion, firstly, it should be a Russian manufacturer. Trying to integrate with an imported solution is a very big problem due to the lack of prompt support from the other side. And it is, I am not afraid to repeat, necessary. As practice shows, the SDK of any company is still not 100% suitable for integration into your system, serious revision is required.
The second criterion is, as I have already said, the adequacy of the developer company.
Well, and, of course, the company's experience. Its main criterion is the number of installations of this system at sites. It is impossible to fully test the system in laboratory conditions. Systems are truly tested only in real operating conditions. The more experience in installing the system at various sites, in various configurations, the higher the likelihood that the developers have enough information to improve the system and increase its quality.