Multi-Camera Prioritization via Geometric Assessment

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Manual selection of cameras in a multi-camera arrangement for surveillance systems is inefficient and time-consuming, relying heavily on operator discretion when triggered by geotagged alarms.

Innovation Solution

An assessment system that prioritizes cameras by obtaining geographical positions and properties, determining distances and expected pixel sizes of geotagged objects, comparing image data with expected pixel sizes, and assigning ratings based on conformity to automatically rank cameras for optimal object detection and capture.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If manual selection of cameras is used, then operator discretion can be applied, but the process becomes inefficient and time-consuming

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveoperator discretionVSAvoidcamera selection efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs self-assessment by automatically evaluating camera suitability based on geometric relationships between cameras, objects, and expected pixel sizes without requiring operator intervention. The assessment system independently determines which cameras are suitable for capturing images of geotagged objects.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The manual mechanical process of operator selection is replaced with an automated computational system that calculates geometric parameters, compares expected pixel sizes with actual image data, and generates suitability ratings automatically.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

2Productivity

If automated assessment system is implemented, then camera selection efficiency is improved, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecamera selection efficiencyVSAvoidassessment system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The assessment system is divided into distinct functional modules: a obtaining unit for gathering camera and object data, an expectations determining unit for calculating geometric parameters and expected pixel sizes, and an assigning unit for generating suitability ratings. This segmentation makes the complex system more manageable and implementable.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

3Measurement precision

If geometric comparison method is used, then camera prioritization accuracy is improved, but calculation requirements increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecamera prioritization accuracyVSAvoidcomputational processing power
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSPower

Solution Approach 1:

The system calculates geometric parameters and expected pixel sizes for all cameras in the arrangement, which may be more than strictly necessary. This excessive calculation ensures that no potentially suitable camera is missed, prioritizing accuracy over minimal computational effort.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentEP3839910B1Prioritization among cameras of a multi-camera arrangement
Publication Date: 2023.01.25 AXIS
  • EP3839910B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3839910B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3839910B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

The present disclosure relates to a method performed by an assessment system (1) for prioritization among cameras (21, 22, 23, 2n) of a multi-camera arrangement (2). The assessment system obtains (1001) respective geographical camera position (211, 221, 231, 2n1) and camera properties (212, 222, 232, 2n2) of each of the cameras. The assessment system further receives (1002) information data (43) indicating a geographical object position (41) and object features (42) of a physical object (4) positioned in a surrounding (5) in a potential field of view (213, 223, 233, 2n3) of each of the cameras. Moreover, the assessment system determines (1003) - for each of the cameras - by comparing the object position and object features with the respective camera position and camera properties, a respective distance (D1, D2, D3, Dn) to the object position and a respective expected pixel size of the object at the respective distance. The assessment system furthermore compares (1004) respective image data (214, 224, 234, 2n4) of the surrounding derived from each of the cameras, with the respective expected pixel size. Moreover, the assessment system assigns (1005) each of the cameras a respective rating based on to what extent the respective image data corresponds to the respective expected pixel size. The disclosure also relates to an assessment system in accordance with the foregoing, a surveillance system (3) comprising such an assessment system, and a respective corresponding computer program product and non-volatile computer readable storage medium.