Video Surveillance Standardisation Activities, Process And .
Video surveillance standardisationactivities, process and roadmapERNCIP Thematic GroupVideo Surveillance forSecurity of CriticalInfrastructureJames Ferryman, Ph.D.University of Reading, UKAugust 2016The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union aspart of the European Reference Network for Critical Infrastructure Protection project.
Video surveillance standardisationactivities, process and roadmap
This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s in-housescience service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. Thescientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the EuropeanCommission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be madeof this publication.JRC Science Hubhttps://ec.europa.eu/jrcJRC103650ISBN 978-92-79-63952-4doi:10.2788/92267 European Union, 2016Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.All images European Union 2016
ContentsContents . 2Acknowledgements . 4Abstract . 51. Introduction . 62. Requirements for standardisation . 62.1. Case study in post-event video analysis . 72.1.1. Interoperability aspects . 92.1.1.1. Level 1 — Technical interoperability . 92.1.1.2. Level 2 — Syntactic interoperability . 102.1.1.3. Level 3 — Semantic interoperability . 102.1.1.4. Level 4 — Pragmatic interoperability. 113. State of the art on standardisation activities and roadmap . 113.1. Existing standardisation activities . 113.1.1. Interface standards organisations . 113.1.1.1. ONVIF . 113.1.1.2. PSIA . 113.1.2. TCs and WGs . 123.1.2.1. ISO/TC 292 . 123.1.2.2. ISO/TC 223 . 123.1.2.3. CEW/TC 391 . 123.1.2.4 ANFOR Group . 123.1.2.5. CLC/TC 79 WG12 . 133.1.2.6. EC TC 9 WG46 . 133.1.2.7. PSIA WG on video analytics . 133.1.2.8. Video and image analytics coordination group . 143.1.3. Relevant ISO/IEC standards . 143.1.3.1. Alarm systems . 153.1.3.1.1. Cenelec — EN 50132-1:2010 . 153.1.3.2. Multimedia . 153.1.3.2.1. ISO/IEC 23000-10:2012 . 153.1.3.3. Forensics . 163.1.3.3.1. ISO/IEC 27037:2012, 27041:2015, 27042:2015, 27043:2015, 27050(draft) . 163.1.3.4. Video surveillance . 163.1.3.4.1. ISO 22311:2013 . 163.1.3.4.2. NF EN 62676:2014 . 173.1.3.5. Risk analysis . 172
3.1.3.5.1. ISO 31000:2009 — Risk management — Principles and guidelines . 173.1.4. Benchmarking activities . 183.1.4.1. Initiatives . 193.1.4.1.1. iLids (UK) . 193.1.4.1.2. Etiseo (FR) . 193.1.4.1.3. PETS (UK) . 193.1.4.1.4. VOTS (SI) . 203.1.4.1.5. MOT (CH) . 203.1.4.1.6. DARPA: Mind’s Eye (US) . 203.1.4.1.7. TRECVid (US) . 203.1.4.1.8. MCSPT (US) . 213.1.4.1.9. Visitors (US) . 213.1.4.1.10. VACE (US) . 213.1.4.1.11. CLEAR (US) . 223.1.4.1.12. VERAAE (US) . 223.1.4.1.13. VTAPS (US) . 223.1.4.1.14. VAPS (US) . 233.1.4.1.15. IARPA DIVA (US) . 233.1.4.2. Projects . 243.1.4.2.1. Subito . 243.1.4.2.2. Protectrail . 243.1.4.2.3. SECUR-ED . 243.1.4.2.4. ARENA . 253.1.4.2.5. Savasa . 253.1.4.2.6. Advise . 253.1.4.2.7. Forensor . 253.1.4.2.8. ITEA 2 LINDO . 253.1.4.2.9. Reveal . 263.1.4.2.10. Caretaker . 263.1.4.2.11. CRISP . 263.1.4.3. Representative benchmark datasets . 263.1.4.3.1. Caviar. 273.1.4.3.2. Etiseo . 273.1.4.3.3. PETS . 273.1.4.3.4. iLids . 273.1.4.3.5. VIRAT . 283.1.4.4. Metrics . 283.1.4.5. Ground truth . 283
3.1.5. Certification of surveillance systems . 283.2. Gap analysis . 283.2.1. Interoperability . 283.2.1. Certification . 293.2.2. Benchmarking methodology . 303.2.3. EU projects . 293.2.3.1. Protectrail . 293.2.3.2. Savasa . 313.2.3.3. Advise . 314. Basic elements for standardisation process concerning use of video surveillancesystems . 314.1. Standardisation process . 314.2. Recommendations for video surveillance standards . 325. Roadmap to achieve draft standard agreement concerning new standards in, andcertification of, video surveillance systems . 335.1. New standards in surveillance of critical infrastructure . 335.2. Certification of surveillance systems for protection of critical infrastructure . 336. Conclusions . 346.1. Next steps for TG-VS . 34References . 35List of abbreviations and definitions . 38List of figures . 39AcknowledgementsThe author gratefully acknowledges the contributions and reviews of the other membersof the European Reference Network for Critical Infrastructure Protection (ERNCIP)Thematic Group Video Analytics and Surveillance, and the ERNCIP office.4
AbstractThis report has been generated by the ERNCIP Thematic Group on Video Surveillance forSecurity of Critical Infrastructure (TG-VS).It is widely recognised that standards play a major role as fundamental building blocks inproduct development, to ensure uniform quality in provision of services, and wider still inenabling the European Union (EU) security industry to be more competitive globally.However, there exist very few standards in the security domain and, in particular, invideo surveillance systems.The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of standards in videosurveillance, including the need for standards, an overview of existing relevantstandardisation efforts including gaps, and a roadmap for future standards development.The first part of the document identifies the need for standardisation. The programmingmandate M/487 issued by the EC to standards bodies in 2011 to study existingstandards in the security domain, to establish gaps, and to propose a standardisationwork programme, did not directly address video analytics or video surveillance in itsremit, hence these areas remain weakly addressed. The report provides a case study onpost-event investigative video analysis illustrating the requirements for such standards,especially on interoperability aspects.The report then details standard development organisations relevant to surveillance,including an overview of their work. This includes interface standards organisations,working groups (WGs) and technical committees (TCs), and relevant ISO/IEC standardsincluding on alarm systems, multimedia, forensics, video surveillance, and risk analysis.Standardisation also covers benchmarking activities, whose aim is to effectively assessthe performance of algorithms and systems in order to attain robustness under varyingconditions. The history of relevant initiatives is provided in this report, including detailson specific programmes, projects, and methodology. Prior work on certification on videosurveillance systems is also described.The report then details a gap analysis of standards in video surveillance. This includeslack of standards at different levels of interoperability, lack of a universally agreed set ofperformance evaluation benchmarking metrics for video analytics, and the lack ofEuropean level certification for surveillance systems or its components.Finally, the report makes a number of recommendations for video surveillancestandards. This includes new work items to (1) develop one or more EU standards forsurveillance of critical infrastructure, and (2) to develop a harmonised certificationprocedure for video surveillance systems and components for protection of criticalinfrastructure at EU level. Specifically, the following concrete actions by TG-VS wouldfurther standards development in video analytics and surveillance for criticalinfrastructure protection: develop a procurement framework to be used by critical infrastructure end userswhen procuring video analytics;undertake preparatory work in the development of one or more new standards invideo surveillance;undertake preparatory (pre-normative) work in the certification of surveillancesystems.The audience for this report include EU level policy authorities (especially theDirectorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs), industry, end users and otherstakeholders with interest in deployment of video analytic and surveillance systems andmethods, and academics researching surveillance and standardisation.5
1. IntroductionVideo surveillance plays a major role in protection of critical infrastructure. Whether forpreventive or post-event analysis, authorities require the capability to rapidly exploitclosed-circuit television (CCTV) data collected in the vicinity of infrastructure tounderstand situations and scenarios as they unfold, which are directly related toprotection of the infrastructure.It is widely recognised that standards play a major role in enabling interoperability,uniform quality in provision of services, reduction in costs, future-proofing, and widerstill, in enabling the EU security industry to be more competitive globally.However, there exist very few standards in the security domain and, in particular, invideo surveillance systems. Specifically, there is a lack of specific standards associatedwith the description of archived video content for video-based security systems. Thisbecomes an issue when retrieving information from disparate systems, as there is nocommon language that these types of security systems describe their information in. Thisproblem is enlarged by the large number of current vendors of video based detectionsystems (VBDS), and the large installed base of legacy systems.The purpose of this document is to provide an introduction to standards in videosurveillance, including the need for standards, an overview of existing relevantstandardisation efforts including gaps, and a roadmap for future standards development.In particular, the report provides a gap analysis of standards in video surveillance. Thisincludes details on the current lack of standards at different levels of interoperability,lack of a universally agreed set of performance evaluation benchmarking metrics forvideo analytics, and the lack of European level certification for surveillance systems or itscomponents.To address these issues, the report makes a number of recommendations for videosurveillance standards. This includes new work items to (1) develop one or more EUstandards for surveillance of critical infrastructure, and (2) to develop a harmonisedcertification procedure for video surveillance systems and components for protection ofcritical infrastructure at EU level.The audience for this report include EU level policy authorities (especially theDirectorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs), industry, end users and otherstakeholders with interest in deployment of video analytic and surveillance systems andmethods, and academics researching surveillance and standardisation.2. Requirements for standardisationStandards development includes establishment of consistent protocols that areuniversally understood and adopted. Standards are vital for interoperability oftechnologies used by law enforcement and other authorities. However, to date, very fewEU wide standards exist in the area of security, especially in surveillance and videoanalytics. This is largely due to lack of agreement on processes and best practice in theheterogeneous security market, which has resulted in divergent national standards.In 2011, underpinned by a number of studies including the European Society Researchand Innovation Forum, the European Commission announced in its Communication on aStrategic Vision for European Standards the need to speed up standardisation efforts inthe civil security area (Poustourli and Kourti 2014). A programming mandate M/487(European Commission 2011) was subsequently issued to the European StandardizationOrganizations (CEN, Cenelec and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute(ETSI)) to obtain a detailed overview of existing international, European and nationalstandards in the security area, as well as to set out a list of standardisation gaps and topropose a standardisation work programme.6
The work was accepted by the European Standards Organizations and allocated toCEN/TC 391’ ‘Societal and Citizen Security’. As a result, a study was carried out toanalyse the current security standardisation landscape and the security end-users needsof standards in three thematic areas: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear andexplosives, border security — automated border control systems, as well as biometricidentifiers; and crisis management and civil protection — including communication andorganisational interoperability. The outcome of the study was a set of roadmaps in eachof these areas and ultimately a set of priorities in the work programme of the CEN andCenelec TCs.The CEN/TC 391 study did not consider video surveillance or video analytics and hencethese areas remain weakly addressed from a standardisation roadmap perspective. Inparticular while low-level general standards (for example, the Moving Picture ExpertGroup (
working groups (WGs) and technical committees (TCs), and relevant ISO/IEC standards including on alarm systems, multimedia, forensics, video surveillance, and risk analysis. Standardisation also covers benchmarking activities, whose aim is to effectively assess the performance of algorithm
Using Cross Products Video 1, Video 2 Determining Whether Two Quantities are Proportional Video 1, Video 2 Modeling Real Life Video 1, Video 2 5.4 Writing and Solving Proportions Solving Proportions Using Mental Math Video 1, Video 2 Solving Proportions Using Cross Products Video 1, Video 2 Writing and Solving a Proportion Video 1, Video 2
simplifying matters considerably. This aspect of simplification is one of the main benefits of standardisation activities. The standardisation work was effective: by 1912-13 nearly all vehicles on the American market were equipped with batteries so that the charging voltage was from 78 V on the smaller
Table 3 lists part numbers for the Cisco Video Surveillance 2900 Series. Table 3. Ordering Information Product Name Part Number Cisco Video Surveillance 2911 IP Camera, Indoor PTZ In-Ceiling Dome, 27X, Smoked Bubble, NTSC CIVS-IPC-2911 Cisco Video Surveillance 2916 IP Camera, Indoor P
1.2. Indicator-Based Surveillance (IBS) and Event-Based Surveillance (EBS) Approaches Used to Detect Diseases, Conditions and Events 52 1.3. Standard Case Definitions 52 1.4 Establish Event-Based Surveillance (EBS) at all levels 57 1.5 Update LGA Procedures for Surveillance and Response 58 1.6 Role of the laboratory in surveillance and response 61
Electronic Integrated Disease Surveillance System supports different types of surveillance: passive surveillance (case-based and aggregate) is available for human and veterinary diseases, active surveillance is supported for veterinary disease, vector surveillance is planned to be released in the next version.
crowds. However, main problem in automatic video processing is communication of results of Figure 1. Video wall. 2 Intelligent Video Surveillance. . 6 Intelligent Video Surveillance. where the flow vectors ft ¼ xt;yt;v t x;v t y;a t x;a t y hiT (2) represent object velocity [v x, ,
standard surveillance environments. 2 STATE OF THE ART Key tasks in video surveillance are object detection, identification, tracking, and analysis of behaviour. We now discuss the state of the art in these and other areas before describing an example of a successful commercial video surveillance system. 2.1 Detection and Identification
ASME A17.1-2013 / CSA B44-13 2.25.4.1.1 Emergency Terminal Speed-Limiting Device New requirement to apply the emergency brake if the main brake fails to slow the car down when ETSL actuated. Both brakes may be applied but max deceleration is 9.81 m/s2. Reduced stroke buffer ETSL Broken Shaft - Main brake does not work Emergency brake applied when car fails to slow down as intended Car below .
