Did they give a reason as to why the tripwire works better? I am assuming it can start moving towards that line as opposed to maybe the center of an intrusion zone?
Hey
@wittaj, hope you are well. Thought I would throw my feedback in on Trips and Intrusion Zones on PTZ's if it helps.
There are a few key areas to consider when comparing impact of Trips and Intrusion Zones in PTZ. In general, Trips
can be less intensive (less problematic too, read the 'tricky FOV piece I mention below) on the cam albeit depends on cam itself, FOV, targets etc. While true in the case of both Trip & Intrusion Zone that a line (or lines) has to be breached, the cam's AI then has to detect the target within a sometimes larger zone / space if an Intrusion Zone is set and then determine the direction within that space, tracking accordingly. Its also monitoring what can sometimes be the entire FOV (
@looney2ns, myself and many here advocate for NOT doing this
) for relevant targets as opposed to the 1 line as an example. Although AI and SOC improvements help a lot to improve speed of processing, this still
can take
slightly (and I do mean ever so slightly on newer PTZ's) longer with Intrusion Zones than trips (everything else considered equal). In tight and tricky FOV's this can be problematic as it can impact whether you ultimately get a quick target acquisition (matching your criteria) and consistent track to instead losing the target or track altogether.
With that said, Intrusion Zones absolutely have a place and are great to use especially when you have an FOV that truly allows you to benefit from 4 side breaches or specific areas within a larger FOV that you want to monitor. Similarly if you are monitoring an area for the first time and want to understand potential target paths, capturing wherever possible, Intrusion Zones can also assist. Another great application for Intrusion Zones is in spotter cams for PTZ activation, allowing you to specifically focus on 1 area of an FOV then call the PTZ to a specific preset assigned to that area. In fact in this scenario you generally will use (and certainly is more widespread) Intrusion Zones more than Trips. When configuring multi lens cams such as the Hunters etc you'll
generally use it this way too. Lastly, when you have targets that remain in an area, Intrusion Zones can be VERY beneficial which is why Dahua recently added the 'inside' option to IVS rules shown in current cam reviews.
A misconception is that you can only get a decent cap and PTZ track with Intrusion zones as they appear more 'inclusive', and you can get great results BUT if you dial in the Trips correctly, especially when it comes to multiple trips in an FOV (requires more planning / thought due to multiple breach lines being considered), you can use these to aid consistent tracking that is more on point (than Intrusion Zones) for transient targets within a given FOV (i.e. passing through, moving in a specific direction or known pathways etc). In a number of forum member cases I've set these up this way specifically to enable that and its great for human and vehicle tracking across an FOV often leading to more crisp tracks and less lost targets.
Trips are also more flexible and beneficial when you have a tricky FOV that PTZ's often get 'lost' in (can't happen with fixed cams
). For example, think busy but stationary foreground such as parked vehicles with humans or other vehicles driving by. In the case of an Intrusion Zone in this scenario the cam is constantly looking for targets (especially if set across the entire FOV) and even with the best PTZ out there can mis-categorize either a breach of zone (see it more on Intrusion Zones than other rules), target or both and therefore 'leave' its position to follow what is ultimately a ghost, often times removing your chance to capture critical evidence. In the case of a Trip in this example, the parked vehicle(s) are not moving, nothing breaching the line, therefore more likely (but of course
not always guaranteed) that you will only get a track on an actual, legit target. Another example is a PTZ monitoring a wider area with a target path at a longer distance in the FOV (driveway vs across a street or front of building vs distant entrances etc). In this example, especially at night, targets can be harder to spot then track. Trips and in a number of cases multiples can be employed to assist picking up a target (say under 1 light in an area) then utilizing Trips to create possible target paths. Once the initial target is identified, the additional Trips (defined by your careful planning
) ensure continuous tracking IF dialed in correctly. If the FOV is set correctly this also allow re-aquisition of targets (very much needed in most cases) quicker and again improves the chance of continuing the track. I set these up a lot for people here and they can be very beneficial when and where applicable.
Again though be careful when using multiple Trips in 1 FOV, these can be incredibly effective BUT need more attention when dialing in and the FOV / target needs to benefit from that config. Also remember, more rules in 1 FOV = more for the camera to 'think' about
So these are some of the reasons that for PTZ's in general (especially if they are the sole cam for an area or NOT being used with a spotter) they
can see a benefit in their Auto Tracking from Trips when deployed.
With all that said, don't throw trips at everything, as I mentioned, they have their place and dialing in the FOV and installing correctly for an area is even more critical.
Lastly, on this topic, what I would like to see in future is for Dahua to take the AI being built around SMD 3 (and beyond) specifically on target acquisition and introduce an option for Auto Tracking. I.e. in SMD on future PTZ's have the ability to track not just from IVS rules but from SMD (as it gets smarter and quicker, especially at distance). The caveat here being that SMD still needs a lot of work BUT is showing much more promise now that it ever did before.
HTH