Thank you for posting. I like seeing a wide range of responses.

I wanted to let you know that BRS Labs has been difficult to get information from. John Honovich, who reviews IP video products for the industry, has been trying to get a unit from them to test for over a year now, but they refuse to let him try it out. They might have very good reasons for refusing, but this makes it more difficult to find out real information. So, I appreciate what you have let us know.

But I also wanted to let you know that just a week ago I came from a university who was testing the BRS Labs system. They were testing their system side-by-side with our video analytics. So I got to see that they have added rules to their new software, as you said. They didn’t have it originally, but their system has it now.

That’s the right move for them.

I see that they also added the ability to let a user decide when they want to continue seeing an alarm, even if it becomes “normal”. So, they’ve addressed two of the concerns I’ve raised. And now their system is starting to act more like other rules based systems, which as I’ve said makes sense.

By the way, the university who was running their tests were extremely happy with our results. They couldn’t believe how much simpler our system was to set up and that it was working accurately within minutes, without any calibration or tuning.

The BRS Labs takes weeks or longer to learn the environment, while ours does it in a few minutes. Even after weeks, they seem to have far more false alarms than our system, according to the university. When I was there, the person in charge of testing showed me how a beam of sunlight was causing a false alarm for the BRS Labs system. Apparently it thought the beam of light was baggage left behind.

When you ask for other companies doing analytics in a similar way, can you explain what it is you are looking for?

Or, feel free to write to me privately, if you prefer.

Thanks again for posting and sharing your perspective and the information you have about BRS Labs. It is appreciated.

I agree that there is a real lack of information about their technology and this is probably a much bigger problem for potential customers than I was addressing.

Thanks.

Doug.

Thanks for the comments.

Also, thanks for the point about how bad guys try to blend in. An “abnormal” detector is not going to do well catching them.

Great point.

Thanks.

Doug.

Anyone looking for short tweets should consider dropping this blog. I know quite a number of people are connecting to my blog through Twitter, so this might be the issue here. Short comments are best for Twitter.

My blog is about providing in-depth comments, showing why things work or don’t work in the world of video security, and I try to explain it as clearly as possible. I also try to talk about things I haven’t heard mentioned anywhere else before.

I always appreciate the feedback, however.

Thanks.

Doug.

thanks,
kirthi

The problem is not with the sharing of intellectual property.

To keep it short: It has to do with controlling your security protection.

Rule based analytics, which they claim are inferior, let you set up exactly what you want to detect and when to alert you. Their system also has rules, but they don’t tell you what they are and only they can control them.

Its like having a car with no means of control except a “right” and “wrong” button. It might be great to show off how incredibly smart the car is – but as soon as you want to go someplace, most people are going to want their gas pedal, steering wheel and brakes back, so they can drive the car, instead of just going wherever it takes them.

That’s a real short summary. But understanding the reason this is such a problem is what needed the explanation.

Thanks.

Doug.