PROBLEM & REQUIREMENTS
Camera-feed health across multiple sites
Evaluate a repeatable process for noticing unavailable camera feeds, assigning ownership and confirming recovery. Verify central visibility and access controls for the exact proposed deployment.
Who this evaluation is for
Each site has a network/camera owner and an escalation contact. Operators distinguish a camera failure from recorder, processing or connectivity failures. A recovery event must be reviewed rather than assumed from a cleared alert.
Define an observable event
A permitted camera stream is interrupted and later restored during a controlled test.
Limitations to test
A connected feed is not proof of a clear image or useful detection. A network outage may interrupt both the stream and notification path. Full multi-site VMS permissions remain unverified until demonstrated.
Technical requirements
- An inventory of site, camera, recorder and network dependencies.
- Approved processing and monitoring paths, with clock synchronisation.
- Verified notification routing, role boundaries and recovery procedure.
A scoped deployment example
Illustration: two warehouses test one disconnected feed each and check whether the intended site owner receives actionable context without seeing the other site's restricted footage.
Acceptance-test approach
Test camera, recorder and network interruptions separately. Record detection delay, delivery, false alarms, recovery and manual intervention. Confirm role restrictions with authorised test accounts.
Use the evaluation worksheet →Available evidence
PGAK has published recorded demonstrations of its own (listed on the evidence page), each with its conditions and limits. No customer result or measured accuracy report is published yet, and the deployment scenarios are illustrations, not verified deployments.
No PGAK recording is published for this use case yet, so it is not listed as an available capability. Ask for evidence of the exact workflow you need.
Inspect evidence status →Cost drivers and responsibilities
Camera count is only one input. Include processing, site preparation, configuration, integration, support, taxes and contract terms. Agree who maintains the feeds, reviews events and responds during an outage.
Understand project pricing →Privacy and safety boundaries
Use least-necessary viewing access and documented cross-site responsibilities. Retention and export remain with the scoped recorder/VMS and data owner.
What a project here involves
Compatible cameras and recorders you already own are reused wherever they are suitable. Detection runs on an on-site processing unit, and camera suitability, stream access, processing hardware and network are all confirmed at the assessment — with anything extra itemised in the quote before you commit.
What the quote is made of
| Component | What decides it | Price |
|---|---|---|
| Cameras reused | Which existing cameras give a usable view for each use case — confirmed on a still image of each view. | Quoted per site |
| Cameras moved or added | Only where a use case needs a view no camera has (plates and faces usually do). Each one named in the quote. | Quoted per site |
| On-site processing unit | Detection runs here, next to the recorder. Model, quantity and warranty depend on camera count and analytics. | Quoted per site |
| Software / licences | Which analytics on which cameras, the term, and the basis for renewal. | Quoted per site |
| Installation and configuration | Stream setup, zones, schedules, alert routing and commissioning. | Quoted per site |
| Pilot | Agreed scenes, acceptance criteria and duration before rollout. | Quoted per site |
| Support | Hours, response versus fix time, and who replaces failed hardware. | Quoted per site |
| Taxes | Stated separately on the quote. | Quoted per site |
How it is evaluated
- 1. Self-check — Two minutes, nothing sent — find likely blockers.
- 2. Scope on paper — Cameras, use cases and acceptance tests, written down.
- 3. Site assessment — PGAK checks streams, views and network on your cameras.
- 4. Pilot against criteria — Precision, recall, false alerts and delay, agreed in advance.
- 5. Written proposal — Itemised as above; you decide whether to roll out.
Evidence for this page
No PGAK recording is published for this page yet. The capability register shows what has been demonstrated and under what conditions.
Discuss this use case
Send a callback request with this page’s context. Camera count is optional; do not include credentials or footage.