• ValiantDust@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    4 months ago

    Also, storing a few high-res images takes a lot less space than storing hours/days/weeks/months of high-res videos.

    • StoneyDcrew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Not to mention that a lot of companies pay the minimum price needed for a camera for insurance purposes, as insurance is supposed to cover the damages.

      They only need to show that a crime was committed, not who committed it.

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Also, observing a minuscule area of the sky for days or weeks will produce a much better image than the full field of view for 1/24th of a second in low light.

      • Hawke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Not that your point is incorrect, but most security cameras record at a much lower frame rate than 24 fps. 2 or 4 fps are common, and 0.5 exist as well.

        • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          The shutter speed of the camera will not be 1/2 or 1/4 of a second however. It will still be taking images with a relatively short shutter speed/angle, otherwise everything would be very blurry.

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Those are pretty antique though. You can get full-HD, 60fps security cams. They’re just annoying to store data for unless motion sensors are an option. To keep track of a store, that’s not a great solution.