Does anyone know whether police (or the FBI, or someone), for some reason, remove details from from publicly released security camera photos of crime?
Here is a story with a photo released from a local recent bank robbery. Honestly, the guy could have had a schnauzer head and you wouldn’t be able to tell.
This just seem very typical, and I wonder why even bother with security cameras with results like this. If I were on a jury and they showed me that pic, there is no way on earth I’d vote to convict without a whole lot of other evidence. Actually, I would entirely discount the pic as evidence of anything.
There are two reasons I can think of why images from security cameras are often of poor quality. Firstly they need a wide angle of view so as not to miss the action. This means the important details will probably be very small within the frame. Secondly is the need to run and record images 24/7. On older recording media such as VHS or recordable DVDs the limited capacity means the image would have to be of low quality to give an acceptable recording time. Expect up-to-date systems to improve on this greatly as recording to large capacity hard drive is now feasible, but there are many older systems yet to be upgraded.
We have a TVshow in the UK called Crimewatch, where photos and videos of this type are shown, and they ask for help in identifying the culprit. A lot of the time someone does recognise the image, and is able to give a name to the police. Many crimes have been solved this way.
Yeah, the quality of that picture is pretty awful. Like other posters wrote, there are many reasons for that. But there’s no way the police deliberately obscured anything in this particular case. Think about it: The whole reason they released the picture is because they’re hoping someone will recognize him!
This is an entirely different question. You are correct that this picture does not show him committing any crime. As you say, it’s not evidence of anything. But I will bet that this is just one still photo out of a whole movie. In other parts of the movie, there is good evidence that this person broke the law. But those pictures have an even worse view of his face than this picture. So they don’t bother releasing those. They show you the best one they have (as poor as it is).
Uh, let’s see, also, in the surveillance trade there are two basic kinds of shots.
You’ve got the scene shot and the identification shot. [Not trade terms, mind you…]
The shot on the left in that article is a scene shot. I can tell the jury what he was doing using a scene shot. This shot works for that.
The shot on the right is an identification shot.
If I get a guy who is not wearing a hoodie or a mask, the shot on the right seems like it would actually give a serviceable, albeit unimpressive, shot. Identification shots let me tell the judge WHO was doing the activity in question.
Actually, the shot IS a little bit wide for an ID shot, and should be aimed slightly to the left.
These cams should cover only the area of ONE teller/cash register, and it almost seems like they’re trying to cover two with one cam. That’s a mistake most of the time.
Generally, cameras mounted facing each cash register or deal counter (bank teller) area at a 1 cam per register level are meant for ID. Same thing with the ones IN ATMs facing out towards the customer.
Cams covering the lobby, hallways, parking lots and other miscellaneous areas of a retail or financial facility are generally scene shots.
Finally, I’ll bet the cams in that facility are 9 years old and could do with being replaced.