This report describes the tool and how to use it, and summarizes three real-life examples.

Transcription

1 FINAL REPORT February 2015 A decision tool for remote camera systems Jim Thomasson INTRODUCTION Designing a camera system for remote locations can be a challenging endeavour. As camera and communication technology improves and costs drop, remote camera systems are fast becoming a viable option for many regional wildfire offices. The potential uses for remote camera systems in wildfire are numerous: monitoring infrastructure, monitoring weather conditions, monitoring fire operations, observing fire, and detecting fire. The challenge for many arises when trying to determine the best and most cost-effective system for a particular situation. There is a myriad of variables to consider and a multitude of choices. Researchers with the FPInnovations Wildfire Operations Research Program have been designing and working with remote camera systems for several years. Because of this history and experience, several members of our advisory board have asked us to develop a decision tool that will help them wade through the options available for remote camera systems. The choices can be overwhelming, even for the initiated. This tool aims to arm users with enough knowledge to make informed choices, whether they are working with a third-party company or with their provincial communications group. The tool lists the relevant variables with their options, and the options range from least complex (i.e., least expensive) to most complex (i.e., most expensive). We ve used a weighted point system to help users see where their envisioned system ends up on a cost and complexity spectrum. This report describes the tool and how to use it, and summarizes three real-life examples. THE TOOL FPInnovations researchers identified fifteen variables called SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS that need to be considered when designing a remote camera system. Each SYSTEM REQUIREMENT is given a point value. For each SYSTEM REQUIREMENT there are four options that range from LO COMPLEXITY to HI COMPLEXITY, each with an associated point value. Multiply the point value for the SYSTEM REQUIREMENT by the point value for the option you chose and enter the resulting value in the TOTAL POINTS box to the right. Once you ve filled in the TOTAL POINTS box for each SYSTEM REQUIREMENT, add them together at the bottom of the column. The cost spectrum below the table can be used to give you an idea of the relative cost of your camera system 1

2 Figure 1. Decision tool for remote camera systems. 2

3 EXAMPLES Northwest Territories Weather-Monitoring Camera System This system was designed after a needs-analysis determined that monitoring sky conditions at remote weather stations could provide valuable operational information. The idea was to use low-cost, 360 o all-sky cameras to monitor conditions and an additional 360 o camera to monitor the weather station site and ground conditions (e.g., green up and snow cover). Additional fixed cameras could provide views of specific values that require monitoring. Because of the remote northern locations, satellites are likely the only option for communication. A system like this will have higher costs because of the communications challenges. The estimated cost for this system is C$24,000 per site for the equipment and installation, and C$7,000 per year for satellite services. This system scored 280 points on our decision tool. Sky-monitoring camera Fixed camera Site-monitoring camera Existing weather station tower, or independent tower Satellite data terminal and antenna Electronics box Solar panel Power box Figure 2. The basic design of a proposed camera system for a remote weather station in the NWT. 3

4 Figure 3. Example of an image from a low-cost, all-sky camera. Figure 4. Example of the unwrapped version of the all-sky image above. 4

5 Wildfire Operations Research Rocky Mountain House Camera System The camera system developed for Rocky Mountain House was initially intended to monitor spring prescribed burn conditions, but a wildfire (RWF-034) put the camera into operational use to monitor fire conditions. The system was provided by NuPoint systems1 and was a complete, turnkey solution. The system used satellite communications to send hourly and on-demand pictures to the fire center. The system was approximately C$6,000 to purchase and had minimal recurring fees for data. This system scored 262 points on our decision tool a slightly less complex solution than the high-latitude system in the Northwest Territories. Figure 5. Remote camera system by NuPoint Systems deployed near Rocky Mountain House, AB

6 Figure 6. The camera system control box. A solar panel is on the lid and the controllers for the camera and the power are fixed under the lid. The box has space for two batteries (one is shown). Figure 7. A still image from the remote camera system by NuPoint Systems. Video images are NTSC (640x480), but transmitted still images are 1284 x 963 pixels. 6

7 Chisholm Lookout Tower Blind-Area Monitoring Camera System Wildfire Operations Research The blind-area monitoring camera system at the Chisholm Lookout was designed by FPInnovations and has been operational for five years. The system uses a 110-foot portable tower with two pan-tilt-zoom cameras mounted at the top. The tower is placed at the edge of the lookout s visible area. The tower transmits a live video feed back to the lookout operator, 15 km away. The lookout operator has control of the cameras, and the video feed is recorded. The placement of the tower allows the lookout operator to see into an area that he cannot see directly from the lookout tower. This camera system effectively extends the detection coverage area of the lookout. This system was about C$120,000 for the hardware (C$75,000 for the tower alone), not including engineering time. It requires a crew of two to set up and take down. The system uses point-to-point 2.4 GHz and 900 Mhz data links on a private network that is only available to the lookout operator. Power for the system comes from a combination of solar panels, diesel generator, wind generator, and batteries. This system scored 405 points on our decision tool because of its higher complexity and cost. Figure 8. The Chisholm blind-area monitoring camera tower fully extended. 7

8 Figure 9. Top of the portable tower showing two cameras and the radio link antennas. Figure 10. The monitor in the Chisholm lookout cupola. This daylight monitor allows the lookout operator to view the display in bright sunlight conditions. 8

9 Figure 11. View of the camera image that the operator sees. This image is zoomed in slightly compared to normal operation. CONCLUSION This remote camera system decision tool allows a relative comparison of different design options and can help in the decision process. The tool also gives the user a list of overall design requirements to source from a supplier or to use as a check to ensure that the system design is what was envisioned. 9