Video Monitoring

LIVE VIDEO MONITORING AND PICTURE AUDITS

Opus Inspection has designed and implemented customized, web browser-based picture audit and video monitoring applications. For example, in Connecticut, our design allowed Emissions Program staff to covertly monitor emission inspection activity in real-time, without having to be proximal to the emission station.

Live Video Monitoring

The live video monitoring function allows monitoring of the test area in any testing facility, on a real time basis, via a video stream passed through the standard communication network. Live video monitoring is done on a by-request basis. Our application facilitates a video monitoring request from connection and authentication, to the actual viewing event.

To provide live video monitoring, the Video Monitoring Application includes a Video Control Center. This control center is an interface allowing the auditor to submit a request to view a specific facility. The control center interface provides search functions and status reporting functionality, to assist the auditor in selecting a facility for viewing. For example, an auditor can search by facility ID or name for a specific facility to select for viewing. Also, an auditor can view station status to see if a station is online and therefore available for a video request. When selecting a facility for viewing, the auditor can set viewing parameters specific to that facility. The setting selections include length of time for viewing, the camera to view from, and the polling frequency (the frequency in minutes at which the facility shall check for future video requests).

Picture Audit Application

The video picture auditing function will allow post-test auditing by station, vehicle, etc. To support this auditing method, the analyzer records, stores, and transmits to the central database three low resolution digital images during each test performed. The server receives and stores the images, and retrieves them for viewing. Picture auditing has proven quite effective in catching fraudulent activity. For example, auditors have found the following situations through picture audits:

  • The vehicle pictured does not match the vehicle description stored in the test record.
  • The vehicle pictured in a retest does not look like the same vehicle pictured during the initial test.
  • A station has conducted tests on a vehicle that looks the same but is recorded as multiple vehicles over multiple tests.