Noise camera

[jonny87]

We have an issue with revving cars and bikes. Almost all of them total sh*t boxes, the cars and the bikes(seriously why bother)

I would like to set up a camera and leave it running, then i want to process the video, just to pick out the 20 seconds each side of a high spot on the audio.

-I was thinking maybe a goproHERO 8-9, big sd card, swap it out every 12 hours, if it could be good enough to pick up plates that would be great but not really needed, the video is simply to show a pattern of behaviour- if you have a better idea let me know?
-Then i needed some software to process the video, easily locate the audio high spots, and chop the video up accordingly - any ideas?

Its not intended as a long term thing, i only need to run it for a week max.

Thanks.

 

[Gordon Streeter]

Although a GoPro could do it the probability that it will overheat could cause a problem running for that length of time. You can get 20 hours of video with a 128GB card in 1080p.
You could use a decent1080p dash cam that will be able to pick out number plates a lot cheaper than a GoPro and both will have to have an external power supply to run for that length of time. Both types of these cameras will split the video into short segments (although different lengths) that you could view on a laptop after loading them up, however you would have to view them in real time to find what parts you want unless you used a video editing software that you could speed the footage up.
Another thing is the sheer size of the recording that will soon fill a hard drive up and would probably be best to use external drives. Obviously the cameras will need to be weather proof if outside as you need to get the sound as well, however although dash cams do record sound I don't know how well they perform compared to the GoPro. As for editing software, it is a minefield out there and unless you are prepared to take a lot of time learning it can be a bit daunting. You might get away with the windows one that you might already have on a laptop that is very easy to use compared to some.
Hopefully someone else might come back with a different answer that might have done the same thing that you are trying to achieve.

 

[Terfyn]

In addition to Gordon Streeter's advice, perhaps a CCTV system may be worth a look.

 

[noiseboy72]

Putting my GDPR hat on here, you cannot just point a camera at a road and record
members of the public - particularly with sound without good reason. Dash cams are considered to be a reasonable invasion into people's privacy, as they are recording specific actions ie: driving, but just monitoring a street might get you into serious trouble if someone was to complain.

Antisocial behaviour might be classed as a good reason, but I would suggest that it would need at the very least the support of a statutory body like the police or council.

Noise complaints need to be made to the council, which speeding or dangerous driving is a police issue. If they are happy to support your use of a private camera to provide evidence, fair enough, but just consider whether or not there's a reasonable balance between public interest and invasion of privacy.

 

[Gordon Streeter]

Putting my GDPR hat on here, you cannot just point a camera at a road and record
members of the public - particularly with sound without good reason. Dash cams are considered to be a reasonable invasion into people's privacy, as they are recording specific actions ie: driving, but just monitoring a street might get you into serious trouble if someone was to complain.

Antisocial behaviour might be classed as a good reason, but I would suggest that it would need at the very least the support of a statutory body like the police or council.

Noise complaints need to be made to the council, which speeding or dangerous driving is a police issue. If they are happy to support your use of a private camera to provide evidence, fair enough, but just consider whether or not there's a reasonable balance between public interest and invasion of privacy.

CCTV will only be subject to the Data Protection Act if the footage captured “relates to living individuals who can be identified” from it. Therefore fixed cameras in city centres, which simply capture crowds of unidentifiable individuals in a particular area, would not be subject to the DPA. Cameras with remote zoom functions, though, probably would, as would cameras used by businesses or individuals for private security purposes.
Unless the person puts it on social media like YouTube pointing out a certain incident then there is nothing to stop them . Seeing what is put on social media these days it would be interesting to find out if many (or anyone) actually gets convicted in court for this ?

 

[noiseboy72]

CCTV will only be subject to the Data Protection Act if the footage captured “relates to living individuals who can be identified” from it. Therefore fixed cameras in city centres, which simply capture crowds of unidentifiable individuals in a particular area, would not be subject to the DPA. Cameras with remote zoom functions, though, probably would, as would cameras used by businesses or individuals for private security purposes.
Unless the person puts it on social media like YouTube pointing out a certain incident then there is nothing to stop them . Seeing what is put on social media these days it would be interesting to find out if many (or anyone) actually gets convicted in court for this ?

Agree that crowds filmed at a distance are OK, but capturing details of specific vehicles could cause you problems and I cannot see how a camera set up to cover a road would not capture cyclists and pedestrians as well.

The ICO and local authorities all recommend that private cctv is not set up such that it covers public rights of way - recording audio just compounds the problems.

As was shown in a recent case, the ICO will take action where they consider that the cctv is being used to invade a person's privacy to the point of harassment. Identifying antisocial behaviour would perhaps be a valid reason, but I would suggest it could be a knife edge if someone complained about their vehicle movements being logged.

 

[Gordon Streeter]

Agree that crowds filmed at a distance are OK, but capturing details of specific vehicles could cause you problems and I cannot see how a camera set up to cover a road would not capture cyclists and pedestrians as well.

The ICO and local authorities all recommend that private cctv is not set up such that it covers public rights of way - recording audio just compounds the problems.

As was shown in a recent case, the ICO will take action where they consider that the cctv is being used to invade a person's privacy to the point of harassment. Identifying antisocial behaviour would perhaps be a valid reason, but I would suggest it could be a knife edge if someone complained about their vehicle movements being logged.

I'm not really completely disagreeing at all as the whole scenario is riding that "fine line", however if jonny87 wants to actually do what he says then there is not a lot to stop him doing it ! The problem "might" come if he puts it out on social media.
I have made hundreds of films over the years showing close up pictures of people that I don't know walking about in public and private functions and have never had a problem.
I have also read and taken advice regarding what you can and cannot do with filming in public, and basically as long as you are not showing people in "false light" then there is not a lot that they can do about it. Yes they can threaten you but that would then mean that you then have a case against them. I often film the audience reaction for "fill ins" for my videos of musical groups and over the last 20 or so years I would have thought that somebody who possibly "shouldn't" have been there or with "someone" that they "shouldn't' have been with" would know that I had filmed them, also they would possibly know that I would be putting it on my site.
That is the way I look at it and I shall continue until the DPD police come and take me away.

 

[John7]

OP - you shouldn't need to deal with this yourself. Your Local Authority should be able to monitor/asess the noise issue themselves and deal with it accordingly. Have you made a report to the noise/anti-social departmets at you LA? If not, I would start with them before investing time and money doing their job for them (all IMHO of course).

It would help if you also got a few of your affected neighbours to complain as well.

 

[jonny87]

Absolutely, you don't buy a dog and then bark yourself.... But this is a local council your are talking about, they haven't done a stitch of work in years. There is no noise complaint department, and the council took away the powers from the police. You are on your own.

 

[jonny87]

Agree that crowds filmed at a distance are OK, but capturing details of specific vehicles could cause you problems and I cannot see how a camera set up to cover a road would not capture cyclists and pedestrians as well.

The ICO and local authorities all recommend that private cctv is not set up such that it covers public rights of way - recording audio just compounds the problems.

As was shown in a recent case, the ICO will take action where they consider that the cctv is being used to invade a person's privacy to the point of harassment. Identifying antisocial behaviour would perhaps be a valid reason, but I would suggest it could be a knife edge if someone complained about their vehicle movements being logged.

the police have asked me to monitor the anti social behaviour of those vehicles that are causing issues, roads, times and date...Again, you don't buy a dog and then bark yourself, but when the dog refuses to work, you just gota do it yourself or things will n
ever change.