There is an additional problem that exacerbates this. In many organizations (esp. govt.) IF you install a security camera, it MUST retain at least one year of video.
Well… a year is a long time, so to meet this requirement you can either have tons of storage (which still might not be enough if you have multiple cameras) or you lower the quality until a year fits on the system you got.
Most people do the latter.
Higher resolution means more data is being recorded
For security cameras to serve their function, all this data needs to be saved, with it generally being useful to save data for longer periods of time (up to a point, there’s a bit of a trade off here)
More data being saved means you need more storage
Data storage costs money
Therefore higher resolution can add up quick cost-wise
This means for a given security budget, you can spend it on higher resolution, more cameras for better coverage, or longer retention of the recordings, or some mixture of those. This means lower resolution can mean you can save the recordings for longer or that you can have more cameras for better coverage so fewer things happen outside the scope of the cameras you have.
It’s basically just a cost balancing act in a situation where you have a finite budget
Latest Answers