Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Anthony D'Alessandro on January 30, 2013 at 3:45pm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anthony D'Alessandro on January 30, 2013 at 3:46pm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Judi Baker on January 30, 2013 at 7:06pm

I Love the way you think!! I don't recognize anyone off the bat, but best believe I will be taking a few more looks.  THANKS for being involved in the neighborhood (and keeping us fed!!)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Boutet on February 6, 2013 at 2:23am

Anthony,

I'm a bit confused as I read through your description of what got captured by security cameras where and when. 

• Are any of these pictures of the "individual approaching the back door of the house" where the burglary took place?
• You mention you have footage of the TV being carried away.  When you say "we got some clear shots of some individuals matching the descriptions of the footage from the house..." do you mean when you look at the pictures side by side these guys look like the ones carrying the TV?
• What are the similarities based on?  Clothing?
• As far as the time stamps on the CH7 camera goes, is that a 12hr clock so we are talking 05:26:27pm or was that 05:26:27am?  If it is pm then the CH1 image was taken 4min and 20sec before the CH7 image.  Does that match the walking distance between the two locations?
• Given the time stamp and my familiarity of location for the CH1 picture, I would judge the lighting to be mainly lingering twilight with a little light from the storefront sidewalk lights and street lights.  I assume the stripes on the "blue" jacket are reflective material and the patch on his right chest is probably a retoreflective material that reflects light very directionally back at the source.  Those patches often are.   It would look grayish in diffuse lighting which this is.  That suggests there is not a bright light source near the camera or those stripes and patch would be very bright.  I suggest you check light sources near that camera to verify.  Note the cuffs and waistband of the jacket a "blue" like the jacket material.
• The first two images below are the same CH7 image with the one on the right having been enhanced while trying to match the shade of the hood to the hood on the guy with the "blue" jacket in the CH1 image.  The contrast and color saturation were enhanced to compensate for the poor lighting in the CH7 image.  In this image the guy is walking between houses which reduce skylight and there are other artificial light sources that are shining on him.

• Note the image below shows the CH7 fellow on the left and CH1 guy on the right.  Compare the bright reflective waste band and cuffs in the left image below to the ones in the right image which are the color of the jacket.  I don't think this is the same guy.  Given the artificial light sources in the image on the left, the hat, hood, jacket and pants might well be a dead match under identical lighting but it is hard to explain away the cuffs and waist band.  That does not mean one or the other may not be your TV enthusiast, but you need to figure out which if either.

I think you need to go back and reexamine the pictures of the guys carting away the TV.  If you want to send the pictures to me I can enhance them and check out the details.  I'm all for letting people know that when they are out in public they may be on camera.  That is why I suggested "Mother Cam" to keep the U of R students on their toes when you were talking about behavior issues with the proposed "Frank & Steins".  Those images will speak for themselves.  In this case please make sure the images posted with the words match the images of the folks carting away the TV.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anthony D'Alessandro on February 6, 2013 at 10:13am

John,

Are any of these pictures of the "individual approaching the back door of the house" where the burglary took place?

The last 2 photos are of the individuals tresspassing in the yard of the house that had the breakin around the time the break in was committed. The first photo that is far more clear was taken right up the street a couple minutes before.

You mention you have footage of the TV being carried away. When you say "we got some clear shots of some individuals matching the descriptions of the footage from the house..." do you mean when you look at the pictures side by side these guys look like the ones carrying the TV?

Well I personally saw the guys walking down south Plymouth, we first checked the cameras on the house next to the one that was burglarized. When I saw them I immediately remembered seeing them walk by which brought me to check the other cameras in the area.

What are the similarities based on? Clothing?

Similarities are based on clothing, my own observations, and the close proximity of time.

As far as the time stamps on the CH7 camera goes, is that a 12hr clock so we are talking 05:26:27pm or was that 05:26:27am?

It is PM

If it is pm then the CH1 image was taken 4min and 20sec before the CH7 image. Does that match the walking distance between the two locations?

Correct, it even gives a little time for the individuals to case the joint.

Given the time stamp and my familiarity of location for the CH1 picture, I ...

These cameras have infrared which distorts color. The ch 1 is in a brighter environment so that capability has not come on, ch 7 however is in a more shady area with less light, infrared is activated. For whatever reason certain subtleties that aren't obvious to the regular eye or a regular camera get considerably exaggerated when that mode is activated.


Note the image below shows the CH7 fellow on the left and CH1 guy on the right...

This is the exact reason that I posted both photos. It would be counter productive to deny all of the coincidences in appearance, proximity and time because of a potentially reflective waistband on a infrared camera. We want to get the information out there. We want these burglaries to stop, if any individuals in these photos have an issue, i want nothing more than to talk to them. They can contact me with their name at ajdd85@gmail.com. I would be happy to speak with them about their concern. Also, there are many more photos I haven't posted. I don't want to overwhelm people, just see if we get any info back.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Boutet on February 6, 2013 at 4:15pm

Anthony,

Does the IR mode of the camera used for images marked CH7 have an IR light source that illuminates the scene?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anthony D'Alessandro on February 6, 2013 at 5:45pm

There are motion sensor lights in the same spot as the cameras.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Boutet on February 7, 2013 at 3:07am

The IR sensitivity of the camera could well explain the bright cuffs and waistband with spot lights on near the camera.  Incandescent spot lights pump out more IR than visible light.  The retroreflective stripes on his sleeves don't light up until he gets in the range of the spot lights.  If there is some retro reflective material in the elastic waist band and cuffs, even if it is colored to match the jacket fabric, it is likely to reflect IR.  Many dyes which have vivid colors filtration effects in the visible range are transparent in the IR.  IR brightness in the scene will show up as shades of gray.  That explanation is consistent with the purplish tinge of the bright waistband.  The visible light retroreflected is filtered to something resembling the color of the jacket but the IR is unaffected by the dyes and show on the sensor as white.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marian Boutet on February 7, 2013 at 3:56pm

Lt. Bob Hill of the Genesee Street NSC called this morning to say that these two individuals have been identified and so are on their radar.  

If you should have security camera photos of any suspicious activity,  e-mail them with the specifics (location, time, etc.) to Lt. Hill at rh0358@cityofrochester.gov

And this is important: In order to post pictures on this or any other public forum, the individuals must be on private property when the photo is taken.  Pictures taken on public streets, sidewalks, and/or corners can not be used as the sole means of identification, even if you know they have just done a crime nearby.  Do send any photos to Lt. Hill.

Remember:  Regardless of whether or not you can supply photos, it's always best to immediately call 911 if you see anyone acting suspiciously under any circumstances.  Supply as much detail as you can:  height, build, gender, skin color, clothing, graphics or logos, even shoes can be helpful.  Time is of the essence.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anthony D'Alessandro on February 7, 2013 at 9:23pm

Yes! You beat me to it. Well Said Marian. Thank You to all who helped! 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe D'Alessandro on February 8, 2013 at 10:06am

What is the reason for the limitation on the pictures that can be posted.  I do not believe that is in any way a legal restriction.  It seems that common sense would suggest that if you see someone break the law and you are fortunate enough to have a picture of them, it should be posted.  To refrain from doing so simply because the individual is on public property seems counter productive (which is supported by the fact that the pictures posted led to the identification of the individuals).  I belive that not only should we post any pictures we have, but we have a responsibility to do so.  The reason for this site and other like it is to help neighbors communicate and ideally make the neighborhood a safer and more enjoyable place.  Any step towards making the neighborhood safer that it not taken is in my opinion a valuable opportunity missed.  We are either serious and committed to solving the problem or we are not.  I for one am both serious and committed and encourage others to arrive at the same conclusion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marian Boutet on February 8, 2013 at 10:37am

Not that you would do this, but it's possible for someone to post a photo taken anywhere and claim the subject has just committed some crime.   Consider if that were to happen to you.  What would you do?

If the subject is on private property, there is no question they were somewhere they weren't supposed to be.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page