Optimal Placement of Multiple Visual Sensors

using Simulation of Pedestrian Movement

Yunyoung Nam

and Sangjin Hong

Xeron Healthcare Corp.

Daerung Post Tower III, 410 182-4 Guro-dong, Guro-gu, Seoul, Korea
Email: young022@gmail.com

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,

Stony Brook University-SUNY, Stony Brook, NY, USA
Email: snjhong@ece.sunysb.edu
AbstractThis paper present an optimal camera placement
method that analyzes a spatial-temporal model and calculates
priorities of spaces using simulation of pedestrian movement. In
order to cover the space efciently, we accomplished an agent-
based simulation based on classication of space and pattern
analysis of moving people. We have developed an agent-based
camera placement method considering camera performance and
space utility extracted from a path nding algorithm. We demon-
strate that the method not only determines the optimal number
of cameras, but also coordinates the position and orientation of
the cameras with considering the installation costs. To validate
the method, we show simulation results in a specic space.

I. INTRODUCTION
Traditional video surveillance systems using multiple cam-
eras are used to gather data and to identify clues after an
incident has taken into placed to detect an event requiring
attention. However, to install these cameras for monitoring a
large-scale coverage area, it requires hundreds of cameras and
sensors which can bring the cost of a surveillance system up to
millions of dollars. Most of the surveillance systems require
the layout of cameras to assure a minimum level of image
quality or image resolution and to have as much coverage as
possible within a pre-dened region, with an acceptable level
of quality-of-service and with minimum setup cost.
Therefore, the camera placement is one of the most im-
portant issue to develop the effective surveillance system that
maximizes the observability of the motions taking place. This
paper proposes a new camera placement method to optimize
the views for providing the highest resolution images of ob-
jects under the circumstances of a limited number of mounting
cameras. To efciently calculate the camera placement with
certain task-specic constraints and minimal camera setup
cost, assumptions can be dened as the capabilities of real-
world cameras. In this paper, variants employ several assump-
tions about the capabilities that make these algorithms suitable
for most real-world computer vision applications: limited eld
of view, nite depth of eld, angle of cameras.

This research is supported by the International Collaborative R&D Pro-

gram of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy (MKE), the Korean government,
as a result of Development of Security Threat Control System with Multi-
Sensor Integration and Image Analysis Project, 2010-TD-300802-002.
The proposed method focuses on optimizing the aggregate
path observability as a whole, based on a probabilistic frame-
work, and calculates the coverage and cost constraints. This
framework tries to optimize coverage area and to minimize
overlapping views. The method used in this paper assumes
that the surveillance systems operate on a set of xed cameras
to monitor moving subjects.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section
II addresses problems and describes related work. Section
III represents models for a space and an agent. Section IV
presents the automatic camera placement method to determine
appropriate camera positions and an appropriate number of
cameras. Section V shows the details of simulation results.
Finally, Section VI concludes this paper.
II. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND RELATED WORK
Most of the video surveillance camera placement ap-
proaches that appear in the literature focus on space coverage
and sensor deployment. The sensor deployment problem is
closely related to the Art Gallery Problem (AGP) that deter-
mines the minimum number of guards required to cover the
interior of an art gallery [1] and maximizes camera coverage
of an area, where the camera elds of view do not overlap.
The AGP has been solved optimally in two dimensions and
shown to be NP-hard in the three-dimensional case. Several
variants of AGP have been studied in the literature, including
mobile guards, exterior visibility, and polygons with holes.
Yao and Allen [2] formulated the problem of sensor place-
ment to satisfy feature detectability constraints as an un-
constrained optimization problem, and applied tree-annealing
to compute optimal camera viewpoints in the presence of
noise. Erdem and Sclaroff [3] proposed a camera placement
algorithm based on a binary optimization technique. Only
polygonal spaces are considered, which are presented as
occupancy grids. They converted such a continuous domain
into discrete domain and developed a 0-1 integer programming
for solving the optimal locations of cameras such that all
discrete grid points in the specic areas/lanes are monitored.
The effort [4] is made to tackle the problem of task-
specic camera placement, in which the authors optimize
camera placement to maximize observability of the set of
Workshop on Computing, Networking and Communications
978-1-4673-0009-4/12/$26.00 2012 IEEE 67
actions performed in a dened area. Yao et al. [5] presented a
camera placement algorithm to optimally preserve overlapped
FOVs and minimize the installation cost with respect to a
maximization of the quality of the recorded data.
In the previous work [6], we presented a camera placement
approach to minimize occlusion for effective object detection
and tracking. In [7], they addressed grid coverage problems
and sensor deployment with sensors sensing events that occur
within the sensing range of the sensor. In the approache, space
was presented as a regular grid. In [8], they developed and
presented a framework that had a novel approach for deter-
mining the optimal number of sensors, along with locating
and setting their orientational sensor-specic parameters on
a synthetically generated 3-D terrain with multiple objectives.
Their solution approach relies on the rational tradeoff between
three conicting objectives that maximize the coverage area
while maintaining the maximum stealth, and minimize the
total acquisition cost of deploying the sensors.
In this paper, we explain several models in agent-based
pedestrian simulations based on a space model as a two-
dimensional grid map. To determine appropriate camera posi-
tions and an appropriate number of cameras to be installed in
view of installation cost, the automatic camera placement is
accomplished by four steps. These steps are space modeling
including a priority space extraction, agent modeling, trajecto-
ries generating with estimating priority areas, and a placement
location selection.
III. SIMULATION MODEL
A. Space Model
Space design is constrained by the performance and applied
algorithms of a camera in constructing a conventional video
surveillance system. The space modeling module models a
specied space as a 2D grid map. The space priority extraction
module expresses the space priority of each cell of the grid
map in a numerical value based on an amount of movement of
an agent in a rst area of the grid map and a probability that
the agent will move from the rst area to a second area. The
space model unit consists three layers that are a structure layer,
an area layer, a priority layer. The structure layer contains
accessible areas and inaccessible areas in a space in which
vision sensors are to be placed. This information is applied to
a path-nding algorithm.
The area layer contains information about the amount of
movement of a person in a specied area of a 2D grid
map and information about a probability that the person will
move from a starting point to a destination. The area layer
contains area attribute needed to extract a priority area. The
area attribute includes location (x, y), range r, the amount
of movement of a person, and probability that the person
will move from a starting point to a destination. A movement
probability refers to a probability that a person arriving at a
second area (a destination) from a rst area (a starting point)
on a 2D grid map. The probability is calculated based on
(n 1) destinations excluding a current destination, at which
the person has arrived, among a total number n of destinations.
The priority layer presents space priorities that are de-
termined based on a path-nding of the agent. The space
priorities are updated based on the movement pattern of the
agent and used to determine locations at which cameras are
to be placed.
B. Agent Model
Agent trajectories are simulated based on the assumption
that the agents are people. The articial intelligence-based
path-nding algorithm considers neither a local eld of view
by assuming that the agent has learned regional geographical
information nor the cost of the direction change.
In order to minimize the difference between paths actually
traveled by people and selected by an agent, the path-nding
algorithm should be improved by estimating available routes
around a route that is found using a path-nding algorithm.
First of all, an agent examines all accessible areas to move to
all destinations and performs an inference-based path-nding
simulation. In this paper, eight different directions in a 2D
grid map are considered to apply the A* algorithm [9] to the
improved path-nding algorithm using a heuristic evaluation
function as follows:
F = G + H, (1)
where G is the total cost of movement from a start node to
a current node and H is the total cost of movement from the
current node to a goal node, which ignores obstacles between
the two nodes.
Therefore, F is a nal criterion used in the A* algorithm
to determine a priority in path-nding. The cost of movement
is set to 1 for up, down, right, and left directions and is set to

2 for a diagonal direction. In addition, the cost of movement

between the start node and the current node is calculated using
the Manhattan method [10].
To reduce the difference between trajectories actually trav-
eled by people and found using the A* algorithm, a path
expansion algorithm is applied to the A* algorithm. The path
expansion algorithm infers areas where people can move in an
accessible space and updates a priority in priority area layer.
IV. CAMERA PLACEMENT
A. Camera Coverage Model
The position of one camera is represented by X and Y
integer coordinates on a 2D grid map, and the camera has
a look direction angle of maximum 360 degrees at a xed
position. Figure 1 shows the FOV model of a camera that has
a triangular structure which is dened by a viewing distance
d, an angular range a, and a look direction angle of the
camera at a camera position P=(x
c
, y
c
). Thus, the FOV is
denoted by
FOV =

x y

, (2)
where x
c
tan(
a
2
)d x x
c
+tan(
a
2
)d and y
c
tan(
a
2
)
d y y
c
+ tan(
a
2
) d. After the new camera position is
translated to an origin (0, 0), the new FOV

is denoted by
68
P(xc, yc)
x
y
0
a
a
IieldoIview

(0,0)
Fig. 1. FOV model of a camera
FOV

=

(3a)
=

x x
c
y y
c

(3b)
After the triangle is rotated counterclockwise degrees by
the coordinate origin, new FOV

are follows:
FOV

=

(4a)
=

cos() y

sin()
y

cos() + x

sin()

(4b)
Thus,
x

d (5)
tan(
a
2
) x

tan(
a
2
) x

(6)
Equation 7 is calculated by using equations 2, 3, 4, 5.
(x x
c
) cos() (y y
c
) sin() d (7)
Equation 8 is calculated by using equations 2, 3, 4, 6.
tan(
a
2
) {(x x
c
) cos() (y y
c
) sin()}
(y y
c
) cos() + (x x
c
) sin()
tan(
a
2
) {(x x
c
) cos() (y y
c
) sin()} (8)
In order to calculate the coverage of a camera considering
the detection ratio of moving objects, the space is divided
into accessible areas and inaccessible areas such as walls and
obstacles in the FOV of the camera. The utility of an area
is measured by the coverage ratio of FOVs. Thus, the utility
of accessible area U
acc
is calculated by ratio of FOVs and a
space as follows:
U
acc
(P) =
R
acc
(V )
R
zcc
(S)
, (9)
where P is a camera position, V is a FOV, S is a space, and
R
acc
is ratio of accessible areas to the overall space.
The utility of paths is calculated by the number of paths
that are passed by agents. Let R
path
be the path ratio of grid
cells of the area to overall grid cells on paths. Thus, the utility
of paths extracted by A* algorithm U
path
is calculated by
U
path
(P) = P
path

R
path
(V )
R
path
(S)
, (10)
where P
path
is the path probability and is determined by the
probability extracted from area layers.
Similarly, the utility of expansion paths U
exp
is calculated
by U
path
and the number of expansion paths as follows:
U
exp
(P) =
U
path
(P)
N
, (11)
where N is the number of expansion paths.
The utility of inaccessible areas U
inacc
should be considered
to calculate the coverage of a camera. After determining the
inaccessible areas such as walls and obstacles in the FOV of
the camera, U
inacc
is calculated by
U
inacc
(P) =
R
inacc
(V )
R
inacc
(S)
. (12)
Finally, the utility U(P) of each camera position is calcu-
lated by four priorities as follows:
U(P) = U
acc
(P) +U
path
(P) +U
exp
(P) U
inacc
(P). (13)
B. Camera Placement Method
The utility of visibility at each location on the 2D grid map
varies depending upon space utility values of cells in an FOV
of the camera with the performance as well as the cost of the
camera. The space utility of each cell on the 2D grid map
is expressed in a numerical value based on the amount of
movement of an agent in a specied area of the 2D grid map
and a probabilixty that the agent moves from a starting point
to a destination.
In this paper, a greedy algorithm is used to select locations
at which cameras are to be placed. Using the greedy algorithm,
a priority area is extracted from the space priority contained in
the area attribute of space modeling and path obtained using
an agent path-nding algorithm. Then camera locations are
selected in the extracted priority area. Through the greedy
strategy, all coordination of points on a space model are
examined to nd a coordination of points that has a highest
utility in the FOV of a camera.
The utility of visibility is set to a maximum value that can
be obtained at a specied coordination of point on a grid map
among sums of space utility values of cells within a virtual
FOV of a camera for all directions and angles. That is, the
utility of visibility is calculated based on the maximum space
utility coverage that is obtained at the position of a specied
cell on a grid map.
From all cells on the utility map of visibility, cells in which
a camera is to be placed are selected in order of highest to
lowest utility of visibility of the camera. Then, a predetermined
range from the position of a selected cell on the utility map of
visibility is recongured upon the installation of the camera.
If cameras cover all space priorities updated on the priority
layer of an input space in its FOV, the placement of the
camera is completed. However, the method based on space
utility coverage does not ensure the optimal placement of the
camera. Thus, we considered (1) a placement cost limit and
(2) minimum coverage of the observable space to determine
the optimal number of cameras to be placed. The placement
69
Fig. 2. Experimental environments and a simulation application
cost limit is the maximum cost when a maximum number of
cameras is placed which does not exceed the placement cost
limit. The minimum space coverage is ratio of the observable
space to the overall space when a minimum number of cameras
is placed which satises the minimum space utility coverage.
The number of cameras to be placed may be calculated based
on resources or the range of an area that can be monitored by
a camera as summarized in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1 Camera placement algorithm
1) Create the utility map of visibility based on the greedy
strategy by the cost of a camera and space coverage of
the FOV of a camera in the entire map space.
2) Select a point having a highest utility of visibility value
on the utility map of visibility.
3) Place the camera at the selected point and update a
camera placement list.
4) Terminate camera placement when it is determined that
an optimal number of cameras has been placed.
5) Recalculate the utility of visibility around the position
of the camera on the utility map of visibility.
6) Return to step 2.
V. SIMULATION RESULTS
A. Simulation Setup
In order to compare with simulation results and experimen-
tal results on level terrain (2-D), the experiments have been
conducted with one top-down camera installed in the fourth
oor. We used a layout of the building with base length 63
meter and height 40 meter. To input areas and regions, a
graphical user interface has been developed as shown in Figure
2.
The utility of visibility varies depending upon the perfor-
mance as well as cost of the camera. In this paper, three types
of cameras are used to evaluate the camera placement method.
The viewing distance of the camera B is 1.5 times longer than
that of the camera A. The available angle of the camera A is
about 1.33 times greater than that of the camera B. Though
the viewing distance of the camera C is 2 times longer than
that of the camera A, the installation cost of camera C is 2.5
times larger than that of camera A.
(a) Trajectories extracted for 3 hours (b) Trajectories extracted for 6 hours
Fig. 3. Priority layer with trajectories
(a) Cost limit is 500 (b) Cost limit is 1000
(c) Cost limit is 1200 (d) Cost limit is 1500
Fig. 4. Camera positions that meet a camera installation cost limit set
Figure 3(a) and Figure 3(b) shows the priority layers with
trajectories that are extracted from the structure layer and the
area layer of the building for 3 hours and 6 hours, respectively.
As time goes on, it is obvious that the extracted trajectories
are represented by target motion paths taken through an area
of interest as shown in Figure 3.
B. Results
The camera placement algorithm using the greedy algorithm
calculates the utility of visibility as well as the utility of cost of
each type of camera in each cell on a grid map. The utility map
of visibility is continuously updated until an optimal member
of cameras to be placed is nally set.
Figure 4 shows camera placement positions and FOVs
depend on each camera installation cost limit set. In the gure,
it is optimal to install 6 A-type cameras, 5 C-type cameras,
15 A-type cameras, and 18 A-type cameras, when cost limits
are 500, 1000, 1200, 1500, respectively.
Figure 5 shows the space coverage until 20 cameras are
installed. As shown in Figure 5(a), as the number of installed
C-type cameras increases, coverage rate per camera is lower
than the others. The camera C is the most appropriate for
installation, when the number of camera is less than 5 cameras.
70
The number of cameras
0 5 10 15 20
S
p
a
c
e
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e

0.0
20.0x10
3
40.0x10
3
60.0x10
3
80.0x10
3
100.0x10
3
120.0x10
3
Camera A
Camera B
Camera C
(a) Space coverage
The number of cameras
0 5 10 15 20
S
p
a
c
e
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
r
a
te
p
e
r
c
o
s
t
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Camera A
Camera B
Camera C
(b) Space coverage rate per cost
The number of cameras
0 5 10 15 20
A
c
c
u
m
u
la
te
d
s
p
a
c
e
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
r
a
te
(
%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Camera A
Camera B
Camera C
(c) Accumulated space coverage rate
Fig. 5. Space coverage
When the number of camera is more than 6 cameras and
less than 8 cameras, the camera C is the most appropriate
for installation. The camera A is the most appropriate for
installation when the number of camera is more than 9
cameras. As shown in Figure 5(b), the camera A has the
highest coverage rate per cost. Figure 5(c) shows accumulated
space utility coverage rate. When 20 cameras are installed,
coverage rates of the camera A, B, C are 85.74%, 96.69%,
99.87%, respectively. Although the coverage rate is 98.98%
when 14 C-type cameras are installed, the cost of the camera
C is the highest. Because cameras are selected in order of
highest to lowest utility of visibility of the camera, Figure
5(c) shows the fastest rate of increase of coverage at rst.
However, the rate of increase of coverage rate is continuing to
decline. For example, the coverage rate of the camera C falls
below 0.08% when the number of installed cameras is over
15.
Figure 6 shows the space utility coverage and the cost when
each type of camera is installed with the cost limit or the
minimum space coverage rate. When the cost limit is below
810 or over 1200, the camera A is the most appropriate for
installation as shown in Figure 6(a). The camera C is the most
appropriate for installation, when the cost limit is over 810
and below 1200. As shown in Figure 6(b), the camera C is
the most appropriate when the coverage rate is less than 54%.
The camera A is the most appropriate when the coverage rate
is more than 54%.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
We have presented the camera placement with certain
task-specic constraints and the minimal camera setup cost,
assumptions dened as the performance of real-world cameras.
The camera placement method uses an agent which is modeled
and implemented using the A* algorithm to estimate the
Cost
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
C
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
100x10
3
200x10
3
300x10
3
400x10
3
500x10
3
600x10
3
Camera A
Camera B
Camera C
(a) Space utility coverage
Coverage rate
20% 40% 60% 80%
C
o
s
t
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Camera A
Camera B
Camera C
(b) Space utility coverage cost
Fig. 6. Space utility coverage and cost
trajectories of moving people. The camera placement method
determines appropriate camera positions and an appropriate
number of cameras to be installed in view of installation cost.
The number of cameras to be placed has been calculated
based on minimum camera placement cost and maximum
space coverage. We considered three types of camera and
sum of installation cost of each camera. It is essential to
deal with a combination of various types of cameras to
determine appropriate camera positions and an appropriate
number of cameras. In the future, we will improve our method
to calculate overall utility of visibility considering various
types of camera by mixture.
REFERENCES
[1] J. ORourke, Art gallery theorems and algorithms. New York, NY,
USA: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1987.
[2] Y. Yao and P. Allen, Computing robust viewpoints with multi-
constraints using tree annealing, in Systems, Man and Cybernetics,
1995. Intelligent Systems for the 21st Century., IEEE International
Conference on, vol. 2, Oct. 1995, pp. 993 998 vol.2.
[3] U. M. Erdem and S. Sclaroff, Optimal placement of cameras in
oorplans to satisfy task requirements and cost constraints, in In Proc.
of OMNIVIS Workshop, 2004.
[4] R. Bodor, A. Drenner, P. Schrater, and N. Papanikolopoulos, Optimal
camera placement for automated surveillance tasks, Journal of Intelli-
gent & Robotic Systems, vol. 50, pp. 257295, 2007.
[5] Y. Yao, C.-H. Chen, B. Abidi, D. Page, A. Koschan, and M. Abidi,
Sensor planning for automated and persistent object tracking with
multiple cameras, in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2008.
CVPR 2008. IEEE Conference on, 2008, pp. 1 8.
[6] J. Ryu, Y. Nam, W.-D. Cho, and M. Stanacevi c, Camera placement for
minimizing occlusion in object tracking systems, Journal of Ubiquitous
Convergence Technology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1319, 2009.
[7] J. Wang and N. Zhong, Efcient point coverage in wireless
sensor networks, Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, vol. 11,
pp. 291304, 2006, 10.1007/s10878-006-7909-z. [Online]. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10878-006-7909-z
[8] H. Topcuoglu, M. Ermis, and M. Sifyan, Positioning and utilizing
sensors on a 3-d terrain part i - theory and modeling, Systems, Man,
and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, IEEE Transactions
on, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 376 382, may 2011.
[9] P. Hart, N. Nilsson, and B. Raphael, A formal basis for the heuristic de-
termination of minimum cost paths, Systems Science and Cybernetics,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 100 107, 1968.
[10] P. Ballard and F. Vacherand, The manhattan method: a fast cartesian
elevation map reconstruction from range data, in Robotics and Automa-
tion, 1993. Proceedings., 1993 IEEE International Conference on, May
1993, pp. 143 148 vol.3.
71