Double AI validation ?

General discussion about Blue Iris
Post Reply
windaube
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2024 6:53 pm

Double AI validation ?

Post by windaube »

Hello,
I'm using Blue Iris with Code projet AI and an Arduino IO module to connect AI alarms to my alarm system.

The problem is that I'm getting false detections. Therefore, I'm looking for a parameter that would require two consecutive positive images to trigger an 'alert' on Blue Iris ?
Do you know of a parameter that could require Blue Iris to perform a double verification ?

I'm using the custom model 'ipcam-combined' with a confidence rate of 78%, 8 images with 750ms interval.
User avatar
TimG
Posts: 2098
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:45 am
Location: Nottinghamshire, UK.

Re: Double AI validation ?

Post by TimG »

I think you could do it with home automation, but I can't think how to do it from BI5 directly. Home Assistant on a Raspi could do it.
Forum Moderator.
Problem ? Ask and we will try to assist, but please check the Help file.
victoria
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2024 9:28 pm

Re: Double AI validation ?

Post by victoria »

windaube wrote: Mon Mar 11, 2024 7:05 pm Hello,
I'm using Blue Iris with Code projet AI and an Arduino IO module to connect AI alarms to my alarm system.

The problem is that I'm getting false detections. Therefore, I'm looking for a parameter that would require two consecutive positive images to trigger an 'alert' on Blue Iris ?
Do you know of a parameter that could require Blue Iris to perform a double verification ?

I'm using the custom model 'ipcam-combined' with a confidence rate of 78%, 8 images with 750ms interval.
Open Blue Iris.
Go to "AI Tools" -> "Object Detection" -> "Settings."
Adjust the "Object detection sensitivity" slider to a higher value, which will require more consecutive positive images to trigger an alert.
Try increasing the sensitivity gradually until you achieve the desired accuracy.
Save changes and test the system.
Hope this helps!
vicky
MikeBwca
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:39 am

Re: Double AI validation ?

Post by MikeBwca »

I have another 'odd' method that will accomplish what you want...

1. Clone the camera.
2. On the master camera, set an Alert 'On Alert' to Trigger the clone.
3. On the Master, disable all other Alerts and actions. You will use the clone to trigger actions.

On the Clone...
1. On the Trigger tab, Disable Motion. This Clone will only be triggered by the Master camera Only IF it is AI conformed by the Master camera..
2. To set the Zone(s), use PTZ override.
3. Set the trigger actions you want.

You now have 2 sets of AI confirmation. The Clone will trigger Alert actions ONLY if both cameras have an AI confirmation. You would need to have both cameras confirm the same object(s).

I tested this, and it seems to work fine.
I imagine you could set an additional clone, and have a triple AI confirmation!

Revised: 3/16 - Spelling & punctuation.
Last edited by MikeBwca on Sat Mar 16, 2024 5:14 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
TimG
Posts: 2098
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:45 am
Location: Nottinghamshire, UK.

Re: Double AI validation ?

Post by TimG »

Now that IS a good one. I would never have thought of that :D

Good work MikeBwca. Have an excellent weekend :!:

And OP: Clones are easy and don't use much in the way of resources, and that does appear to do exactly what you asked for.
Forum Moderator.
Problem ? Ask and we will try to assist, but please check the Help file.
MikeBwca
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:39 am

Re: Double AI validation ?

Post by MikeBwca »

I was working another AI situation, and had a realization. CP already does multiple confirms.

Turn on 'Save AI analysis .DAT files'. You will see that CP lists all the frames that detected objects with the confirmed %.
In one confirmed alert, CP confirm % on 15 separate frames. That's 15 separate confirmations rolled into one.
Can anyone else comment on this?


Although my previous workaround would work, it is NOT needed. There may be situations where it would be needed? I don't see any. Why did I suggest it? Because it's enjoyable to come up with workarounds... and because I'm a 68 year old nerd! lol
Can anyone comment on the use case for my previous workaround?
User avatar
TimG
Posts: 2098
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:45 am
Location: Nottinghamshire, UK.

Re: Double AI validation ?

Post by TimG »

Although CPAI may have looked 15 times, each image had a single trigger, and Blue Iris chooses only one of them. I think your clone idea actually does what the OP is after with the double validation. The other option was home automation, but that is a whole new world of pain.

68 eh ? I guess that gives you a black and white baby photo too :idea:

FYI: Why do I use a baby photo ? Well I worked in an international British/ French company. We had a system where you could add a photograph of yourself, so somebody visiting from the other side could identify you. The Brits used recent photographs. The French used black and white photo's from when they were young and better looking - making the system totally useless. My joke for the world is that I have used a picture of myself here. But I may be a bit older than that :lol:
Forum Moderator.
Problem ? Ask and we will try to assist, but please check the Help file.
MikeBwca
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:39 am

Re: Double AI validation ?

Post by MikeBwca »

TimG wrote: Sat Mar 23, 2024 6:20 pm Although CPAI may have looked 15 times, each image had a single trigger, and Blue Iris chooses only one of them.
...
Yes, now I recall this (once you pointed it out).

Seems like a good Ai option would be '# of confirmed images'. Default would be 1. If more than one, let's say 3, then BI woudl pick the 3 highest confirmed images to comnplete the 'Confirm' status of the alert..

Oh yes, I do have framed B&W baby photos ( 1 day old) of myself and my sister on the old style photo paper. Paper, not the matt or glossy we have today. Unfortunately, they were trimmed to fit the frames, and my mother didn't write on the back who-was-who! One day old's - who could tell! My mother eventually didn't even know. Bummer.
Post Reply