good!

Hi folks this is my first post but just happened across this.
Try iview cameras

I have always thought it would be useful for CCTV companies to simply post their recorded videos for potential customers to view.

They could specify whatever DVR and compression settings were used. Length and type of cable used, composite-over-coax or S-Video. Show some resolution-test targets in the video.

Deluxecctv, any chance you can post such a sample video clip?

May be this will help you sourcesecurity website --> products section

I got my avtech 760's from apcconceptsonline . com (uk dealer via Ebay)

We carry a color camera that has 600TVL. It is great for night and day use. Hopefully this helps. Let us know if there is anything else we can help you with. Thanks

really? 600TVL??

well I have one with 800TVL for $49.99!! Top this lie!

Maybe you were not paying attention. The max is 520TVL with a specific DSP (I will not tell which) maybe you can tell us what CCD and DSP your 600TVL camera has?? Not sure??

Oh.. I went to you website.. turns out you have a bunch of cameras with proof of over clocked specs... Rooky mistake!

Too many of you guys out there today just writing any number on the specs.

Ok.. now run back to your site and try to figure out how I found out. If your good, you will find the inconsistencies before your unfortunate customers do.

Wow, looks like someone sees a little bit of competition and has to toot their own horn. Where has this guy been in a closet for the past two years? Let me tell you something, you don't come on to the forums insulting people. That gets you no where but booted off the forums, second of all do your research Phoenixad….. If you read the beginning discussion of this forum cctv_addticted asked Hi guys.. Just want to know what’s the highest CCTV cameras resolution that you know..

Please leave a link here..

Thanks

We don’t carry the camera on our actual site, but do have it available. Perhaps you have heard of Arm Electronics??? No, probably because you really don’t know who is around these days in the CCTV industry. Here is the link to there 600TVL camera. http://www.armelectronics.com/page.aspx?p=27 After your done crying, you can leave another comment and add to your two sad and pathetic posts on the forums. Next time, do your research instead of looking bad in front of the whole forum community.

So... did you take down your site yet? I already told my other forum pals about your company and they are laughing their butts off with your camera specs!

Dude.. were did I toot my own horn??

Looking bad?? me??

Why would I get booted off the forum... for pointing out a disturbing trend of lies and deceet in our industry??

So... did you take your site down yet? I already told my other forum pals about your company and they are laughing their butts off with your camera specs!

You are right... I should be more civil. I am just tired of companies lying and exaggerating specs.

Dude.. were did I toot my own horn??

Looking bad?? me??

Why would I get booted off the forum... for pointing out a disturbing trend of lies and deceit in our industry??

Ok.. just as I expected..Pass the buck!! First you were like "we have" a 600TVL cams... (now you do a little back pedaling... "Arm has" a 600 TVL cams.... hilarious!!

I know Arm Electrics: They sell directly to your customers right? Great support huh? Their right up there with Super circuits, Swan, Mace and all the other retail brands. You keep sending them your orders, soon they will have products on the shelves of your local Best Buy.

Right.. you don't care.. your are just another "shopping cart" enabled site.

It's Ok though... I realize now that you don't know any better and believe everything you are told by the companies who's products you sell.

Please don't waste my time... I see right through everything you say!

Why would we take down our site? I don’t know where you are coming up that fact that we have supposedly have “over clocked specs” I’d like to see you prove it! By the way, you spelt Rookie wrong. Thought I would help educate you. 

After repeating yourself several times, your poor choice of words, bad grammar, and your little education about this topic, it is clear you don’t know what you are talking about. If everyone is wrong on this forum, then why don’t you target everyone that is on this site?

If everyone offers such bad cameras, then please do suggest a good camera with true resolution as you claim. Maybe even a website to go to if you even have one. To me, you are just a competitor bashing on successful businesses like Super circuits, Swann, Mace, ECT. All these companies are obviously doing something right. Heck, they bring in millions a year and are in the fortune 500.

That’s a lot more than you can say. It seems you don’t even have a company. In fact, you just joined the forums today and have only 3 posts including this one. Your making yourself look bad and it’s a matter of time before you get booted off this site for sure. Looks like you are here only to put people down in negative ways. I speak for everyone on this forum, take your negativity to someone that cares and will listen to you whine. We don’t need it here.

listen rooky... (my spelling with a twist, meaning: birds of a feather... flock together without a clue) A rook is a crow for you. look it up grammar king..(very petty of you to focus on grammar though...now, nobody will want to talk with you since you are looking for perfection in forum spelling )

Like I said.. I should not take it out on you. You just don't know any better. I should be going after the chaps that make these products and feed you the lies.

By the way, there really is proof of "overclocked specs" on your website.. But much like my company and how much I sell, I cannot tell.

best advice I can give you is, stay away from all the "no brand" products since they have nothing to lose by lying.

Take it easy man... I will leave you alone now... gday

arm electronics actually has a 620lines color camera-c620mdvaivp!!

Thank you Armyofone. At least you know what I am talking about. I know that they make these, but that guy refuses to believe it and is taking his anger from most likely a bad sale from some company out there on us. Watch out, he make be coming after you next LOL!

Ok, regardless of whether or not you consider ARM Electronics a "no-brand" product here are extremely reputable manufacturers that prove this statement wrong:

560TVL Color / 700TVL B/W
http://www.samsungcctv.com/product/file_data/manual/20070911_0_0708.SHC-735.E.pdf

I don't know what DSP it uses but the CCD is a Samsung chip(obviously).

Artnix(specs on their new cameras are not on the website has a 550TVL WDR using a "1/3" RGB Color DPS Sensor Pixim Orca D1500 Series ".

You going to call Panasonic a liar? 540TVL:
ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/cctv/SpecSheets/WV-CP480%20series.pdf
ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/cctv/SpecSheets/WV-CP280Series.pdf
ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/business/security/WV-CL930_2A-032L.pdf
ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/business/security/WV-CL930_2A-032L.pdf

I could also pull some more if you like.

Yes I agree alot of manufacturers will exagerate their specs or use the B/W TVL as the listed TVL. But to say that 520TVL is the max is insulting nearly every manufacturer in the industry. I recommend before calling someone's product specs a lie - try one and bench it yourself. I've personally sold more than 100 of the C600DN's and while I might get other complaints, the resolution was never one of them.

Another dude that believes everything he sees on a website or catalog.
Arm does not make anything.. they buy it in for the lowest possible price in China. Same stuff you buy all over the web for alot less.
What type/brand of CCD/DSP on this 620TVL camera?? What about effective pixel rating?? Don't know... thats because companies like ARM don't give this info. This should be enough to never buy from them.. but instead, you boys run to them and pay extra for a 480TVL cam..

Like I said before, I've got an 800TVL camera too... do you believe me?

better yet, I've got some cheap beach front property in Vegas for both of you...

You may not like what Phoenixad is saying but he is actually correct. There is a limitation and threshold to the TV lines. You might be pissed and not like it but its true.

Its actually sad when people actually get pissed and annoyed by a true statement and look for websites to back there claims. Look at Sony engineering and specs and there capabilities. How can you surpass TVL that a manufacturer cannot achieve? The same way I am communicating with you now. By writing whatever you want on the specs. Paper holds whatever you ask it to.

Samsung is the only reputable manufacturer that actually has TVL higher than 550TVL. But ..... I believe what phoenixad is saying that Sony cannot reach this threshold. This is what everyone for the most part sells. Sony has a MAX of 540 with there HQ1. They have an upcoming new CCD with more capability but thats not the point. The point is 600TVL ( color ) from sony is a no,no. I checked ARM and DeluxeCCTV and most, if not all, of the cameras are Sony CCD. You can tweak DSP but only so much and Sony does not come in over 540TVL for those Bullets, Domes or Full Size cameras that are displayed on those sites.

Ahh.. finally a worthy adversary (in northern). You are correct regarding Samsung and Panasonic. I was hoping someone had enough experience to bring this up.
Unfortunately, most of the cameras sold today (including all of the ones we are discussing) are Sony or Sharp. The Arm 600 is a Sony HQ1 rated at a max of 520~540TVL by every reputable manufacturer in the industry today. The explanation that Rory gave earlier on this thread was right on the money. Except for the that statement about not seeing a difference between 480TVL and 520TVL (HQ1), everything else is 100% correct. Your Arm 600 is a good camera, but it's not 600TVL.. it's 540TVL max.. still a lie... gotta call a duck a duck!
Thank you telespy for knowing the difference. These guys like going through life with blinders on... too sad.

Are u talking about Vert or Hor resolution ?

very good questions but we are discussing TV lines... not effective pixels.

I still would like to ask u
Hor TV lines or Vert TV Lines resolution are u talking about ?
Thx

Interesting read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC#Lines_and_refresh_rate

Effective Pixels is all i check for, TVL means little to me.

Very good!! Finally.. a few guys that get it... its all about the pixels baby!

Just one example: (best way to spot a fake)

Sony 1/3 CCD Color Camera 520 TVL

• 1/3" SONY CCD High Resolution

• Super High Resolution 520TVL 0.001

Picture Elements: NTSC: 512(H) x 492(V)


Anyone see anything wrong with these specs?? This camera is 420TVL at best.
I can show you a bunch more, but why bother.. most good techs and distributors know that these things are out there and avoid them.
Now, who wants my "black list" of companies doing this??
The admin on this forum should do the same... create a black list!

I wasn't going to say it but I've never believed the 600+ TVL either... I wasn't trying to argue that it's 600TVL but that 520TVL isn't the max. I am probably still going to buy one for myself just to test it. I've been curious for so long about what it really rates at.

Effective pixels is usually the best way to judge the resolution of the camera. There are too many ways to "cheat" on resolution. I was trying to find the article Pelco put out regarding resolution that explained some of the ways manufacturers cheat on testing resolution, but I can't find it now.

On a side note, anyone know the actual model for a Sony HQ-1 CCD? I've never seen anything from a true manufacturer(or Sony's website.) stating HQ-1.

This whole argument is entirely moot! 470/480TVL, 520TVL, 540TVL or 550TVL, the point is they are essentially the same and the slight extra resolution won't make one bit of difference in the recorded or monitored picture. I defy anyone to demonstrate a difference in either a recorded picture or a monitor's picture between them. We've tried them all and have yet to be able to clearly identify the suits of cards on a table!

That's not to say there are no differences between cameras of different manufacturers but all else being equal, the differences between the four resolutions is essentially undetectable. Now if you want to bring megapixel into the equation, then there is a difference.

That's not entirely accurate. ARM Electronics physically builds it's Windows based DVRs in house. I won't vouch on who's software they use, but the actual construction of the units is something they over see.

While some of the things you are saying are absolutely true, the bottom line is that it isn't 1999 anymore. The market is different, the way equipment is bought and sold is different. An influx of overseas equipment has changed the way we as an industry are going to have to do business. Throwing a little fit isn't going to make guys like Sanyo, A/D and Pelco the only players again.

Do I think it's right that these companies post "pseudo" correct specs? Of course not. But that's not going to change the fact that there are a million Speco/Viteks/ARM/insert companies around and many are here to stay.

If you hate the industry so much, you should probably just go find another one.

Hi boys!!
Sorry for the interlude.. had to take a break to visit ASIS in Atlanta or IP camera central as I call it.
Now where were we?

Good point survtech.. and I would add that even if the difference is minimal, I do not want to pay HQ1 (520~540TVL) prices and get SS-11X (470~480TVL) quality..also, there is a big difference in price for the components on the manufacturing side. I hope you see my point.

Now Chromatic... Way to go off subject dude! It's not the fact that you did as much as how you did it. PC based DVR?? really? Everyone makes these toys man... does that make everyone a manufacturer?? You take a "back seat" attitude to these unethical practices.. I can give you a history of camera specifications and why companies like Arm are so infuriating to me. unfortunately, you have already proven that you are a waste of time for me with your post. Maybe you should throw a little fit yourself every once in while.. you know, prove that you are alive and actually care. It's called passion.
If anyone need to get out of this industry, its people that see these problems and say nothing/do nothing.
Gday!

Oh.. and by the way… my original “fit” was about Deluxe CCTV selling 420TVL(512x492) cameras as 480 and 520 TVL. (Even if now I am sure that he was naive and did not know the difference) This is a bit more than noticeable, would you agree Survtech?
I am not looking for mild offenders. I am looking for serious criminals.

The spec says 512x492? I'm not even sure that works out to 420TVL. Every analog camera we use states 768x494, but the resolution rating varies from 470TVL to 540TVL, depending on the manufacturer.

We never worry about the TVL rating of any cameras we use. We've found that there is little, if any, difference in resolution between brands and models that have 768x494 pixels. Except for a very few situations where we do choose lower resolution cameras, that is all we buy.

We evaluate each camera's ability to handle specific tasks and lighting situations. We often test cameras in multiple applications: over table games, the reels of slot machines, overviews of gaming areas, entrance doorways where there is a high amount of back lighting and dark areas to see how well the AGC performs.

We also have other specific criteria: size is one; all of our indoor cameras are integrated domes or installed in domes. Since we have Pelco DF-5 in-ceiling and pendant domes in many areas, we can't use a standard-size box camera. We use either mini box cameras like the Pelco C10CH series or their predecessors (CCC13xx series) or cubes like the Ikegami ICD-505.

In new installations, we often install integrated domes like the Ganz ZC-D5000 series. It depends on the application. Some applications require defeatable AGC and the Ganz domes don't have a switch so we go back to the DF-5's with a seperate camera.

Every so often a manufacturer, distributor or integrator approaches us with a new and/or unique camera and we will obtain a demo and put it through its paces. If it works better than what we currently use and is cost-effective, we will buy the new product. Believe me, that doesn't happen very often!

Yep thats what most of the 380-420TVL cameras specify as their total image pixels. Ofcourse many of the lower resolution cameras are OEMS and they hardly ever provide that spec anyway, so this is based off a brand like GE in this case.

Correction: Sony, who makes the CCDs and DSPs, rates all 512x492 cameras at 330TVL. Over the years, our industry has increased the TVL resolution to 380~420 for this CCD. TVL ratings are good if you have charts and can test the products.
My point is this: If you want 470~480TVL, you need 768x494 EP. If you want 520~540 TVL you need 768x494 with the HQ1 DSP.
All you have to do is look for manufacturers who actually write "HQ1" on the camera specs. This is easy to verify since Sony only makes one model of HQ1 DSP. Take a look at the DSP on the back of the camera board.. it should say "CXD3172AR". If doesn't, you just got swindled!

I know a few manufacturers that are not on the high end of the spectrum who take pride in correct specs for high resolution cameras. Yes, they cater to discerning customers that want to buy real technology versus exaggerated paper specs. Shany, Everfocus and Eclipse to name a few that have specs within range of reality.
My gripe is with companies like IC realtime, Cop, and Ateck who sell 512x492 (330~420TVL) cameras as High res 480TVL or higher. Sure, maybe they don’t know the difference, but I bet they do and just don’t care to lie. If you want proof, just visit their websites and check the specs.

Ikegami HC-240 1/2" 3-CCD video camera,
Canon BCTV f/1.8-16 zoom lens (plus 1.5X teleconverter),
and Telemetrics 51962 wireless camera housing/control assembly
In the 1990's it cost over $10,000
Effective number of pixels: NTSC: 492(V) x 772(H)
Horizontal resolution: 750 TVL Typical (NTSC & PAL-B)
That's still <0.4mp

I just bought this on ebay you can search for it to see pics.
It's a broadcast camera. It's a monster. the ptz alone weights about 40 pounds the entire unit weights 70 lbs (32kg) lens is 12" long
All ptz, focus, iris, video, etc, is through the coax.

Where should I post in cctvforum to ask for help controlling this beast?
It might end up being a giant dummy cam.

phoenixad,

As a newcomer to the industry I truly appreciate your cutting through the marketing BS.
Looking at the specs presented at some of these sites can apparently be very misleading.

I have some questions I'd like to ask you but my post count is to low for PM's still.. is there a way we can communicate?

Thanks to all here who work to keep the information clean from the marketing hype!

Ah, finally a subject I can contribute to! Have been reading this forum and learning from it for a while. Thought it made sense to register now and provide a mini-tutorial on the subject of resolution. By way of background, I an engineer with two decades of experience in analog/digital video (plus bunch more in other areas). So if some of this doesn't make sense, feel free to ask questions.

At high level, one can make any of the claims people make and be both right and wrong! The key thing to understand is that this is a rather complex situation. We have a digital imaging sensor paired up with analog transmission over a coax cable. One has to understand both components to know the full resolution of the system. So let’s start with the easier, digital part first.

The sensor today is a digital device meaning it has a specific resolution. The highest fidelity sensor for standard definition (SD) signal meant for NTSC transmission in US would have a resolution of 720x486 (some use 720x485 – don’t worry about the difference). This means that the sensor resolves 720 pixels horizontally and 486 vertically. This by the way, is the resolution of DVD if you watch it over a digital interface (e.g. HDMI/DVI) connected to a digital TV (LCD, etc.).

SD television is a “4:3” format meaning that pixels are rectangular. This becomes important as we look at the definition of “TV lines.” The NTSC standard calls for 525 horizontal lines stacked on top of each other. No device can produce anything different or you won’t be able to watch that signal on your TV. Let me repeat again: the vertical resolution is fixed. Now, you may wonder why we have 525 instead of 486 I mentioned above. Well, the rest of the lines are not visible. So with just 486 lines, we have a full resolution NTSC signal as far as vertical resolution is concerned.


This is rather technical but 486 pixels do NOT resolve that much resolution. Rather, the effective rate is proportional to what is called the “Kell factor.” This is simply a number you multiply the pixels to arrive at the effective resolution your eye will perceive. In this scenario, Kell factor is 0.7. So we multiply 486 by 0.7 and we get 340 lines. So the effect/perceived VERTICAL resolution of SDTV in US is 340 lines. With me so far? I hope so :).


Now, once we capture the sensor data, we need to transmit it somehow. Per previous mention, if we could transmit the sensor data using a digital interface like HDMI/DVI used on your HDTV and computer monitor ,and compensating for Kell factor, we would have a resolution of 720*.7 = 504 lines. Alas, the real world doesn’t work this way.

Now let’s get to the definition of “TV Lines.” Of note, this is the count of vertical lines, not horizontal lines. Or put simply the number of pixels on the horizontal line the system handles. But there is an important nuance here. TV line definition attempts to compensate for the non-square pixels of SDTV by backing out the 4:3 ratio. So if we were to transmit the 720 pixels in digital domain, we would count them as 720*3/4 = 540 lines. So this is where the 540 lines comes from on some camera specs. If your sensor is compliant with broadcast standard and has 720 pixels, your TV line equivalent would be 540. So one problem solved.

Now, the 520 number is pure fiction in the context we are talking about. Why? Because we do not have a digital interface. Instead, we have a “modulated” analog signal compliant with NTSC standard over that coax wire much like what a TV station would transmit. Being an old standard, NTSC puts rather severe restriction on the bandwidth of the signal it can handle.


To carry broadcast SDTV quality video over analog channel, we would need 6.75 Mhz of bandwidth. Where does this come from? Well, I won’t get into the math but essentially, you need 1 Mhz of bandwidth for every 80 pixels of horizontal resolution. Multiply 6.75 by 80 and what do you get? You guessed it, 540 TV Lines that we computed above.

The NTSC standard stipulates that we can only have 4.2 Mhz, not 6.75 we have in a television studio. So performing the math again, we have 4.2*80 = 336 lines. Well, I cheated a bit. The actual number is 79 pixels per Mhz. If you use that, you get ~330 lines that were also mentioned in this thread. So for perfect NTSC system, the best you can achieve is 330 TV lines of resolution, not 540.


Are we done yet? No, we are not :). The NTSC standard is an interlaced system. This means that we transmit alternating lines of the vertical resolution in each “field.” So the system sends 256 odd lines then 256 even lines. If you have a static subject that never changes, this is the same as 525 lines when the display puts them together. If the subject moves however, the two fields do not match when combined and you get jaggies/stair-step lines. Putting aside how one deals with this for a moment, you can think of NTSC as a system with 525 lines for static images, but only half as much for moving images. Using the Kell factor and actual 486 pixels, we have a resolution of 340 lines but only 170 for moving images. No wonder NTSC looks so poor in this respect.


A Cheap solution to above is filtering (blending) the pixels which gets rid of the jaggies but does not restore the resolution. Processors in new TVs and better DVD players perform non-linear analysis which yields better results but not as good as an image that was progressive in nature.


Wait! We are not done yet…. :) Everything I talked about was in regards to black and white component of the video. The color in television has lower resolution than black and white signal.

In Broadcast world, we transmit one quarter color resolution for every bit of black and white. Why? Because your eye tends to be less sensitive to resolution in colors than black and white. This allows us to save some bandwidth without much harm to video quality. NTSC makes this situation worse by modulating the color together with black and white, making it hard to separate them. This is why S-Video connection helps by separating the two components. But it does nothing to restore the lost color resolution. Your computer by the way, has full bandwidth color and black and white. In that sense, video, even in High Definition format, will never have the same crispness that you are looking at in your computer display right now when it comes to color.

Ok, hope I didn’t lose most of you and this information to make sense out of these camera specs.

The CCD camera resolution can be up to 420TV lines.

wondcam dot com

The CCD sensor can have any resolution. You can even have 1000 lines of resolution and subsample down. But per my above note, your limit in non-IP cameras, is that of NTSC modulation. That is the weakest link. And that is well below 420 lines.

An IP camera on the other hand, is able to transmit resolution well above that since it is not bound by NTSC standard. However, in the process of compression, it adds non-linear distortion which can bring its effective resolution well below the sensor.

[/quote]
The CCD sensor can have any resolution. You can even have 1000 lines of resolution and subsample down. But per my above note, your limit in non-IP cameras, is that of NTSC modulation. That is the weakest link. And that is well below 420 lines.

An IP camera on the other hand, is able to transmit resolution well above that since it is not bound by NTSC standard. However, in the process of compression, it adds non-linear distortion which can bring its effective resolution well below the sensor.[/quote]

Mda... all we need is Rory to join this topic :)

No question Rory will make this conversation interesting.


Now, who is Rory? :D

New kid on the block....
Amir

Hi Everyone . as I know , if you are using PC-based DVR or embedded DVR . the highest preview/recording resolution is D1 : NTSC(704 X 480) (704 X 576) . recording 300TVL ~500TVL already very clearly .

That's the reason why most manufacturers only product 420TVL , 480TVL ,520TVL Cameras . Other details will be more important , for example support wide-voltage , material , life cycle , easy-install etc.

That is a good point in that PC based recoding goes up to broadcast standard. Which is quite nice. Sadly, the signal arriving at the card from the camera, doesn't approach those numbers unless you use the S-video (Y/C) cable.


You lost me there :). As long as you are using a single coax to connect to PC DVR, you can't get those numbers (and at any rate, TV Line is not the same as the resolution numbers used above for DVR).

The signal is filtered (lowered in resolution) at the camera end before being put on that cable due to limitation of NTSC broadcast standard we live in. The numbers you mention per my post, are the resolution of the front-end/sensor of the camera, not what you get at your DVR -- PC or otherwise.

I have tried plenty megapixel cameras from AXIS and ArecontVision.

1.3 MPixel is a great resolution. It really gives visible advantages in compare with 4CIF or 640x480.

IMHO camera images with 2 and 3 Megapixel resolution doesn't look more detailed in compare with 1 MP.

540 TVline for Color so far.

Sony do well really only offer to kind of series of CCD chips: Low resolution and High resolution (330TVL and 370TVL) the 420/480/520 etc is marketing numbers as well as a way for the camera manufacture trying to tell you how good their DSP is for instance, but Sony only have 2 sizes of CCD chips and that is 330TVl and 370TVl.

JD

relative noobie ,have siamese cable in place, client requires ptz

lil help?

The reason for this debate is that for years, US and Japanese manufacturers pushed out 330 & 380 TVL cameras of good quality.

Along come the Chinese, Taiwanese, Koreans, etc and start pushing out 420, 540, etc cameras.

The simple explanation is that Chinese Manufacturers use "Pixel Resolution" in their specifications. "Pixel Resolution" is not a true resolution measure and only refers to the upper bounds of possible resolution based on the HxV calculation of the CCD.

International Convention is that "Pixel Resolution" should not be used to describe the resolution of a camera.

One should properly test for "Spatial Resolution" which is device specific, and a very costly test and measures pixels per area e.g. ppi. The key is the number of pixels per given area. (Page, Computer Monitor)

Claiming that websites are dishonest based on HxV claculations is erroneous. These sites are quoting 'Pixel resolution". On the common Super Had CCD the effective Pixels are 290K. This equates somewhere between 350TVL and 420TVL (322K pixels) Their figures are mostly correct -- Except that they are quoting maximum possible parameters based on the CCD HxV, which is not the "True Resolution" of a specific camera subsystem.

In addition the HxV cannot be used to fault a resolution rating, as DSP technologies such as pixel shift, or "pixel offset" do result in Resolution Boosts.

The problem is that we have grown accustomed to a convention -- which uses Spatial Resolution, and we have seen the common adoption of another less accurate measure which uses "Pixel Resolution"

Wow... have not been here for a few weeks.

You boys are way of the subject!

I really do appreciate all of the comments on resolution and why it is all whacked out. thank you Amir for your in depth explanation of TV lines and pixel ratings... but... at the end of the day, none of this means "sh$t" if you do not make it simple.

To simplify,

1. Specs on cameras and DVR are all wrong.(no matter the manufacturer)

2. For TVs, the highest resolution is 350 lines.

3. For CCTV systems, the highest resolution is 525 lines.

4. You need megapixel cameras to get really high resolution video (see below for disclaimer)

5. most important : make things easy to understand for everybody with no lies.

Now, back to megapixel: high cost, need special housings that can be used with mega-pixel cameras, network problems, internet problems, and lens problems...

you dig??

True. Best to look at the size of the sensor as to *some* indication of its light gathering abilities. A larger sensor will have less noise. Less noise means a clearer image but more imporantly, one that compresses better!


I assume you mean an analog TV. A digital TV goes up to 1920 now. And computer monitors even higher.


That is the vertical resolution and is fixed by NTSC for all cameras (the actual visible lines is 486). The more important number is the horizontal resolution we have been talking about.


Correct and progressive scan also helps.


Long topic to get into :). For now, here is a tidbit from the photography world. All else being equal, a telephoto lens performs better than a wide angle one. In addition to better resolution, there is also less (geometric) distortion in a telephoto lens.

Now, the CCTV sensors are tiny so it is not clear how much the above applies to them. But thought folks may want to keep that in mind as they evaluate different cameras. Perhaps it becomes a factor as we climb above 2 megapixels....


I am trying :).