CNB WCM-20VF (CCD 1/3) vs. Qsee QSM5265C (CMOS 1/3)

The Qsee QSM5265C costs about 1/4 the CNB, but actually does a pretty good job.

Both are ICR, CNB has a varifocal lens but the Qsee is much easier to mount (and conceal wires). The CNB has an internal joystick to access the menu, the Qsee what you see is what you get.

Colors are not as good during the day (cheap CMOS) but night pic is decent, probably compensated for with extra LED's.

Not all CMOS sucks, my Axis P1344 are CMOS but have much better color than CNB. And I've had CCD cameras that have had much worse sensitivity...

Im done with the CNB, image quality just isnt there with them and the Monalisa chip sucks - all their cameras come with Monalisa now. Yes their cameras physically look good, install easy and are cheap - but thats about it. Every IR bullet I used from them suck also - faint IR, too much focus shift, bad day image, or the IR ring effect.

KT&C costs a few dollars more but uses Sony chips and even have the 700TVL (960H) cameras now for not much more than CNBs. They also have a huge selection of bullets and with more functions than CNB, eg. D-WDR, HLC and Negative Image are common features.

Bye Bye CNB ...

No IR shift or ring issue with this one. Anyway, I don't think I call myself a fan. They do work well (even the smart IR feature) but are not the best. They do provide good well exposed images out to about 20-25ft. It really is kind of sorting through a few good options in this price range, I don't think I could ever see spending more than this on bullets though.

If I was going to spend more money I would go a little higher yet and buy Bosch 495/498 and get quality and quit screwing around with bullets...the 498 and the 2x dynamic range feature is pretty amazing, as good as if not better than the Panasonic 484.

My favorite right now though are the Axis P13xx series and the big Raymax IR units, really puts all of these analog cams to shame. Man, I hate interlaced video on analog cams - and there is no reason for it they could use progressive capture and convert it back to interlaced to transmit...

Man, I hate interlaced video on analog cams - and there is no reason for it they could use progressive capture and convert it back to interlaced to transmit...

Thats the video encoder you are using.

Have you checked the cameras directly?

If you see this type of image at the camera, then something is wrong with the camera.

Here is an example from the DVRs we use, of a moving car.

The wheel in this image is more like what you should be seeing even after recording.

No IR shift or ring issue with this one.

Looks like focus shift to me, blurry image. How is the day image?

With the regular sub $150 ones I used, could focus good for day but would be blurry like your image at night. No matter what IR optimized lens they claim it has. With the $350+- ones, they have 30% and 10% IR so it makes a ring effect.

Yes agreed, it simply can't be avoided due to the camera taking the pic at different points in time. By the time you are close enough to get enough pixels with a moving object you have interlacing. As you've pointed out (in other posts) though one can always remove it after the fact with software.

That pic also shows up on this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video

Of course as one is farther away zoomed out it is not noticed as much, however hard to get the desired detail. So much better with progressive and a few MP...

What Im saying is I have never seen that with ANY camera I have ever used.

What you are seeing is not on the CCTV monitor which the camera is plugged directly into.

Use a CCTV monitor and you will get perfect video.

Bottom line is, it isn't the camera's fault, blame Axis.

Yep, I hear you. Still I've noticed it quite a bit around. Attached is one pic that I noticed it in at the time. It depends how fast something is going, or how zoomed in the camera is.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=24164

Never going to get around the fact that the fields making up a frame are taken at different points in time. And those times are pretty slow, so the images are always going to be shifted...for objects that are moving. In general people seem to post a lot of "still" images.

Similar to why anyone watching sports or playing video games would much rather do it on a progressive scan monitor/TV.

Same reasoning Bosch suggests for doing 2CIF expanded I think for plate capture.

Yep, I hear you. Still I've noticed it quite a bit around. Attached is one pic that I noticed it in at the time. It depends how fast something is going, or how zoomed in the camera is.

What CCTV monitor was this photo taken from?

Speed will only cause motion blur and that is shutter related.

Are the two fields (that make up a frame) for interlaced taken at the exact same point in time, or are they offset?

OK, I'm taking a break from whatever this is...I'm not sure how to take that last post...

Others have pointed out that the previous examples look like interlaced video, that's good enough for now...

Are the two fields (that make up a frame) for interlaced taken at the exact same point in time, or are they offset?

Each field is displayed 1/60th of a second after the preceding field

Others have pointed out that the previous examples look like interlaced video, that's good enough for now...

Then it begs the question ... can they understand English?

Or must I reply in some other language?

@ak357: thanks

I was not going to respond, but a friend of mine sent me this which I thought put things nicely.

http://100fps.com/

http://100fps.com/video_resolution_vs_fluidity.htm

"It is nearly impossible to film something with NOTHING in that scene changing so that nothing gives you mice teeth (=interlace artefacts).

What scene would that be?

1) Nothing moves actively. No car, no person. Neither in the foreground, nor the background.

2) Nothing moves passively. No shadows, no grass, no leaves, no curtain.

3) Nothing moves the camera. Neither the camera man, nor the wind.

As you see this is impossible, otherwise I have to ask you: What you are filming? A wall?"

someone needs CCTV 101

Thanks Mike, learnt a lot from the video, slept thru "CCTV 101"