mike_va

CCTV by Vlado Damjanovski

At that distance and MP cams I'd add more IR than a CNB... The sign on the toilet or whatever shows up good because it reflects better than the face. Here is a random person at 150ft with a Raytec RM100-10 and Axis P1344 with 1/30s shutter, this is a screenshot of 1/4 of the picture. No streetlights at all where those cars are. 50+ feet further out there are some house lights though.

The datasheet I found implied the Mintron runs at 4x sense up (slow shutter). Can this be disabled? If this is at 4x sense up it would not really be a fair comparison. For example, two pics - one at nominal, one at 4x sense up. The fence in the background is only visible with the 4x.

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...

In fairness, it seems this mintron is default 4x sense up? That would make sense with 0.0014 --> at no sense up that is ~ 0.006 probably at 30IRE which is possible at least, still sounds a little optimistic. I have played with some 1/2" Mintron B&W though that are pretty amazing...

@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?"

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?

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.

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...

Not all switchers produce noise, e.g. every camera that is dual voltage already has one inside. I would not run it that high. Depending on the camera it may cause reliability issues. I'd use the other pair as suggested to get the drop down, or as sense lines since you have a lab supply (but the first method is preferred).

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...

The 100ft is a decent camera, here's some shots viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27498 Really only half that distance for the IR (not untypical), however I would read up on lens calculators if trying to do that from the second story.

Yes, what I meant by related is maybe the same lens "IR issue" - not the same lens

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=11322

Also would love to see some night images of this camera.

I did this, took a pot to see what it took to keep it open and used that value with a little margin. I think it ended up being around 400 Ohms for the one I tried, but could be wrong on that. Connectors can be obtained from mouser, there are links if you search around the forum a bit.

I've been playing around with this myself, at around 200ft. Still needs some work. Using a BIG Raytec... Try reading the extreme cctv patent, it is great. #7016518 http://www.google.com/patents/about/10_097_936_Vehicle_license_plate_imaging.html?id=0ySVAAAAEBAJ

Possibly related viewtopic.php?f=19&t=23386

I was talking to Raytec the other day. They don't quote distance on their 940 so I was curious. It sounds like they were also saying you still end up seeing a glow, unless you go even higher in wavelength. They implied you could get roughly the same net effect turning down a 850 unit, in terms of usable vs. visible light. I have not used 940 though so have no experience.

If I look through a longpass filter at a light bulb you will still see a red glow. still fun to play with. also nice material if you ever need to put something behind some heavy tint. Someone once told me you had to really go up in wavelength to not see it. Also probably will not be that efficient.

I have not used either included s/w as I have a mixture of cams at home. I found Acti to be marginal, in terms of the firmware and it just did not feel like a solid camera (like an Axis). Axis needs light. The other day I was playing with a RM100-10 at around 200ft and an Axis P1344 at 1-60sec and it was amazing. Arecont I was worried about after some of the comments on this forum. I read something that said Google used tons of them, and I've seen Dulles International Airport is full of them. I bought a 3135 and still have to say it is a good camera in many regards. Arecont is probably not perfect in terms of quality since they are a new company and cutting their teeth (and zero response when I've asked them questions, so buy them from someone who will back them up). I've seen a lot more Axis and Arecont MP out and about than Acti, around here anyway. I run milestone (free version) and Vitamin D paid version. I like the multiple windows (e.g. one zoomed in, one out of the same camera on milestone. The free version is somewhat limited though since there is no remote client, and audio recording is only on one channel. Also I would have to say that milestone is not super responsive even on a nice computer but is stable.

OK, this was not really meant to be a fair comparison... Bosch was already sitting in the side bay window, and I hurt my foot last week so did not feel like running around the house getting another camera. 1st pic is afternoon. In all cases Bosch default shutter is 2x sense up. KT&C rated at 0.02 lux, Bosch rated at ~0.01 lux (30 IRE and 2x sense up). The Bosch has a f1.0 megapixel lens on it.

to carry on with that thought, attached is the datasheet in the box. Has different values of lux rating, which do not match the website I bought it from...or the manufacturer's data sheet. Also I thought originally it was a 3.7 or 4.3 available. I think now it is 4.3mm at f3.7. In the same way, I think the other 3 (not 6) lens types are 6mm @ f2.45, 8mm at f2.97, and 12mm at f3.6. Maybe, I don't know...it is just confusing...