Scruit

Found a US based seller who has them listed (not "out of stock") for $159. Seems like a pretty good price.

Bingo: Didnt know CNB had them, guess only in the box cam. http://www.cnbtec.com/en/html/product/product.php?seqx_prod=1031 Yes, it does have "negative image option" -------------------------------------- I found one old CNB WDR cam in stock have to check if its working So now I can't find an US seller selling the 4162... And although I can find a dozen of o listings for the 605 they're all out of stock. Still looking...

I like that Eclipse function. Now, do they have a camera with both Eclipse *and* Negative?

I'm using cat5e and passive baluns. Longest run is about 200 wire feet to the camera. I'm swapping all my old coax to ca5e/baluns because I made the mistake of running rg6 first time round. 7 of my 17 cameras are on cat5e now and I am not having any problems so far. Another reason for the swap is that my DVR is a hybrid DVR/NVR so I can add IP cameras to it. The ca5e that I'm running terminates at a patch panel in the CTV closet punched down to industry standard. When it comes time to go to IP cameras all I need to do is cut off the baluns, put an RJ45 on the camera end and add the POE I'm ready. I'm also taking this opportunity to run the cables better. No more black coax stapled to the ceiling of the garage. All hidden.

I'm not using software to capture the plates. I just play the video back and read the plates. What we need to confirm is one simple question: "Does the negative image feature of a camera result in a readable image of a printed license plate?" We know that simply doing a negative of the unreadable image on the PC does not help. This is likely because exporting to JPG has locked in the low contrast in. ahh man .. after all this work .. some free open source licence plate recognition code out there I found before that would be fun to play with ... Certainly would be. Linky?

I'm thinking I need to stick with WDR as that would hopefully help with the nighttime capture of the front of the car. The headlights make most of the image white and I have to use a bucketload of IR to bring the plate out. WDR would hopefully bring out more plate detail while reducing headlight glare. (imaging the plate is the shoplifter and the headlights are the bright windows behind him...) This is an 82.5mm lens at full zoom.

I'm not using software to capture the plates. I just play the video back and read the plates. What we need to confirm is one simple question: "Does the negative image feature of a camera result in a readable image of a printed license plate?" We know that simply doing a negative of the unreadable image on the PC does not help. This is likely because exporting to JPG has locked in the low contrast in.

While ak357 is looking for his example I'm trying to figure out if it's worth pursuing from a financial perspecitive because of the cameras are $500 then that is just not going to happen. For me the confirmation will be: - The plate is illegible on a positive IR image, AND - Importing that illegible image into photoshop (etc) and doing a negative image on the PC still results in an equally illegible image AND - A plate output using the camera's negative feature IS legible. IF those three are true, and I can get the camera (Just the box cam, I already have the lens/filter/housing) for about $200 then I'll be all over that.

I can't seem to find any box cameras with WDR *and* negative image option for under $400... Does anyone have any suggesitons?

If you are saying that sometimes it is easier to find Waldo by reversing video, then yes, I agree. Many thermal and night vision systems have the option to reverse video, and sometimes it's just easier for the human eye to locate objects of interest, and sometimes it's operator preference. But if you are saying that reverse video increases forensic detail, then please post an example of the positive and negative taken of the same plate at the same time. Best, Christopher I think we will find that there is a difference between the negative image of visible light and the negative image infra-red light.

ak357, Makes sense to me in that one the image is saved to jpg then the similar colors will be 'locked' in so negative of that image will simply produce a negative (but still difficult to read) image. In fact, a negative of your "original" (difficult to read) is just as difficult to read. But you're saying that with the camera set to give a negative image, it DOES produce enough contrast to read the plate... You can confirm that the ONLY difference between the two images of that license plate that you produced is that one of them is set to negative *at the camera* and the other is normal... all other things (lens, camera, brt, cont, etc) are the same? If so, then that sounds like a viable option. I was already looking for an excuse to replace my cam with a WDR. I need a WDR with Negative... Thanks, Grae

negative again. Looks like a stamped plate...

Get camera which has "negative image option"" have a look under IR results are not too bad Wouldn't there need to be some contrast in the original for a negative image to work? What does the non-negative image look like?

Seems like a design flaw. Best, Christopher Well, I'm using 850nm. I don't know what the IR reflectivity is like at 950nm. All I can tell you that at 850nm I'm utterly blind.

It's an analog camera with passive baluns at each end. I send the video down the orange pair, the power goes down the blue and green pairs. The cat5e cable is wired industry-stndard with RJ45 ports on each end (goes into the patch panel on the DVR end) so that swapping for an IP camera with POE will require no wiring changes. On the DVR end I made a pigtail that has an RJ45 on one end and the other end has the wires broken out for the video and power. The power comes from a 16 channel CCTV power supply. On the camera end I have a similar pigtail, inside a weatherproof housing.

How good are your local police at following up leads? I used to live inthe big city just to the south of me and if you didn't give them a license plate then they wouldn't even try to investigate it. That's not a knock on them, it's just the reality of their manpower to workload ratio and the need to be efficient. When my truck was broken into I called them and got a fax number for a written report / "No solvability factors" spiel. Where I live now is a much quieter jurisdiction and the police are more willing to do the investigative aspect. Examples would be actually attending the site of a burglary, photographing footprints and tire treads, taking fingerprints etc. They did eventually hit a wall, but at least they tried. This is great evidence once you find the guy, but other than fingerprints, nothing will lead you find the guy. A fingerprint (if on file) or license plate (if not stolen) will actually lead the police to the bad guy. So, where this ties in to your situation is... How much do you have to be able to give your local police in order for them to put in the effort? A bumper sticker would be interesting and may be metioned on a "Wanted Poster" but likely won't help find the guy. A vehicle make/model is good but won't get you too far unless it's a rare type of car. Body damage is good, but can be temporary. Odd colored panels are good. Imagine the difference in the APB/BOLO between "Red F150 with a bumper sticker" versus "Red F150 with a white bed cap, dented rear bumper with a dented bumper and a maroon right fender." As far as reading bumper stickers... If you are zoomed in close enough to read a bumper sticker then a license plate will be easy to read. I don't know what your cul-de-sac looks like so this may not make sense, but I would probably look at getting a dedicated camera with a reaaaally big zoom lens and aim at a choke point as far up the cul-de-sac as makes sense, covering the whole width of the road. Don't expect license plates from this setup, but you can get a good vehicle description during the day. night-time is a while new set of problems. If you want license plates of cars travelling on the public road ... well... Does your cul-de-sac have a HOA or neighborhood watch? Can you suggest they get a proper license plate camera. I wouldn't try to read plates on a public highway without my neighbors' knowledge/consent. However if our neighborhood watch suggested installing a LP camera then I'd be all over it.

Add to that, several jurisdictions don't require a front plate. And even in those that *do* require a front plate (ohio) the police often don't enforce it for reasons ranging from "I only saw the front and assumed his was from a one-plate-state" to "You want me to write plate tickets rather than catch DUIs?"

Polarizing filter before: and After: Note: See how the windshield got tougher to see through even though the side window became clearer... that's a function of the light polarization.

RE: Seeing people inside cars: Get a lens that has a threaded fitting to accept filters. Get a polarizing filter and thread it on. Park a car in the driveway with someone in it and then adjust the polarizing filter until you can see inside. The polarizing filter will reject the light that has been reflects off the windows. Bear in mind that that the way light polarizes if you shoot the corner of the car withthe a-pillar in the middle of the shot then your polarizing filter will let you adjust and see in the windshield, or the side window, but probably not both at the same time. Pick an angle and stick with it. You likely won't see in the car at night unless you add your own light or they have their dome light on.

Sorry for jacking. Back on topic... OP: You have a choice to make on the quality of image you need. I tend to find that the best quality outdoor images come from the bigger cameras with auto-iris lenses. But those tend to be more difficult to hide... I just chose to skip hiding the camera completely because the compromise in quality was too great. Are you shooting back towards the house? or away from the house? A flowerbed will be low enough to get blinded by headlights of cars pulling onto the driveway, right? Or exterior lights on your house? Exactly what do you want the camera to do? Tell you if someone is there, or give you a general idea what they are doing: Bullet IR cam in the bottom of a lawn ornament of some kind. Just walk around walmart until you find something that wouldn't look out of place in flowerbed, is hollow enough you can mount the camera inside it, and you can disguise the hole that the camera looks out of. Give you a picture of the bad guy's car that you can give to the police: I'd forget the flowbed and go for a higher mount where headlights/taillights won't be affected by it. Bullet IR will do this as long as it's not blinded by lights. Give you a picture of the bad guy that you can give to the police for a wanted poster: Pick a choke point and aim for that. Front door is a logical place, but then you'd be better with a eye-level cam installed by the doorway. doorbell cam? Look at the cctv pics they release of bank robbers. If you think to yourself; "I wouldn't recognize that guy in the street even if he walked up to me with a big sign saying; I'm that guy!" then ask yourself how the image could have been better, and apply that to your own setup. IR cams are great for when nobody is around but when someone gets close enough for an ID shot they get washed out by IR! I use IR bullets in concert with motion lights so the IR turns off when someone approaches. Also, I have used an old IR bullet (with the IR disconnected) in combination with a big external IR emitter mouted some distance away to reduce the IR glare. Also stops the effects of IR reflecting off rain/snow and fog. Give you a license plate: Totall dependedn on you getting the bad guy's car to be stopped or moving slowly in about the area of a parking space. Most homes in a subdivision are useless of this because the bad guy doesn't tend to pull into a driveway. And unless you want to annoy your neighbors by catching every plate that passes your house... You simply shouldn't rely on capturing plates on any camera that is not 100% set up and dedicated to capturing plates. So ask yourself again: What do I want to with this footage?

Quick question, have you tried putting dark tint on it? Definte "Tint" I have not applied any kind of film to the lens or housing. The IR camera is recorded on a dedicated 4 channel DVR on channel 1. Then channel1 is looped out to channel2 input, and chan2 to chan3. This gives me 3 identical images. Each has different brightness and contrast settings. Ohio Plate, Stamped... Front plate: IR Camera: Backup visible light camera: Here's what I get for an Indiana plate (printed) No front plate for this Indana-registered rental car: Rear plate is invisible to IR: Rear plate caught by backup visible-light camera: Looking at these images again, I think I need to zoom my IR plate camera in a little closer if I can...

What state or government makes license plates that are difficult to read with an IR camera? Best, Christopher Indiana plates cannot be read by pure IR cameras. Ohio Veteran plates and other vanity plates are also printed /unreadable. When I say unreadable, I mean when you use IR light to illuminate a plate. My main license plate camera has an IR pass filter (cuts out everything except 850nm) and a big IR illuminator. Indiana plates show up as completely blank. My friend's Ohio Veteran plate was similarly invisible. I had to add a visible light camera also. The camera shown is the second visible light camera which faces the back of the car. This was added after a car with no front plate drove forwards into the driveway and then backed out - ie no plate read!

Yep. The solar panel puts out 7.2v. I'm planning to use an LM78XX voltage reulgator to take the camera's 12v feed down to 9v to charge the battery instead of the solar panel.

Meh. Hidden Schmidden. The camera is fed by a buried cat5e cable. The motion light provides illumination to capture license plates at night. There is no IR here, intentionally. My experience is that *printed* license plates don't show up on IR cameras - somehtign about the infra-red reflectivity of the lettering versus background not havign sufficient contrast. Infrared refelctivity is a weird animal - black clothing can show up white in IR mode. The camera has a 60mm zoom lens as is being recorded at 30fps full D1. The image is zoomed in enough that a license plate takes up about 1/3 of the screen as it passes. The angle of the camera means I get about 10 frames with a legible license plate. During the day it works 100%. At night the motion light provides fill-in light to help illuminate the retroreflective paint on the plate. I know this is not an outdoor camera. I have a WDR box cam with enclosure on order. This was a proof of cencept.

Yes, I still run the Aver 1304MOB. The only problem I have is it seens to eat hard drives every 9 months or so, and on really cold days it goes into hard-drive protect mode for the first couple of minutes of the journey. I have two front-facing cameras. Both identical, except one is zoomed in really tight and can pick up a license plate from 3 carlengths away, and the other is a really wide-angle lens that can see traffic light color until I'm well past the line. I find I need to run both cameras to get the best coverage. I suppose you could run one single full 1080P camera (gs600 dvr) and then still have enough resolution to get something of a 'zoom' effect in the middle... But I also like having two cameras looking forward in case one fails. (happens more than you think, usually vibration causes a connection to work loose) The front-facing cameras are bolted to a strip of aluminum that is attached to two RAM suction mounts. All of those parts are covered in black fabric. The combination of dark tinted windows and black fabric mounted behind the sun strip across the top of the car makes the cameras almost invisible.