Rival to CNB Mona Lisa

[bantham1 0]

I had previously purchased 4 540 TVL Sony HQ1 chipset 4-9mm cameras from an online vendor. I had the previous version of these cameras and they were about the same/maybe better image quality than my current CNB's VBM 24vf's. This new camera Model: VFD-WDR62810 appears to have an IR cut filter. I had one of my CNB's go gray and had to have it replaced under warranty. CNB's are not a bad camera at all, but I was expecting more in the image quality area for all their hype with the "Mona Lisa." They are not the "end all" to all cameras. I have noticed more pixelation with the CNB's compared to the old 540tvl's. I have an Avermedia EB1304 DVR so I doubt that is limiting the CNB's. Here is a link to my comparison: http://s792.photobucket.com/albums/yy204/alschmid/ The old cameras I had were listed with "paige plenum." You decide which is better.

[rory 0]

Sorry no store links ... but here are the specs:

 

*Specifications:

Model: VFD-WDR62810

Image Sensor: 1/3" SonyCCD ICX638AKA

Lens: 2.8-10mm Varifocal IR Lens

Viewing Angle: 35°~104° (F1.6)

DSP: ISP NVP2170

Scanning Mode: NTSC

Scanning System: 2:1 Interface

Total Pixels 811(H) × 508(V)

Digital Zoom: 1~32x

Horizontal Resolution: 600/560 Max TV Lines

S/N Ratio: >48dB (AGC off)

3DNR: ON/OFF

Sync Mode: Internal

IR Range: 98 Feet

Infrared Wavelength: 850nm

Min. Illumination: 0.01 Lux/F1.2(LED OFF) ,0Lux(LED ON )

Shutter Speed Ajust: 1/250~1/100000, x2~x256

IR Cut Filter: 2-stage Optical Composition

White Balance: AWB / Indoor / Outdoor / Auto

Auto Gain Control: AGC Auto

Backlight Compensation: Grid Select, Backlight Grid Adjustable

Auto Gain Iris - DC Adjust 1~100

Gamma Characteristc: Adjustable 0.05~1.0

Video Output: 1.0Vp-p(Sync, Negative), 75 ohms, BNC

Operating Temperature: 14°F to 113°F

Ingress Protection IP Rating: IP65 Weatherproof

Power Requirements: Regulated 12V DC

Power Consuption: 400mA

Power Connector: 2.1x5.5, center tip positive

Dimensions Inches (approx): 4.5 (W)x 3.25(H)

Weight (Lbs): 1.5 LBLS

Duty Cycle: 24 Hour continuous

 

Its not a rival to the 24Vf domes though.

 

1-This is an IR dome, the VBM-24VF is not.

2-Its a Turret IR dome, ive used ALOT of them and never been impressed

3-IP65 instead of IP66 like the CNB

4-12VDC only, at 400ma thats a limited distance.

5-f:1.6 high f-stop lens, even though the camera says f:1.2

6-98' IR, id have to test it to believe it

 

I've recently been testing IR cameras, infact 4 different models tonight, and really they most all exaggerate heavily on the IR distance. Even the ones that claimed the exact same 98', sure there is "some" light out to around 70' but beyond that it is dark, and from 30'+ its just really dim light anyway so cant see much, not to mention when a person walks up to it their face is just one big glare. I had one that was brighter out to around 50' or so but then the daytime image was terrible, it was basically way too sensitive all around. None of these cameras can match the IR built into for example an EX82, but those have had their own share of problems such as photocells going bad.

 

Honestly out of all the "day night" cameras I tested tonight and the past few nights, the VBM-24VF still blows them away, it just works, and great, day and night, ofcourse needs external IR or Visible light if its too dark at night, but it works great with the right IR, eg I tested it with an EX26 and its a great image. Problem is cant mount the dome on poles and other certain places, so thats where a good bullet would come in, cant find one of those yet though, Im amazed actually as the bullets use to be better than most domes .. now its the other way around.

 

I dont even believe them now when they claim it has an IR cut filter, I just got one from Vitek that claims that and it doesnt have one at all!!

[bantham1 0]

The CNB's may be slightly more sensitive to low light, but I think there is more pixelation during the day. I still have one of my old 540tvl cameras and am thinking of taking a night comparison/day comparison snap. The CNB's required IR for my application, because it is very dark on the sides of my house. They do respond nicely to external IR, but I am not that impressed with the day image.

[rory 0]

There shouldnt be any pixelisation in the day with the VBM-24VF. I just installed 4 of them at different locations and it was a good image (except wasnt much of anything nice for them to look at), in fact was working on one today again.

[thewireguys 3]

I must agree with bantham1 I just installed 4 CNB 24VF outdoors and I am not impressed. They are having hard time will a lot of sun and shade in the image they look very washed out without color.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Guest

[bpzle 0]

I'd say the Monalisas are in the top 20 percent of cameras in their price range (at least that I've personally tested) but certainly not the best. (Cue Soundy's CNB love affair rant... I think he must have stock in Vigil and CNB )

 

I know of plenty better than CNB, but I'll always be searching for the best. I'm constantly testing and evaluating new products. Helps keep me competitive...

[thewireguys 3]

I'd say the Monalisas are in the top 20 percent of cameras in their price range (at least that I've personally tested) but certainly not the best. (Cue Soundy's CNB love affair rant... I think he must have stock in Vigil and CNB )

 

I know of plenty better than CNB, but I'll always be searching for the best. I'm constantly testing and evaluating new products. Helps keep me competitive...

 

I am doing the same thing.... Just got the VCB-34VF to test hoping it will be better.

[rory 0]

I must agree with bantham1 I just installed 4 CNB 24VF outdoors and I am not impressed. They are having hard time will a lot of sun and shade in the image they look very washed out without color.

do you have all settings to default or made any changes?

If not reset all the defaults. as it should not be like that, even here in the Bahamas with all this strong sun all day every day .. i dont see any issues.

[bantham1 0]

I have tried default settings and changing them. They actually look a little better changing the defaults. The main thing I notice about these are the lines of objects appear broken and not smooth/linear like pixelation. I can see the same in Rory's pictures (look at the straight lines and lines of the cars). I did not notice this with my other cameras. Must be the chipset that is causing this. In bright light, the matter just gets worse.

[Soundy 1]

I'd say the Monalisas are in the top 20 percent of cameras in their price range (at least that I've personally tested) but certainly not the best. (Cue Soundy's CNB love affair rant... I think he must have stock in Vigil and CNB )

"In their price range" is the key. Sure, they won't measure up to the likes of the Panny 484s on a raw-quality basis, but they also cost less than 1/3 the 484's price. And like Rory says, there's little than can touch them for low-light response (IMHO they even kick the 484's arse in near-darkness).

[rory 0]

I have tried default settings and changing them. They actually look a little better changing the defaults. The main thing I notice about these are the lines of objects appear broken and not smooth/linear like pixelation. I can see the same in Rory's pictures (look at the straight lines and lines of the cars). I did not notice this with my other cameras. Must be the chipset that is causing this. In bright light, the matter just gets worse.

Nah any lines you see there are because it was a crappy recording at 704x240 and resized to fit the forum, any blocks is from the recording, but locally its clear. Also thats the dfsl-20s cheap monalisa dome with the cars. What you are saying is leading me to believe you might have a couple bad ones? I mean according to an email from Vitek I just got, it seems all 3 of those cameras might be bad

 

Speaking of which ... i was out in a yard on a ladder for the past 6 hours, just got back .. think I fried one of the VBM-24Vfs .. not certain yet though brought it home .. makes no sense though as everything was done right. It died after perhaps 30 minutes, started to flicker all of a sudden then within a few seconds .. gone.

[bpzle 0]

Be careful when you mount them. I've zipped through that really thin gauge black wire that runs real close to the screw holes. Not a good design... they should really zip tie those things or something to keep them out of the way.

 

Took me a while to figure out what was wrong with the camera, and was a total pita to solder back together... Maybe that's your problem?

[bantham1 0]

Mine started to flicker and went gray screen when it went bad. Surveillance video sent me a new one. It could be my dvr, but it is recording at D1 (Avermedia EB1304). The last picture in the other CNB thread also shows the broken/not smooth line transitions that I am also seeing: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21952&start=60. Almost looks too digital.

[Birdman Adam 0]

Any 'digital' pixelation stuff your seeing with the CNB's is because of what the person is using to record them.

 

If we could see a true 704x480 picture, I can guarantee you it would look way better than all the ones posted so far.

[ak357 0]

Any 'digital' pixelation stuff your seeing with the CNB's is because of what the person is using to record them.

 

If we could see a true 704x480 picture, I can guarantee you it would look way better than all the ones posted so far.

 

What is definition of "true 704x480 picture" ?

To see where ?

[bantham1 0]

Full D1: 720 x 480/720 x 576 (NTSC/PAL)

This is what the 1304 records in.

[Birdman Adam 0]

For example, some of the images in the 'Feedback on CNB' thread were captured at like 320x240, through a streaming player, then stretched to 640x480 or whatever.

 

If we had a true D1 picture from a DVR, then it would be much nicer.

 

Your images are in 640x480, however thats the quad view. If you could post a picture of just each individual camera view at D1 I think it would look much better.

[bantham1 0]

When I snap a single camera picture or am viewing live on my monitor I see the same. I guess I am being too critical of the cameras for the price range. I may have to sell them and look for better image quality. I grew up doing photography work and look at picture quality closely. They are sensitive to low light which is a plus.

[ak357 0]

When I snap a single camera picture or am viewing live on my monitor I see the same. I guess I am being too critical of the cameras for the price range. I may have to sell them and look for better image quality. I grew up doing photography work and look at picture quality closely. They are sensitive to low light which is a plus.

 

You expect a lot from NTSC interlaced video

Get mega pixel and enjoy

[bantham1 0]

Yes, cctv cameras are behind. Cameras on cell phones are taking better pictures than a dedicated cctv camera. Unless you want to spend big money on a 2-3mp camera you will end up with mediocre image quality. You can buy a dslr with 10mp for a lot cheaper than the price of a 2-3mp cctv camera. Bank robberies and theft footage is almost useless for facial identification with 95% of the cameras out there. I had a robbery on my street and I could not even make the model/color of the car out. The car was about 40-50 feet away from my camera: http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy204/alschmid/15.jpg

There were some water spots on this camera, but I still would not be able to tell. You can see the pixelation in this still which was pulled directly from the dvr.

[Soundy 1]

Yes, cctv cameras are behind. Cameras on cell phones are taking better pictures than a dedicated cctv camera. Unless you want to spend big money on a 2-3mp camera you will end up with mediocre image quality. You can buy a dslr with 10mp for a lot cheaper than the price of a 2-3mp cctv camera. Bank robberies and theft footage is almost useless for facial identification with 95% of the cameras out there. I had a robbery on my street and I could not even make the model/color of the car out. The car was about 40-50 feet away from my camera: http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy204/alschmid/15.jpg

There were some water spots on this camera, but I still would not be able to tell. You can see the pixelation in this still which was pulled directly from the dvr.

That image is obviously recorded at CIF (352x240) - you can't make a valid comparison of cameras with that, even (or especially) by resizing it to 1024x768.

[bantham1 0]

It was recorded at D1 on my Avermedia not CIF.

[Soundy 1]

Doesn't look like D1 even resized back down... in fact, it looks blocky even for CIF (and I'm going more by the overlay text than the image itself). You SURE it's actually RECORDING at D1? Don't you have one that HASN'T been resized?

Edited September 25, 2010 by Guest

[bantham1 0]

It is at D1, I have checked the settings. Can I post the actual jpg here? I have it on my computer but do not see a way to add the file.

[rory 0]

Full D1: 720 x 480/720 x 576 (NTSC/PAL)

This is what the 1304 records in.

I was talking about my images, they were recorded in 704x240 and a really blocked recording also, so resized down is why you are seeing any messed up edges.