Think im going to swap the swann with acti

[zikronix 0]

Im happy with the swann...however I desire more and am paranoid about the bullets getting damaged (Freakin Thugs!)

 

I've been looking at the acti e74 3MP(complicated light) and the acti e73 5MP (day and night). I would build a pc and use their acti pc nvr.

 

The question is these cameras run about the same price. I have pretty decent light around my house at night, and the swann wdr when enabled made a difference in my dark and light areas during the day, helped a little at night but the noise was bad.

 

I have a hard time believing that the acti WDR is worse than the swans. So with that being said. Ive been leaning toward the 5MP cameras.

 

At 5mp @ with 40% quality Im looking at potential identification at 14Ft and 12ft @ 30% (according to their calculator)

 

The swann system with at cameras ran 1700.00, going with the acti with 9 of those domes doubles the price!

 

So im asking about your thoughts and opinions?

[Q2U 0]

If your going to run nine (9) 5MP cameras your certainly gonna need some major CPU horsepowerage to run the VMS bro.

[buellwinkle 0]

The 5MP sensor does require a lot more light at night than the 3MP. Get one of each to start and compare side by side for which works best where. I'll have 3 ACTi domes next week to review but the 2 and 3MP, not 5MP.

 

Don't worry about a PC, a simple i3 or i5 PC would be more than enough to handle 9 5MP cameras using ACTi's NVR software. Just setup the viewing to be on the second stream so you can view without eating up a lot of bandwidth, after all, what good is viewing 5MP on a TV or monitor that is only 2MP. The recording will still take place on the 1st stream at the full 5MP resolution.

[PaulfromCT 0]

The 5MP sensor does require a lot more light at night than the 3MP. Get one of each to start and compare side by side for which works best where. I'll have 3 ACTi domes next week to review but the 2 and 3MP, not 5MP.

 

Don't worry about a PC, a simple i3 or i5 PC would be more than enough to handle 9 5MP cameras using ACTi's NVR software. Just setup the viewing to be on the second stream so you can view without eating up a lot of bandwidth, after all, what good is viewing 5MP on a TV or monitor that is only 2MP. The recording will still take place on the 1st stream at the full 5MP resolution.

 

Can't wait to see the reviews on the ACTi domes. I am going back and forth between ACTi and Geovision for a client.

[vector18 1]

You already have the swann system installed, why not keep them as is and add a few acti's in alternate locations to get

even more detail and/or different angles? If your going to spend the money and your paranoid to begin with, have as many

cameras all over your house as possible!

[zikronix 0]

Acti says i7 3770 for 9 cams. Even up to 12 cams.

 

As I said before the Swann was a stop gap...do it now. Now that's up I can put the system in I want to. The Acti price looks good. But it's their performance I want to see.

 

I think the Swann is great for the money. But I rather have domes.

[buellwinkle 0]

I run 6 ACTi on NVR3 ranging from older 1.3MP to newer 2, 3 and 5MP cams on an old, old, i3-540 and it sits about 2% CPU busy, you can make up your own mind. I used to run it happily on an Atom processor nettop, but Maxicon found these deals from a defunct NVR company on i3-540 PCs for $200 I couldn't pass it up

 

All the motion detection is handled by the cameras and the stream is written to disk direct from the camera, so the CPU doesn't need to do much. Even displaying doesn't take much because you use the second stream which is much lower resolution and frame rate.

[zikronix 0]

And this is why I think this product is going to deliver. Its good to know that the 5MP requires more light than the 3MP...but why is that.

 

Also do you know if these are using sony exmor sensors...they are extremely good at low light

[MaxIcon 0]

For a given size sensor, more MP means smaller sensor elements, so less light hits each one.

 

This is listed as a 1/3.2" (0.31") sensor, at 2592x1944 resolution (5.03MP, 4:3 aspect ratio). The optical size is generally about 1.5x the actual size, so this is about 0.21" diagonal. With a 4:3 aspect ratio at that resolution, each sensor element is about 1.6 um.

 

A sensor with half the elements in each direction would have sensor elements twice as big on each side - 3.2 um - and have 1/4 the resolution - 1.25MP. Since the area of the element goes up with the square of the sides, the 5MP elements would be 2.7 square um, while the 1.25MP elements would be 10.7 square um, giving 4x the light gathering area per element, but only 1/4 the total resolution.

 

The way around this is with larger sensors - 1/2", 2/3", or more. 1/2" is pretty readily available from some brands, but is more expensive. Going above 1/2" gets very expensive quickly, both in sensor/hardware costs and in optics costs.

[zikronix 0]

For a given size sensor, more MP means smaller sensor elements, so less light hits each one.

 

This is listed as a 1/3.2" (0.31") sensor, at 2592x1944 resolution (5.03MP, 4:3 aspect ratio). The optical size is generally about 1.5x the actual size, so this is about 0.21" diagonal. With a 4:3 aspect ratio at that resolution, each sensor element is about 1.6 um.

 

A sensor with half the elements in each direction would have sensor elements twice as big on each side - 3.2 um - and have 1/4 the resolution - 1.25MP. Since the area of the element goes up with the square of the sides, the 5MP elements would be 2.7 square um, while the 1.25MP elements would be 10.7 square um, giving 4x the light gathering area per element, but only 1/4 the total resolution.

 

The way around this is with larger sensors - 1/2", 2/3", or more. 1/2" is pretty readily available from some brands, but is more expensive. Going above 1/2" gets very expensive quickly, both in sensor/hardware costs and in optics costs.

 

 

So hence the 3MP being better in low light yea I would like some 1/2 sensors....for cheap

[tome9999 0]

For a given size sensor, more MP means smaller sensor elements, so less light hits each one.

 

While this is strictly true, it is NOT the case that smaller sensor elements (aka, higher resolution) mean worse low light performance. This was the case 5-10 years ago. Today, there are numerous examples where sensors with smaller pixels thoroughly outperform larger pixel size. For example the Nikon D800 has 4.7um pixel size and is the one of the current top performers in low light capability. It trounces cameras with much larger pixel sizes. The true winners today are the larger sensors, and not always larger pixel sizes.

 

I would love to see a camera based on a full frame (24x35.9mm) image sensor!!

 

Tom

 

ps: this is an interesting read with regards to signal to noise vs pixel density. http://theory.uchicago.edu/%7Eejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#pixelsize

[buellwinkle 0]

The higher end Avigilon cameras have 35mm sensors, but off course not the same price range as ACTi, but if you need to take 8,16 or 29mp video, that may be the one to get.

[tome9999 0]

The higher end Avigilon cameras have 35mm sensors, but off course not the same price range as ACTi, but if you need to take 8,16 or 29mp video, that may be the one to get.

 

 

Buellwinkle, I've been meaning to ask you....I am waffling now between the Axis P3367-VE and the Acti E83. Have you looked at (or will you be) the E83 at all? I certainly like the price of the Acti over the Axis (almost half as much) but I don't want to regret it later...

[buellwinkle 0]

Don't think there would be much of a contest, the Axis is just an awesome 5MP dome for low light sensitivity and the ACTi 5MP sensor is not going to perform as well in low light, but has an IR illuminator built in, but even with the IR illumination, Axis is much better. Of course having built in IR illuminators in a complete dark situation will trump no illumination at all and Axis illuminators can easily cost as much as the camera itself.

 

But like you said, twice the price. I would compromise and get the E82 with the 3MP sensor, decent low light sensitivity, IR illuminator and priced well. I'm getting a few domes to review, the E83 is not one of them but the E84 is.

[tomcctv 187]

I am waffling now between the Axis P3367-VE and the Acti E83

 

 

 

hi. no contest Axis 3367 is much better and gives you a lot more

[tome9999 0]

In this location I can turn on lights via a motion sensor so it doesn't have to be complete darkness. Sounds like Axis is probably the way to go for that one location anyway.

 

As always, many thanks for your opinions and your reviews!

-Tom

[CamB 0]

What about Acti E73 vs. Axis 3364 LVE?

 

E73 is 5MP and 3364 is 1MP. Axis camera is 2x more.

 

Installer is recommending E73.

[Sawbones 0]

One thing to bear in mind with the newer Acti cameras... many of them lack digital I/O.

 

I just discovered this when I bought an E86, intending to slave it to a Crow PIR/Microwave sensor. Imagine my surprise when I opened it up, and found no ports to attach the sensor... bad on me for not reading the specs more closely.

 

Just something to think about.

[zikronix 0]

One thing to bear in mind with the newer Acti cameras... many of them lack digital I/O.

 

I just discovered this when I bought an E86, intending to slave it to a Crow PIR/Microwave sensor. Imagine my surprise when I opened it up, and found no ports to attach the sensor... bad on me for not reading the specs more closely.

 

Just something to think about.

 

 

I don't use PIR sensors so in my case that's a non issue.