vector18 1 Posted August 10, 2012 Those are the cameras in my examples. I really like their images. Which NVR are you using? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bike_rider 0 Posted August 10, 2012 Those are the cameras in my examples. I really like their images. Which NVR are you using? On that night sample I'm guess that there is quite a lot of house lighting in that shot and that that shutter speed is slow (lilke maybe 1 second). Am I right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nDAlk90 0 Posted August 10, 2012 Dahua 2MP Dome 3.6mm http://vimeo.com/47318546 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thewireguys 3 Posted August 10, 2012 ^ Wow is it me or is that image bad? Zero detail on the trees..... Looks like a bad lens Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nDAlk90 0 Posted August 10, 2012 Interesting... Did you do full screen at HD? ^ Wow is it me or is that image bad? Zero detail on the trees..... Looks like a bad lens Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tomcctv 187 Posted August 10, 2012 somethings not righ. either you have a mistaken dahua 1.3mp (which still should give you a better image) or your lens is out Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bike_rider 0 Posted August 10, 2012 Dahua 2MP Dome 3.6mm http://vimeo.com/47318546 I'm seeing some softness in parts of the image, but it isn't consistent. The door above the handle (our left, mid screen) looks OK, but the lower part of the hand rail is a bit soft. I don't think it is as bad as some of the comments indicate. The bottom of the porch light looks crisp. I suspect that plant by the railing is just fuzzy, as is the edge of the welcome mat. Viewers - right click to turn off scaling, turn on full screen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
buster74985 0 Posted August 10, 2012 Dahua DH-IPC-HFW2100N (1.3MP, CMOS, 6mm fixed lens) night shots. Again, comments are appreciated Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bike_rider 0 Posted August 10, 2012 What's the shutter speed on those Dahua night shots? What's the ambient lighting? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Digiscan 0 Posted August 10, 2012 Dahua 2MP Dome 3.6mm http://vimeo.com/47318546 I'm seeing some softness in parts of the image, but it isn't consistent. The door above the handle (our left, mid screen) looks OK, but the lower part of the hand rail is a bit soft. I don't think it is as bad as some of the comments indicate. The bottom of the porch light looks crisp. I suspect that plant by the railing is just fuzzy, as is the edge of the welcome mat. Viewers - right click to turn off scaling, turn on full screen. The Fedex truck also looks ok. Buster, I think those pics are amazing for a sub $200 camera like that one you're exampling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
buster74985 0 Posted August 10, 2012 What's the shutter speed on those Dahua night shots? What's the ambient lighting? The shutter speed (default) is auto. I haven't had a chance to play with the settings. The ambient lighting is only streetlights in the front of the house down the street. The shot on the side of the fence has a 3 head LED fixture (11w each head). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bike_rider 0 Posted August 11, 2012 (edited) Finally took some time to compare my cameras. Sony SNC-CH140 Shutter speed 1/60 max, AGC low. Lighting: dark. No moon, porch light, house number light, plus light on the garage off screen to the left. Fixtures have a 7W LED bulb in each. Garage door closed. House is light coffee colored. I then added an IR unit. See the ACTi post for details. Edited August 11, 2012 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bike_rider 0 Posted August 11, 2012 ACTi TCM-5311: night profile: brightness 42, AE Ref Target (Gain) 12, Shutter 1/60 max I started with the house lights and then swung in an IR unit from Amazon (currently called the S-8100). The ACTi initially responded well to the IR, but within a second lowered its image brightness to the point that the IR made no difference in the image. Odd behavior that I might be able to tune around, it I decide to keep this thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thewireguys 3 Posted August 11, 2012 Dahua 2MP Dome 3.6mm http://vimeo.com/47318546 I'm seeing some softness in parts of the image, but it isn't consistent. The door above the handle (our left, mid screen) looks OK, but the lower part of the hand rail is a bit soft. I don't think it is as bad as some of the comments indicate. The bottom of the porch light looks crisp. I suspect that plant by the railing is just fuzzy, as is the edge of the welcome mat. Viewers - right click to turn off scaling, turn on full screen. The Fedex truck also looks ok. Buster, I think those pics are amazing for a sub $200 camera like that one you're exampling. I think as a professional that looks at HD/Megapixel images all day every day those images are sub par. If someones face was that bush and you needed to ID that person (which you should be able to) you would be out of luck and WASTED $200. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nDAlk90 0 Posted August 11, 2012 Please circle in the picture what you think is unacceptable quality. You can save the photo and make circle in MS Paint. I see some areas of the image that are soft or slightly out of focus but think this is maybe bad camera lens. Should be obtaining replacement camera shortly to confirm. I think as a professional that looks at HD/Megapixel images all day every day those images are sub par. If someones face was that bush and you needed to ID that person (which you should be able to) you would be out of luck and WASTED $200. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thewireguys 3 Posted August 11, 2012 ^ sure when tell me who you work for or what your real profession is Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Soundy 1 Posted August 11, 2012 I think as a professional that looks at HD/Megapixel images all day every day those images are sub par. If someones face was that bush and you needed to ID that person (which you should be able to) you would be out of luck and WASTED $200. How would this be worse than spending $500+ on a high-end analog camera that wouldn't let you ID the person either? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bike_rider 0 Posted August 11, 2012 ^ sure when tell me who you work for or what your real profession is Why do you think this is funny? You offer some vague criticism citing your vast professional experience, but when asked for more information you get coy. How is this helpful? It's like a game of "I've got a secret". FWIW, I think you are wrong about the image. The subject is not well suited to determining how sharp the image really is. OTOH. I think the camera placement is poor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
buster74985 0 Posted August 11, 2012 Rather then bickering like some old ladies in church, how about using a test subject to see if there are any areas that may not be as clear as some people think it should be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nDAlk90 0 Posted August 11, 2012 As usual you have a lot to say and little to show us... Why not help if you can? ^ sure when tell me who you work for or what your real profession is Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ak357 0 Posted August 11, 2012 As usual you have a lot to say and little to show us... Why not help if you can? What kinda help are YOU looking for? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bike_rider 0 Posted August 11, 2012 As usual you have a lot to say and little to show us... Why not help if you can? What kinda help are YOU looking for? He asked for more information about what areas of the image appeared soft. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thewireguys 3 Posted August 11, 2012 Stevie Wonder Can point out the soft areas of that image you don't need my help... switch the lens and see if it gets better Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Soundy 1 Posted August 12, 2012 I think the problem is obvious: if it's not an Avigilon Pro camera with Canon L-series lens, it's a complete waste of money. If you're not spending $15,000+ per camera location, it's just not worth bothering. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ak357 0 Posted August 12, 2012 (edited) I think the problem is obvious: if it's not an Dahua or HIK camera with s...ty lens and Vigil , it's a complete waste of money. If you're not spending $500+ per camera location, it's just not worth bothering Edited August 12, 2012 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
