Fiona

Thanks for that... Enquiring minds tend to question all assumptions. I do what I can do? I would hope that other technically curious people out there may have access to a lab and to some of the better known cameras. I have no doubt that most of the brand name cameras must have been independently tested by someone somewhere. Besides that, JVC and Panasonic etc. would know exactly what we are talking about. They must know and have documents that prove actual parameters spelt out by Stanislav. These companies cannot publish these documents because advertised lux ratings by less reputable camera manufacturers are pure fantasy. If JVC and Panasonic were honest, the ill-informed buyers would not buy their quality products. I try to understand every single word you write. Thanks for the huge effort you have made on this topic.

Further to the discussion on sensitivity claims are the specifications for two of the lowest lux cameras offered by Panasonic and JVC: The Panasonic WV-CL930 or WV-CL934 ½” CCD and the JVC TK-C95 10U ½” CCD camera which appears to the replacement to the JVC TK-C1480BE 81BE ½” CCD mentioned by Uvarov. Both claimed sensitivity ratings appear meaningless. The first table is by Panasonic and refers to the WV-CL930 or the WV-CL934 The second and third tables describe the JVC TK-C95 10U The Panasonic WV-CL930 manual offers less information. This is simply an example of Stanislav's, Elberbaum's and Uvarov's argument about ill-defined lux ratings. This post is not about the comparison of cameras. It is about the comparison of ill-defined sensitivity claims.

The mandate of any forum is to act as a watchdog against the outrageous claims made by manufacturers. In the research of camera specification documents, it is now necessary to go back years to find evidence of manufacturers making the slightest effort to specify the most basic parameters behind sensitivity claims. The absence of any reasonably rigorous Standard that may be applied to any low lux camera claim ought to have been the first order of business on this forum when it was first established years ago. The most basic parameters or conditions that obtain in low lux claims are seldom if ever mentioned and all the while our fascination with cameras continues unabated. There ought to be general consensus on the importance of verifying all sensitivity claims. Instead, outright deception by marketing departments has been allowed to pass unchallenged. Supposedly intelligent remarks are made about infinitesimally small low lux numbers while the accounting departments in Shenzhen and Guangdong split their sides laughing. As a basic first step, any claim to low lux sensitivity ought to specify the parameters which obtain (and often dramatically distort) even honest manufacturer’s claims: For example: Exposure time: Shutter Speed - half second exposure times give excellent low lux ratings and the manufacturers who admit these nonsensical speeds are not overtly lying. But ½ second exposure times are generally nonsense. What? Is the interloper going to freeze on the spot to assist the camera? Often enough now, no exposure times are mentioned in lux claims and no other critical parameters are mentioned at all. These are the two seminal documents posted by Stanislav: Unravel and Undo the Unreal CCTV Camera Specifications by David Elberbaum http://www.cctvcad.com/Files/cctvfocus37_unravel.pdf The Secrets of Higher Sensitivity CCTV Cameras by Nikolai Uvarov http://www.bezopasnost.ru/upload/iblock/af0/Nikolai%20Uvarov%20CCTV%20focus%2023.pdf

My favourite cabling would be Belden. Most of it is made in the US though some is now being made in Mexico (and I'm sure that is great cable too). I like the fact that ALL Belden cables come with a detailed specifications sheet so you can determine exact properties such as insulation thickness and maximium operating temp etc. To those who haven't used Belden, it is the best wire around.

There are fairly constant enquiries about residential/home security systems. Home surveillance systems are most often installed to alleviate crime. As a first step, it is important to establish the particular expectations and objectives a client has in mind. These expectations might presuppose a deterrent value on top of the question of captured image clarity. The problem of night or low-light image quality needs to be resolved as a particularly contentious issue. Specific threats may need to be addressed which might be elicited from the client such as the identification of visitors or the recording of number plates. Older clients may appreciate uncomplicated DVRs. The specific needs will then determine the type, quality, installation position and number of cameras required. Once they have been determined, questions about power supply and DVR may appear obvious.

Stanislav, you have posted much information and I am still studying it. To maintain the integrity of the arguments advanced by David Elberbaum and Nikolai Uvarov, could you post an objective measurement of any camera that fulfills the parameters that you, Elberbaum and Uvarov specify. It is important to set the criteria in order to compare like for like and remove the subjectivity that prevails. Question: Do you have a test sheet of a known or common camera model? Could you post such a sheet on this thread please?

Stanislav, I read both articles including the Nikolai Uvarov article. He has taken issue with the impropriety of minimum illumination (lux) claims. He is saying that the published low lux specifications in most cameras are deceptive and he has demonstrated this in the case of the Watec 1/2" CCD by proving that there are insufficient photoelectrons to produce any image. (One photoelectron.) Question: Do Nikolai Uvarov's remarks about a practical minimum illumination of 0.15 luxes at S/N 24 dB relate only to 1/2" CCDs? In other words, exponentially, 0.15 luxes would be insufficient for 1/3" CCD?

Stanislav, this report by David Elberbaum puts into question the principle specifications of any camera. Elberbaum argues that many widely held and basic assumptions are wrong. Where do we go from here?

Coleman has a reputation for good wire. I've a notion that Coleman was bought out by...? I use some mains voltage General Cable underground wire (orange sheathed multicore rated at 415v). It's fine. Baron Cable isn't too bad also. That's Baron 24/4. Two of the very best include Hitachi Cable which is very rare and Carol Cable. I have some 12 core 18G Carol control wire cable individually marked wires and rated at 100 degrees celsius and Carol 16/2 and 18/2.

Hi Stanislav. I touched on light a little at college. As I recall, there was general talk of a paradigm shift in the way physics understood it (light). They talked about the obvious waves and wavelengths and then onto individual photons. It wasn't explained beyond this. At the most basic level, if such a concept even exists, do we conceptualise the light wavelengths within the electromagnetic spectrum as a particle or a wave? And how does this relate to a photon?

Hi Eric. Auto irises exist for exactly this kind of problem. The variation of light outside can be so extreme that a mechanical aperture is needed to physically block the light. If your cameras have to deal with sunrises or sunsets too, then it's even worse because the sun can hit the lense directly. Even with an auto-iris lens, cameras struggle to cope with such direct sunlight. Don't be put off by those earlier cameras. The Panasonics are highly regarded cameras and there isn't anything wrong with trying out the black and whites. As far as auto iris lenses go, you have to be a little bit careful with the cable connection to the camera because different lenses may be wired differently.

The configure operation that is displayed on the monitor is a self-test that proves the camera is functioning. Even if you only had the power and the BNC connected to a monitor, you will get the configue display independent of any control language or protocols. As the self-test or configure occurs, you will see various parameters that are set on the rear of the dome drive.

The poorly designed and constructed domes are a lot of work. May I ask what you are comparing the domes to? i.e. do you know the brand of the domes you use at work?

I had a PCB backboard of that particular dome laying around here somewhere. I was going to upload a photo but can't seem to find it. Did that dome come from a company named Jet CCTV ? Anyway, most of those PTZs have fairly rudimentary internals. Even when it comes as a domed unit with a lower plexiglass dome and not the IR setup as per the photo, the motor unit is not a separate dome drive. The slighly better ones come with AMP modules which allow the camera, motors and PTZ operation to be unplugged and removed in one tidy assembly. This then leaves the main motherboard untouched inside the upper dome housing.

Thanks for that. I have been meaning to pull it apart again and take some photos of the internals this time and post them on the forum. I did notice that Panasonic was selling these older beauties as Recertified which I guess shows their confidence in that camera. The newer 930s and 934s also look amazing too.

I have acquired a Panasonic WV-CL924 and am wondering if it is worth chasing down a lens. This camera series is used in the US and in the UK. Question: Have any of the pros had any experience with them? They are supposed to be quite good low lux cameras. As a footnote, the build quality of this camera is superb. The PCBs are engineered into the steel camera body which acts like a mini-chassis - a lovely piece of work.

Actually Zohan, I just checked that enclosure: http://www.securityideas.com/ipnecahowpoe.html I am certain that I have that bracket. I am aware of it because that particular bracket performs very bady in high winds. Depending on the size of the enclosure and whether or not it has a shroud, you will get various vibrations and oscillations which the bracket cannot control. This also depends on prevailing winds and the direction in which the lowest profile of the enclosure is pointing. I find the lack of strength in those brackets very annoying because any movement affects motion detection. Of course, if the mounting position is protected, that bracket will be fine. The enclosure also tilts forward which makes maintenance easier.

Couldn't agree more. A box camera in an enclosure is the way to go.

1. You are not aware of the history behind this bloke's behaviour. 2. You are not aware that I have told him to $#%@% off before this. 3. I do not want him anywhere near me.

Soundy directed me to this topic. Now I know I am going to be called a 'smart-alec' here but, whenever I get new equipment delivered, the first thing I do is give it a 'shake-down' over 24 hours to prove that everything works OK. That means that I set it up, plug it in and switch it on for 24 hours. I would have thought that the testing of brand new cameras etc. back at the workshop would have been a basic tenet for the Installers. Perhaps the rare malfunction does not justify the extra labour of pretesting equipment? The trouble would be that a serious failure, like the Arecont, would be a time consuming annoyance to fix. Always on the lookout for the new ******

What old thread? I have hardly ever said a word about Spectra IVs and I can't remember the last time I asked a question about them. I am just as interested in the IIs and the IIIs. The parapet mount is an example. This is not specifically designed for a IV but will take all Spectras back to the IIs (as far as I know). And when I investigate any item, I always provide clear information and website addresses to make it useful for those who come along. Soundy wrote: Well don't forget to tell me where you are going - if you leave, that is.

Soundy wrote: Where in this thread did I specifically mention Spectra IVs? Soundy wrote: Who demanded what content? I made a simple observation.

Soundy wrote: That would depend on what anyone is looking for: There must be about 1 million Spectras sold. There must be a community of people who fix them. Last time I checked, there were only a few hundred posts for the entire realm of the Spectra: 451 posts vs 1,000,000 Spectras in operation. I posted a topic a few days ago about a Panasonic camera which hardly shows up in searches. So far no replies. I have also looked into other specific cameras and there is little to find. I looked for Pelco parapet mounts recently and found nothing. I just typed in 'Ultrastar" and found two posts - one of them was mine. Perhaps the stuff I look into is just a little too esoteric. Soundy wrote: Again this supports my point. IF nobody HERE ever had a problem with one, then it stands to reason that the vast Pelco community of specialists, enthusiasts and technicians do not appear on this forum. Whether you like it or not, Pelco is a major brand PLAYER in PTZ domes. Where else would you expect to find such discussions? Tell me please?

rory repeats the idea of going to an alternative forum BUT, if you dare mention or discuss any alternative forums then rory will intervene.

Soundy wrote: How could 'nobody ever have had a problem with one' if Pelco wrote a report on the problem. What? IS Pelco going to write a report on a problem that doesn't exist?s Soundy wrote: "What does this have to do with anything?" This entire thread is not about 'better cameras' it is about Heat Affecting Cameras. That is all I wrote about until the STALKER started up again. Soundy wrote: "I'm not sure what your point is here? You stated that there was no discussion of issues with "major brands"... " I did not say 'every major brand' did I? You are responding to a later comment I made about generic components and then attributing that to earlier remarks I made about major brands. They are two separate observations. The fact is - as I said a year ago - that even the most reputable manufacturer uses generic parts. The word 'generic' is not interchangeable with the word 'junk'. The Japanese have relied on tiny generic producers for over a century to supply a multitude of parts for every conceivable product they make. No manufacturer manufacturers all their components by themselves. The problem has never been about the 'generic'. The problem as I spelled out last year is in identifying the generic producers. Honeywell has been a master at doing just this.