Pat

If we can foretell the IP market we will be rich (richer?). It could go many ways each depending on the type of installation. If you are large enough and securuty is important you will have distributed virtual recorders that can act as redundant recorders for each other but I can't see that in a small office or retail environment. In which case conventional DVR with IP out would seem to be better.

What do you mean by a web server and an IP camera. To me an IP camera is a camera and encoder in one box. As most IP encoders can be web servers I see no difference between an IP encoder and an IP camera. To me a web server is an IP encoder that streams to a web browser such as IE4 or netscape. Can you clarify the difference in your mind. Most IP encoders with four composite inputs share the 25 (or 30) fps as there is only one encoding engine so you cannot fairly compare 4 * IP cameras with 1 * encoder with four inputs. Quite a few IP cameras have 3 * composite inputs to make them identical to IP encoders. So you use the IP camera as a hub. 4 * IP cameras would give you 4 cameras and 12 composite inputs. How do you see the wireless cameras that would feed a localised webserver working, are these not going to be IP cameras or are you refering to 2.4ghz?

After having seen Geo pop up all over this forum I went and hunted them down this week. Would I be right in thinking that you would recommend them? If so can you suggest a good card for me buy so I can have a dabble with it and look at the performance please. As I am not actually going to use it in anger the number of inputs is not important. Some people prefer the older MS O/S over XP as they are not targetted as aggessively as XP by worms. The perfrmance hit and lack of drivers for certain hardware is offset by the stability and reduced possibility of attacks. Unfortunately there are people out there that work backwards from MS monthly security patches. They work out what the patches addresses and write something to attack it. If you do not run the update they have a way in (ironically it is the update that makes the aware of the way in). Not all end users will run the updates on there DVRs. Some people are ok with this others are not.

Hear what you are saying about the flexibility of digital recorders that are ethernet enabled giving flexibility but that is a smaller application to the large scale systems where you can have large 40+ monitor banks and multiple staff operating mutiple ptz cameras on one managed system. IP is ideal for the major systems. The concern about the quality of the camera can be removed by using conventional cameras and seperate IP encoders. The quality of IP video is now at a point that you cannot easily tell it apart from composite. Some of the high quality (and expensive) mpeg4 encoders are capable of DVD quality. So if you want that quality you can have it. People need to look at the quality of the recorded images over the live ones. The live video from a composite system looks perfect. The live video from an IP system generally looks poorer as the compression has been set such that the image is not as good as it could be. The recorded images from IP and digital recorder will look the same as the are using the same technology to compress the video it is just done at different times in the system. IP can look like composite but you wouldn't usually record that quality of video on a digital recorder as it would eat up too much disk space. Most IP systems stream at the quality that you record at this makes the live images look worse but the quality you see live is (or can be) comparable to that of a digital recorder.

This is my pick from the UK CCTV show. You may have seen similar products in the past (Philips E-dome, Sony panoramic). This appears to be in a league of its own for performance. 3m pixel, 17fps, two monitor outputs, motion tracking. Expensive at present but defiantely cool. www.grandeye.com look at the halocam.

Just come back from a UK show and need sleep. IP is definately going to be the future maybe not for everyone but for alot. I work for a company that makes large matrices and IP CCTV. We tendered and won Brussels airport a few years back (new terminal). The original tender was for an analogue system, it ended up as IP. This was because it turned out cheaper to do it with IP. There are something like 400 video streams. The existing cameras and speed domes were added onto the IP network using encoders, new cameras were IP cameras. The IP solution was cheaper as the cost of the cabling was lower. There would have been many km of coax. There were requirements to allow a number of different users access to the system such as police, customs, baggage handlers, the train station, you name it they have it. The beauty of IP is that is is distributed. To move a control room you need only run one cable. As the systems grows you do not reach a limit on video feeds. The matrix is virtual. If a new feature is developed it can be added without wasting hardware etc. Not in the price range for small installations but it can be very cost effective in many. The strength is what extra you can give to customer with IP. Campus security with handheld Ipaqs and wireless etc.

I am at an exhibition next week I will go to their booth and have a look at it. The important thing is does it move the IR cut filter. If you take the lens off and look at the CCD all colour cameras should have a blue ish piece of glass (actually crystal) over the CCD. This is an IR cut filter - it stops IR passing through it. It is there for correct colour reproduction. Colour CCDs are about as sensitive to IR as monochrome CCDs. Look to see if there is someway that the camera moves this and replaces it with a clear piece of glass. That switch is what you will have seen on the Sanyo. When the IR cut filter is out you are IR sensitive. It is like taking sunglasses off the camera. This is what makes the camera more sensitive. The switch to monochrome doesn't improve the sensitivity. You just do that as the colour are wrong without the filter.

Let me know how your testing goes. Do you know if it uses a moving IR filter? I expect it does as it is IR sensitive. I would like to know how it copes switching under strong IR. Usually these type of cameras switch on light level and this can cause issues when using alot of IR. In colour it isn't IR sensitive, it gets dark so the camera switches to mono (and moves the IR filter). Once the filter is out the camera can see IR and if there is a lot of it the camera thinks it is daylight and switches back. This makes the camera switch between day and night. Usually these cameras come with an external contact input to allow the switching to be driven by the IR photocell. This camera doesn't look like it has one. If they have cracked this it will be interesting.

When to use IP? The million dollar question. It has its price advantages in the single situations you mentioned for sure but what is going to be important is when does it become worthwhile for the larger install. On paper some of the advantages of large IP systems. Greatly reduced cabling - I do not mean cat5 is cheaper than coax but most large buildings/businesses are already networked if you are just jumping on an existing network then there are cost savings. Need to factor in the higher price of the IP camera though. Greater flexibility. You can in theory allow anyone with a network connection to see or control any camera. This means moving a control room is not such a problem. Talking 50+ camera systems here. Concerns here are it is not a closed system. Have to have faith that the security built in prevents any messing around. No 'matrix' - it becomes virtual - a CD rom. Free recording (kinda). A DVR compresses video so that it can be stored on a HDD without taking up too much space. An IP camera does this compression before transmission. The compression cost the money. An IP recorder need just record network traffic and requires no powerful processing. This makes it low cost - but you are putting a compression engine into each camera rather than having one centrally. Wow too much typing. The question of when IP meets analogue for cost will depend on the application for the next few years. However IP picture quality has reached analogue. I saw a demo at ISC of live v IP and could not tell which was which until I clapped and then it was just the latency that gave IP away.

I don't think I can help. I don't know the equipment and suspect it won't be due to interlacing (if it is you will see it on any system). Hopefully someone out there has used the equipment and has seen the behaviour and can help.

We should be looking at the control part of IP rather than the camera/encoder. Video compression is moving faster than I can keep up with and is interesting but tomorrow will hold something better (at least for awhile) so it is fleeting. Whereas the control parts are going to be fairly stable. The secret to IP is being able to make it operate like a conventional CCTV system (PTZ, Control, Integration). If multiple users can't control multiple cameras then it isn't much more than a web camera and that isn't a business to be in. There are IP systems out there with 300 cameras on them. This is where IP shines.

In which case they will be appearing v soon. I have seen a Kalatel based unit with one that should be being shown at the IFSEC (UK show) in a week.

Would anyone be interested in an embedded DVR with built in DVD writer?

Never used the equipment but is it blurring on freeze frames due to interlace artifacts??

I think you just put those pictures up to make us all want to visit.

It is worth noting that a consequence of the increase in pixel count is a decrease in frame rate. In the high resolution mode you only get 2 fps.

Found this thread really interesting. I keep away from multiplexers and digital recorders but sit close to people who deal with them. In our region PC based equipment is a no no(in their opinion not mine) . The reason being security equipment needs to be 100% reliable and Microsoft based doesn't cut it. I suspect the reason may be more that standalones are a simpler install. Take it out of the box and hey presto plus the box appears to be more robust and the end user can press the buttons with his feet. Unfortunately more features are not always appreciated. You guys can use the added features, many can't. I have no preference as I have little experience of either but would like to see which regions favour PC based and which favour standalone. I suspect PC based will increase. The markets that don't trust them will gain faith with time/exposure and IP equipment which is the future (if you follow the hype) already record on MS boxes. Comments?

The Ikegami should win. No idea what is going on but it sounds like something in the setup. Not many faults I can think of will harm resolution. Look at the settings and check the back focus as suggested. If the lens is auto iris (has a wire) turn off the electronic iris circuit. If the lens has is manual iris turn it on. If auto iris you should focus it at night (that will happen) or use a filter in front of the lens to simulate. If manual iris open the lens fully and then turn it back slightly. I find many lenses underperform when fully open. Let us know the type of lens, is it only during the day, night, or both if you don't get anywhere.

I would like to second the recommendation for the CCTV Labs book, if you haven't got it you should have. I have bought at least three so far as they seem to vanish from my desk all too frequently. If anyone has a copy with Pat written inside I want it back (unless you are called Pat). Are you looking to move alot of video ie multiple cameras streaming live across a network or is it that you want to review recorded images from a digital recorder?

Ok. Sorry about the IT / ILT part I am used to ILT if Sony are using IT I would tell them they were wrong (but they might disagree as well). The extra sensitivity causing problems still does not stack if you are saying that an Exview cannot cope in direct sunlight when a monochrome can. 1/Do you agree that the X View chip sucks? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. I will happily and confidently argue until blue in the face that is is the current market leading CCD. Performance not -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- volume. Make up your mind? I have made up my mind. Exview is the leading performing low light and highlight CCD. It is not the leading in sales volume as it is predominantly only available in expensive feature rich cameras. The highest volume CCD is the SuperHad. If exview was available in a SuperHAD camera at a SuperHAD price I would buy the Exview unless that price change had resulted in the SuperHAD being available at a lower price, then I would buy the SuperHad (unless I needed the extra low light performance). It is price v performance v fit for purpose. Of the pictures posted have you posted them to indicate a shortfall of Exview? If so what is the issue(s)? I see some areas saturating and a slight pink hue in areas. Let me know before I shoot of a reply. It is grim up north.

I also hope I didn't shut anyone down. End of the day I only have an opinion. The Pelco you are looking will give you as goos a low light picture as you will get without going to 1/2" or using frame integration (which I personally do not like). On the point about a monchrome camera producing colour. A colour monitor requires a colour burst to be present. If you get noise in the video at the same point the colour burst would be then this can fool the monitor to thinking that there is colour. There are two ways of making a colour camera go monochrome in day/night cameras. One is chroma suppression where the camera doesn't send any colour. The other is to remove the colour burst. This is the true way however certain multiplexers go haywire if the colour burst is switched off after power up, they see it as video loss. So safest way is chroma suppression. This can result in fake colours occuring. Good spot on the CMOS narrowing the field. Kalatel do not have the technology but GE do and they own Kalatel... Too pale for California though.

1/Do you agree that the X View chip sucks? No. I will happily and confidently argue until blue in the face that is is the current market leading CCD. Performance not volume. 2/ Do you agree that many manufactorers use these chips so they can boast about low light ability, even though the sensor is usually too sensitive to operate well in very well lit areas.. Lets be honest there are more to cameras than just the chips, you need to be able to control? Disagree again. We have agreed further up this post that any monochrome (hi-end or low-end) is more sensitive than a colour exview. If as you say an exview can't cope with bright daylight how the hell do all those cheap monochromes do it? I say monochromes cope quite well with low end lenses, DSP chips or even analogue chipsets. In which case a colour exview will find it even easier to cope with the same lens and chipset. 3/Do you agree that there are several grades of the afore mentioned chips and that not all of them perform as well? Nope. There are are no grades of HyperHAD, SuperHAD or ExviewHAD. I can give you the manufacturers part codes to confirm. There is an urban myth that some manufacturers have lower grade chips. Never come across it. 4/ What company do you work for or are you form a manufactorer? I am from a manuafacturer but as I am not named I have no reason to promote anything here apart from understanding. (My Bets for the forum is BOSCH or Pana or Dedicated Micros) Sorry if you put any money on it. My English is too good (I hope) for two of those and DM do not make cameras. My experience, ... tried many ex and had and ex had, ... none are very good under strong daylight, even with the best of lenses! If this is true then you are doing something wrong or the cameras are exceptionally poor. Honestly the SuperHAD CCD is predominant in the market. It works well - no hard sell I make cameras with Sony, Sharp and the new CMOS on the market. They all beat each other in areas. The best for general CCTV is the SuperHAD easily. Same is true for Exview but it costs more so you would only use it is low light was a requirement. If you do not need the low light don't waste your money. I.T is incorrect or a typo it is I.L.T for interline transfer. Nearly all CCD are ILT only exception I can think of are Panasonic FIT cameras.

SuperHAD and ExviewHAD (Hole Acculumalation Device I think). They are very similar. Previously as Sony CCDs have evolved from HyperHAD to SuperHAD then to what I know as the successor CCDS (as they still SuperHAD) the main changes were to the structure of the microlenses over the pixels. The step from Hyper to Super. The lenses got bigger. The microlenses focus light onto the pixel. Each one is supported by what we will call pillars. Sony shrunk the pillars allowing the lens to become bigger and so capture more light. The step from Super to Super2 (not real name). They went from SIL Single Inner Lens to DIL Double Inner Lens. This again enabled more light to hit the pixel making tham more sensitive. Exview has progressed in sensitivity using the same techniques as above but the difference is the material that makes up the pixel (or the substrate). Whatever it is it is more sensitive (especially in the IR wavelengths) than the substrate used in SuperHAD. When Exview came out it had other advantages such as reduced smear. These advantages were in the construction and now that SuperHAD has been revised these advances are in SuperHad as well. By far the most widely used CCD is the SuperHAD you will use it everyday and not realise it. Sony, JVC, Bosch. Sanyo, Samsung, Pelco, Ademco - Majority of these product lines use SuperHAD.

OK read my post. In it I say 'To say a monochrome camera will outperform an Exview colour is correct' so we do not disagree. I am not disagreeing with the comments that 'Ex View chips suck!!!!' Exview CCDs are the market leaders for low light applications. If you want the best low light camera then it would be an exview monochrome. Is it that when you say exview is poor you are refering to a colour camera. It is as if people do not realise that exview is available in monochrome as well as colour.

I think you do not understand the fundamentals here. You seem to be saying that a monochrome camera or a day/night camera is better than an Exview camera. Exview is available in colour and monochrome. An exview colour will outperform a non-exview colour. An exview mono will outperform a non-exview mono. An exview day/night will outperform a non-exview day/night. To say a monochrome camera will outperform an Exview colour is correct but it isn't comparing like with like. You get a like with like comparison where exview is involved and my money is on the exview. Please offer a CCD that you think outperforms Exview and we can discuss. I would also ask for to give me a CCD that outperforms SuperHAD. Sony are widely regarded as the best CCDs only other viable competitor is Pana but not at low light.