650HPAMG

Would be awesome if they could indeed be flashed to 3mp. Keep us up to date, thanks.

Hello, as you mentioned being on a culdesac, I am also and have similar results with my 2 megapixel Dahua dome. I can get license plates up to 45 feet away (bottom of the driveway) but not beyond that (it does provide a perfect view of the entire culdesac though). My plan was to get a 2 or 3 megapixel variable Acti to supplement the Dahua and zoom into the entranceway to the culdesac, so I'm only focused on the two lanes coming in and out. While I most likely won't get plates at night, I thought I should be able to get them during the day. Are you implying the Acti won't work for that if there is motion? The LPCs seem a little too expensive for me to justify the cost. Yes, stationary I can get a read on a plate from 45-50' feet away easily. At night, again, proper IR angle, and no motion as I need to set the shutter low to prevent the noise this camera is known for (yes, even with the latest firmware which I received weeks back). I am moving it from the second story ledge to the eave over the garage door, have 2 additional IR illuminators coming this weekend, so we shall see if that allows me some flexibility with the shutter for motion capture. Here is a sample: notice the front plate and side door lettering are easily resolved -at certain angles and lighting.

Bottom line being even a 5mp camera will not resolve a plate across the street in the above pics. Even when ACTi sent me the latest firmware a few week ago for my E33, I can make a stationary plate 45' away just fine. Movement or low light -forget it. Thinking perhaps send this one back, get a LPC for the narrow view capture and a Dahua 3mp for the cudesac view.

Expecting my E33 next week, I received it for a good price I think, under $310 shipped. Not retail. Will know soon enough if I want to pick up a few more. Curious how well their well regarded NVR compares to BlueIris.

you dont have to take it seriously. if you dont understand thats your problem but i will try to explain it better for you. $100 p&s is not waterproof. ...... cant be mounted to wall ..... cant be out in all weathers ....... cant be networked so YES IP will be a little more expensive because of the way it is made (why is that so hard to figure out ???) OK, and a $100 IP camera cannot be taken out, zoom, powered on it's own, take pictures, face detection, auto focus, and have a removable memory card. So what is your point? As stated they are geared for different purposes.

And a CCTV camera cannot take video like a Nikon D800 or Canon 5D can. So.............Show me a CCTV camera for under $200 that has all of the features above you listed. From what I see OP just wanted to know COMPARABLES, and not trying to compare some little Cadi to a Porsche. I understand the point your trying to make, but again, your outside the scope of the initial question. I'm not disagreeing, I agree and have stated the reasons why a CCTV is more expensive. Just trying to keep it on a level field. Just seems the 'industry folks here come out swinging to defend their livelihood.

it does have alot to do with housings. ok let him stick his $100 10mp camera out in the rain snow heat. it would not last 5 minutes. so add a little more money to his $100 camera. then you need network connection so add a little more money to his $100 camera. software add some more money to his $100 you dont need a calculator to see he needs to spend a little more for a security camera Really, 5 minutes? Can't take any of your post seriously after that comment. Just shows again the extent your willing to go to back up your arguments. Keep it real. And very expensive CCTV cameras FAIL, often as well. Someone could easily stick their P&S out a window to capture what they are looking for. Of course I agree it is not a substitute for the real thing which is designed for this. However many P&S cameras have weather protection as well. A CCTV camera is just that, a camera. There is not magical technology beyond what mainstream cameras use. They are geared for different purposes. Mainstreams sell hundreds of thousands, CCTV sells thousands. Thus the margin increase. I would never say they are better made, more like they are designed to what they are marketed for. How many here take their CCTV camera to the zoo with the family for pics? Or for video?

Well and that is the point. No pun..... :0 I know my cameras can live feed to a PC and I can access the PC remotely, never tried though I know it can be done, and I don't play with P&S cameras though many do appear to be impressive on paper. Thus the advantage of the real thing. To be honest, I think most things in life should cost more, especially gas in the US which should be triple current rates, but that is just me.

Apples for apples please. There are DSLR cameras that take video which blow away IP cameras but are we going to toss them in the mix as well? Think the OP is referring to a simple $100 point and shoot and comparable CCTV units. Good analysis otherwise.

hi. you do have that the wrong way round. can your pocket cam send you footage .... can you record away from your pocket camera. ..... can your pocket camera run for more than a hour........ will it last outdoors in all weathers for more than a few months remember your not taking pictures which your camera may do but the video is not 10mp Not a helpful answer at all and it seems you are missing the point completely or else in the industry protecting the high markup of these units. Your answer just comes across as defensive. The OP has legit concerns. IP cameras are overpriced-from a certain perspective. Has little to do with the housing at all. The bottom line IMO is more demand and supply. Yes, cheap point and shoots blow away IP cameras for the most part, but to integrate and then market something that would not see the volume requires a higher markup vs a point and shoot. Either way the initial investment needs to be recuperated. Thus again, supply and demand.

I have only a D1 card so it records at 480, yet still my 700tvl dome camera does show improvement over the 540tvl prior. It can almost read a plate at 30feet whereas the 540 could not.

Well, downloaded from Goldvision. Ran it through it's paces. PROS: Maximize fills the entire screen now whereas prior it was only partial Preview/Review is outstanding. Click on my 8 cameras in 8 windows and slide through the day. No hiccups or crashes. Far far better than prior. Cut and Save actually appears to work fine this time around. Still cannot change the name of your file until after it saved. CONS: Will not save VBR mode. Worked fine before. Bummer. Window does not float meaning it is always up front in front of other windows. Now you can minimize it, but a PITA. Goldvision does show a 'floating' window version. Have not tried it though. Client simply does not work. My older Dec 2010 version works fine, this Client returns a Login Timeout error on each of my 4 computers trying to access the server. Local or Remote does not matter. Reverting back to the older Client everything works with the newer server software. No CPU load issues with my computer running 8 cameras at D1 with only a 10% max cpu load.

Interesting enough, the latest DVR4000 software states it has iPad/iPhone support so most likely would offer Android as well (I hope as I switched from Apple not long ago), but I have not yet played with it enough. Believe the build date is April 2012 on the software.

Well, I'm in a situation where where the trash digger is coming back looking to vandalize my car parked outside (work car but still). Cops need a plate, he comes at all hours. Currently using the latest 6.1 idvr4000 software, HV7408ie card, VBR, D1, 480 resolution with a 540 line Sony 1/3 dome camera (36ir's). Plates at even 25' are a blur. Ordered the new 700 line exview Sony sensor dome camera hoping for a little more. I might have to jump over to IP cameras but curious if anyone has had luck pulling plates from simple analog setups? thanks,

Yes, the driver for the card itself. It finds it, recognizes it, then says hardware not found when installing driver or incompatible hardware depending on method used.