Cooperman

Just to clarify a couple of points. A rock solid image produced by a quality telephoto at 150' will generally outperform a rock solid image produced by a wide angle lens at 25'. The main reason is that the flatter perspective of a telephoto, tends to be less affected by inherrent optical distortions often found in wide angle lenses (such as barrel distortion). I agree with CCTV_Australia about the loss of focus at night, due to the lens focus having been set during daylight hours. However, it is not necessarily as a result of the lens back focus not having been correctly adjusted. It is far more likely that the image has gone out of focus, simply because as the light level drops, the iris gradually opens, and the depth of field reduces. The original focus setting has therefore moved out of the 'zone of sharp focus' which was far longer when the iris was closed down during daylight. Regarding built in filters, they can have an affect on focus setting, but only in so far as different frequencies of light, require different lens settings in order to be brought into sharp focus on the imager. That's why a readjustment has to be made between visible frequencies (even red and blue alone would require a slight shift in settings) and infra red such as 850nM.

erm, what is ....a day off? Happy holidays to all our North American chums - hope you have a good one!

... and some of the worst hangovers happen after a good idea! CCTV_Australia, I must admit I had a similar thought a few months back, but I couldn't get all the loose ends tied up in my head (anyone know a good shrink?). I was thinking more along the lines of developing a global CCTV brand, perhaps with members operating as a co-operative. There's no reason why it couldn't be made to work, but reasons and actions are not the same thing.

Interesting MetzLyov, you've probably hit the nail on the head; Panosonic have always worked on the basis of being the best, but unfortunately, as good as the products may be, in this day and age there needs to be more. I gave up years ago trying to get product information from Pano. even though I have to admit I used to have a soft spot for their products. Any company that still thinks they can build a business purely on a brand based reputation, is heading for disaster. Certainly a number of manufacturers are looking carefully at ways to maximise their returns, and in some cases that will mean supplying direct to installers and end users. I recall reading recently that Samsung is planning a concerted direct supply strategy for the U.S. domestic market; now that should be one to watch with interest. Here in the U.K., manufacturers like Merit Li Lin will set up 'Direct' operations, cutting out the distributors altogethor, which given the pace of market development here, is quite possibly the way to go. I can't see Matsu****a going for parallel brands based around Panasonic. Some years back, didn't they also use to market as National in the States? The obvious point which is often overlooked, is whilst household names are frequently not price competitive with their far eastern rivals, their R & D costs are significantly higher (as indeed are their overall operating costs), and consequently their quality and reliability status is generally in a class of its own. You pays yer money and takes yer choice. Also the 'culture' within for example Japanese companies is very very different from let's say European manufacturers. Mind you, if stories are to be believed, possibly the most customer centred company that immediately springs to mind would be .... Pelco. Brand loyalty is a wonderful thing, but only so long as it continues to pay the corporate wages.

Interesting problem FredB, The fact that the picture is o.k. on the multiplexor monitor, suggests to me that the mux video connections are terminated correctly, but the DVR loop throughs, may still be terminated, when quite obviously they shouldn't be. I don't know the DVR you are using, but what method does it employ for terminating the 'loop through' sockets? If you were concerned about possible signal loss on cables, and you wanted to eliminate that as a possibility, you could always fit 'in line' attenuators to reduce the signal still further (which should make the problem appear worse, if that was indeed the cause. If you don't have any attenuators, you could always slap a 100 metre drum of RG 59 in to drop the signal a few dB on one camera, and see if that has any effect. Personally I'm not convinced it's either signal loss, induced hum or earth loop hum, but of course you will need to isolate and test for each to be sure. I'm still leaning towards a termination problem on the DVR's, so it will be interesting to see what it is, when you eventually get it sorted.

Hey Metz, I think the last time I used Panosonic gear, they'd just introduced their new Extended Red Newvicon tubed camera, and changed their open reel time lapse over to a VHS cassette machine I can't put my finger on it, but on this side of the pond, in recent years Panasonic just haven't managed to secure the market share they should. Personally, I don't know how good their new DIII cameras are, but if they don't get their act togethor, particularly on the marketing side, they will lose out. How competitive are Pano. Stateside?

Steady on MetzLyov, Much more of this and even I'll begin to believe I know what I'm talking about, and we can't have that can we

Agree with you Thomas.

In general terms, Bosch manufacture premium products for sale at premium prices! Philips / Bosch clients tend to be very loyal, simply because they don't have to worry about whether the products are up to the job. For a company that occupies their market position, they don't need to slash prices to compete with far eastern junk, when they can compete on another level. That said, whether they continue with this strategy longterm remains to be seen. If in the future they do decide to go more mainstream with competitive pricing on perhaps a second level product range, I for one would not be at all surprised.

Firstly, in general, C mount optics are better corrected, and often far higher resolution than their CS mount equivalents. The optical performance of all lenses falls away as you move towards the edge of the image, or to put it another way, the centre portion of the image will always present the highest resolution. Now if you select larger format lenses which produce images far bigger than the CCD (for example a 2/3" lens on a 1/3" camera), the best optical performance in the middle is exactly what is imaged by the CCD; the lower resolution parts of the image (at the edges) are not picked up by the CCD. If you use a 1/3" CS mount lens on a 1/3" camera, at maximum aperture it is often possible to see the problem in lack of edge definition. To do a test perhaps using a wide angle lens (either manual or auto iris 4mm on 1/3"), with the iris set to maximum (e.g. f1.2 or f1.4) point the camera at an object and focus with the object exactly in the middle of the screen. Gently twist the camera so that the object moves towards the edge of the screen, and you should see a noticeable difference in sharpness. If the change is very slight and the picture looks crisp across the imager, then you've got a reasonably good lens. If it isn't ... then you haven't

Summer solstice? I'd better get my druid costume out tonight

Rory, the aperture correction circuits on the higher res. cameras do have a marginal but noticeable effect, but you have to use higher res. lenses to see the advantage. Basic 1/3" CS mount lenses just won't show any difference. How about High Definition CCTV by 2010, what do you reckon Thomas?

You could try (now don't laugh), a thin film of vaseline or silicone grease around the front area of the camera housing - don't get it on the glass or any suspects caught on camera will look ever so gently soft focussed! Insects, slugs, snails absolutely hate any 'non setting' tacky film - it may do the job, but you'll have to look to wipe off and replace periodically to keep it active through the summer (that's five more days in July and three in August this year).

Best to stick to the 520 line Sanyo's for the time being (or 540 line JVC's!!)

Sad but true Thomas .... and thoroughly depressing! The technical limitations are surmountable, but the manufacturers I've spoken to are not yet ready to start thinking 'out of the box'. Oh well, patience is supposed to be a virtue

Hi Keith001, What sort of problems have you been having, and what models are they? Usually if respectable branded cameras fail prematurely, it's down to external factors, like problems with power supplies, or cameras getting cooked in housings. It would be interesting to see why you've had bad experiences.

hey rory, give it another fifteen years in this industry, then I'll show you depressed Would you settle for a 5 megapixel camera? .... may not have to wait so long!

Confused yet sjmaye ? The technique I suggested for your (car park?) application was based on adequate night lighting, using manual iris lenses on the camera with Electronic Iris enabled. I've no experience of using the Panasonic, but I would expect the EI speed to go up to at least 1/50,000th second, which should be adequate in your location. Try and use a reputable lens manufacturers products; Computar has been suggested amongst others, although I would certainly recommend you also check out Pentax (Cosmicar), Canon and Fujinon optics. The latter are not cheap, but they are certainly top notch. Although you are looking at a 1/3" camera, there are definite optical benefits in going up one or two formats, so if your budget will stretch to it, consider 'C' mount first, perhaps 2/3" or 1" format if you can. If your supplier will allow you to purchase lenses on a sale or return basis, why not set up a trial using an AI lens (with the Electronic Iris function switched off) and then repeat the test using an equivalent Manual Iris lens (stopped down to perhaps f4) , EI enabled, and compare the recorded images. That's probably the only way you are going to appreciate the difference.

If I remember correctly, the first solid state imager cameras introduced into the U.K. around 1979, were certainly CMOS, and they were absolute rubbish (but still something of a novelty). Shortly after, the first mono CCD cameras were launched as fairly stable usable units but only produced 190 TVL, with the next generation (early '80's) turning in a magnificent 280 lines res. It wasn't until the 380 line B/W CCD's started to drop in price, which triggered the eventual demise of the established Vidicon tubed cameras. I recall at least one MOS colour camera on sale in the mid '80's, which in all fairness wasn't too bad - not terribly sensitive, and a little bit too blue for some tastes, but on balance (obviously not colour balance ) it did serve a purpose. A bit depressing to consider that twenty years on, the industry is still shifting shed loads of 380 / 420 line B/W cameras, albeit at virtually disposable prices. Who says you can't halt progress

No Pelco trucks in this 'hood', herminshs Did you see anything of their new Endura network system, and if so, what did you think?

welcome slrpro02 Sorry to hear you've been having problems. Being the wrong side of the pond, I wouldn't be able to add anything on what would be your best choice for suitable equipment. However, one thing that perhaps you ought to think about before you rush out and buy some new kit, is what exactly are you trying to achieve. If you've been hit a number of times, and they are obviously not deterred from trying again, do you 1) want to install a totally covert CCTV system, so that if you gather evidence, there is a chance that at best it may be possible to recover some of your stolen property, or at worst, the authorities will be able to deal with your unwelcome visitors. or 2) if you do decide to install equipment simply as a deterrent (i.e. visible cameras), don't be surprised if further attempts are made to break in, after the cameras have been attacked / disabled. If I were in your shoes, I know what I would want to do .....

fdan4817, You could spend hours with a calculator, paper and pen, or you could do it the easy way. If you are using 1/3" cameras, you can easily obtain the horizontal angle of view for any given lens, from the manufacturers data (e.g. a 4mm lens should be around 65 degrees). Simply use an angle gauge to mark up the cameras coverage on a piece of paper, then cut out the shape and place it on your site drawing. You can then move the camera/lens coverage pattern around to find the most appropriate places to mount the camera. If you want, you can make up a set of coverage indicators for different camera /lens combinations. If you want to draw onto your plans, use stiff card instead of paper to make a template, and then simply draw around it. In practice, correct camera location is far more scientific than the rudimentary technique I've suggested, but either way, it should do the job for you. Incidentally, if your budget will stretch the extra few bucks for 560+ line resolution cameras, it would be well worth considering.

0.0003 lux .... SIT .... ISIT ..... MCP? Maybe they need an image intensifier for when the Metal Halide is switched off

Hi guys, Glad you found the info useful, As for the supplementary questions, hold on chaps we're going in ..... The obvious point is it's not whether the camera is in direct sunlight or not, it's the level of light which is reflected from the target area which is relevant. It is always preferable to operate a lens as close to it's mid aperture as is practical (typically f5.6 ish) under the given lighting conditions. True. Personally, I will never use Auto Iris lenses unless I absolutely have to, and in fact, I don't recall using any indoors under controlled lighting, in the last ten years. If you standardise on 1/3" cameras, you have the best of most worlds; generally, very good performance overall (S/N is usually lower than a 1/2" camera, but this is not normally a problem for 90% of applications), and the plus side is you have the option of using any lens from 1/3" up to 1" format. In general, 1/3" lenses often have a slightly faster maximum aperture (say f1.2 instead of f 1.4 for a 1/2" equivalent), so they actually work better at max. aperture in low light situations. Now a but, and this is a big but; optically the lens performance will nearly always be better with C mount lenses, rather than CS, and where larger format lenses are used, their optical performance is far superior to their smaller format cousins. The main problem with most AI lenses is that they are fitted with an internal 'spot' filter to allow the effective aperture to reduce to a minimum of f64 or f 360 depending on whether it is a DD or AI model. Whenever something is introduced into the light path, it cannot help but have a detrimental effect on the optical quality. Again larger format 'C' mount lenses are the best overall, but they cost big bucks by comparison with bog standard 1/3" Direct Drive lenses. In many situations, it is not a problem to slightly increase the ambient light level, and then stick to MI Lenses with the Electronic Iris function enabled on the camera. A quick example for you; I had a demo of a manufacturers new 'high end' Wide Dynamic at the IFSEC show last week. The camera was deliberately set up looking towards a light panel, with pedestrians passing in front. The camera worked well from an engineering point of view, but the cost of the camera + AI lens was about US$ 200 more than a conventional equivalent with manual optic. Slightly increasing the foreground lighting would perhaps have cost the equivalent of US$ 100 max. and the picture quality would undoubtedly have been better overall. Many of the cameras you guys use Stateside are not readily available over here, plus of course our PAL standard cameras are noticeably different from NTSC. The short answer would be that whenever it is possible to apply relatively low tech solutions (like manipulating lighting to best effect), I would if possible rather go that route, than having to rely simply on an engineering solution, like Backlight Compensation or Wide Dynamic. If you consider the vast range of lenses available from 1/3" to 1", provided the budget will stretch, you're really spoilt for choice. If you can use very good quality 1/2" or 2/3" lenses, you should see a difference!

Hi sjmaye, Almost right on the EI, If you set the lens to maximum aperture, it will probably over expose the imager in very bright sunlight (not such a problem here in the UK ) simply because the fastest shutter speed, just isn't fast enough. You could fit a 'Neutral Density filter' which will make the EI work o.k. (by cutting down some of the light passing through the lens), but without the following advantages; By closing the aperture one or two stops, it allows the camera to cope with full sun, but at night you will need to increase the light level to achieve a good quality picture (perhaps 100 - 200 lux in the target area), or use Infra Red if it's a Day / Night camera with switchable cut filter. The other advantages of closing the iris a couple of stops are, you increase the depth of field, so the target stays sharper for longer, and the optical performance of the lens also increases significantly, so again sharper resolution right across the imager chip. When you eventually buy a suitable camera for testing, if you can get the lens on 'sale or return' then you can try out the settings, and see how little lighting you can get away with at night.