Cooperman

Never a dull moment ... Ignore the CCIR figures, they are not for North American cameras, it's EIAJ which interests you. The spec. indicates it's a HAD sensor, not Hyper HAD or Exwave, so the chances are it's quite an old (low cost) design. The killer is the 3.6mm "board" lens. No Iris to adjust for optimum quality, and by all accounts, a Printed Circuit Board camera, which is not really what you were looking for. If the spec is accurate, it will do the job (not outstanding), but unless the PCB is adequately protected, the acidic atmosphere of a foaling box, will eat away the component solder joints quite quickly. If it's cheap enough, it will provide an adequate 'taster' of what to expect, but as a long term investment, it's not really the one to go for.

Hi creekside, I escape from the office for a few days, and what happens ... you go and buy a camera on ebay The basic specs you've listed do have a couple of contradictions in them. EIA (EIAJ) is o.k. for north american Black and White, but the pixel count (512 x 492) does not tally with '470' lines resolution; in fact B&W cameras are normally 380, 400, 420, 560 > 600 lines resolution. I don't recall ever having seen a 470 line unit, although it is a fairly standard figure for high res. colour. The Electronic Shutter (1/50) to 1/100,000 should be 1/60th for the States, 1/50th is CCIR which is the standard in Europe and many other parts of the globe. The sensitivity figure is most likely on the imager, not scene illumination (x10 = 0.5 lux scene). If it is 0.05 lux scene illum. with an F2 lens, that would be rather surprising. Reading between the lines, if the camera were fitted with a 1/2" 3.7mm Manual Iris CS mount lens (try and double check that the camera will accept standard CS mount lenses - in the highly unlikely event that it's 'C' mount, you will need a different lens), and you buy a 12v DC Regulated power supply unit (minimum 500mA) to drive it, it should do the job fine, but it's unlikely to make you gasp at the quality. Better get your skates on though, I can sense she's beginning to get restless Oh by the way, 'machine vision' is a definite no no for your application.

creekside, so you used to have a horse called Cooper ... how spooky is that? You could choose one of the 'stable' japanese manufacturers (e.g. Panasonic, JVC, Sanyo, Sony etc.). I could suggest something like the Sanyo VCB 3372 (if it's still available), although I can't say what alternatives (or what pricing) are on offer your side of the pond. Lenses from Cosmicar (Pentax), Computar, Tamron all find favour with many on this forum. It would be worth investing in a half decent camera, as once you've got it, should you ever need to keep an eye on a sick animal, you'll be pleased you bought it. Just don't be surprised if your neigh-bours keep wanting to borrow it. That's more than enough puns for one posting.

What about a maiden mare?

It's either a female horse, or the installation from hell (depending on whether you are a ****ney or not).

Fred B All lenses lose resolution towards the edge of the image. If you do a test with a 1/3" wide angle lens on a 1/3" camera, (aperture (iris) set to maximum) focus on an object in the middle of the screen about ten feet away, then gently turn the camera so that the object moves towards the edge of the picture. With most lenses, the target object will become less sharp. If you use a larger series, e.g. 1/2" on 1/3" cameras, or 2/3" on 1/2", then all the rubbish bits are out of sight of the imager. In basic terms, it's only picking up the good stuff in the middle of the view! You can use any larger format lenses on smaller imagers (e.g. 1" lens on 1/4" CCD) but not the other way around.

Hi creekside, Lots of information so far, but just a few bits more to thoroughly confuse you. Easy stuff first. Don't go wireless for this application - the ideal option is RG 59B/U co axial cable. For foaling work up to 600 feet away, you don't need to worry about signal loss. Camera choice - 1/3" CCD monochrome (Black and White) minimum of 400 lines resolution, but 560+ is preferable (and well within your budget), camera to have "Electronic Iris" function; ideally 12v DC powered for safety (all cables [and camera!!!] to be fixed at least 8.5 feet from the top of the bedding material). Wide Dynamic Range (WDR) are not really required for this type of application, as most (but not all) mares foal at night under controlled lighting. Lens suggestion would be a 3.7mm 1/2" CS mount - manual iris, although you may have to block off a small area directly below the camera to stop the mare sticking her 'working end' out of view! Alternatively, a 2.8mm 1/3" CS will cover everything, with slightly smaller detail in the farthest corner. Camera to be fitted into a small weatherproof housing as already suggested. Please please please DO NOT use Infra Red! Low level maintained visible lighting is the preferred option. For example, two x 40 watt tungsten light bulbs (each 1/3rd of the way in from each end) at around twelve feet above the bedding, would provide more than enough light for an average B/W CCD camera. If the bulbs are tungsten (as opposed to low energy fluorescent types) they already emit huge quantities of invisible IR which help the camera to see under low light conditions. If you use Infra Red (IR) and their are complications whilst the mare is lying, as soon as you switch the lights on she will try and get up, and the results can be ..... If you leave the lights on about two to three weeks before she is due, she'll settle down with them very quickly. Even with a CCTV camera, the mare can keep you guessing for weeks after the due date, or drop early when you least expect it. Usual signs (waxing, milk running, etc.) can give clues but you still have to keep a careful watch over her. If you run the main camera cable to a bedside table, you can use a small monitor or portable TV in the bedroom, and then install a temporary extension lead from that set down to the main TV in the lounge. When you want to watch on your 'big set' during the day, simply plug the extension video lead onto the main cable, or into a suitable output from the bedroom TV / Monitor. Good luck with the sleep deprivation

2 - 0 to Man. Utd. May all your hangovers be little ones

AVCONSULTING Wow, can I come and work for you! If we followed those guidelines in the U.K., we'd probably only work 20 days a year! Not sure I fancy the earthquakes though. Rory, can you send some warm rain over, winters a comin'.

Anytime DVR. They don't call me the silver fox for nothing ... it's either the grey hair, or my deep love of animals Last I heard Man U. were the subject of a takeover bid; if you've got any shares you want to get rid of, I've heard of a guy who might be interested

antdickens I've never yet come across a client that would take the weather, as an excuse for not getting a job done. I used to think that if you can cope with 'english' weather, you can cope with most things, but then hurricanes, dust storms, sweltering temperatures, arctic conditions, each bring their own challenges to others on this forum. A couple of minor points which may be of interest; (european) Health and Safety legislation means that if conditions do present a risk to life and limb, the work should really be put on hold. Also, whilst ladders are okay for low level access for maintenance, it isn't really acceptable now to use them for installations, particularly if it's a PTZ camera at height. Cherry pickers and scaffold towers are all the rage these days.

rikky, The thing about 'earth loop hum' is it can be as sublime as a very slight interference in part of the picture, to a total scramble with no perceived sync., and therefore no visible picture. It all depends on the difference in earth potential. The worst ones are when it happens at different times of the day, or even changes over a period of time (dry / wet ground can create variable earthing in some remote locations). The ideal situation is when you can predict that it is likely to be a risk, and then design around it. Unfortunately, that takes experience, and even that can't guarantee success everytime. For those who haven't been caught out by earth loop ... I envy you.

DVR Expert Australia, We never stop learning in this game The first CCD and CMOS cameras all used C mount as standard. I remember the first CS mount lens I saw (from memory, I think it was early to mid 1980's) looked like a plastic toy. The funny thing was, the rep. wasn't that impressed with it, and he had to sell them! I have seen lenses with various mounts over the years, but to be honest a 'C' had always (previous to CS) been the standard for CCTV work. It was based on cine camera lens mounts, which were the norm, pre the invention of zoom lenses. If you ever get a chance to set up two identical 1/3" cameras, one with an 8mm CS mount manual iris lens, and the other with an 8 or 8.5mm 2/3" C mount manual iris lens, I'd be amazed if you don't see a difference. Close the iris a couple of stops and the picture just keeps getting better (make sure they're quality lenses though). I'm not sure what lenses you have on the desk, but if they don't screw on to a standard CCTV camera, they're definitely not 'C' thread. C-D maybe? Just to clarify one point though; when I said that you can't change the focal length of a lens, I actually meant ... lenses with fixed focal lengths Quite obviously, varifocals and zooms both offer a variable focal length, albeit that they achieve this in a slightly different way. Life used to be so easy when it was just 1" Vidicon C mount cameras!

why it's such a cr*p picture? Until we know what he's using, it's a bit pointless speculating on other issues (e.g. power supply, cabling etc.). From what little I can see, it just seems like the gain is working flat out, with not enough light on the subject.

neteyes, I think DVR Expert Australia is probably right that the focus hasn't been set up correctly on your camera; ditto all the advice on lighting and glare. The quality of a picture will be dictated by the camera, and to a significant degree by the lens, but as you increase the height of a camera, it generally reduces its effectiveness for recognition purposes. The overall picture quality though, shouldn't be affected. There are very few applications that actually benefit by increasing the mounting height of a camera; anything much over 12 feet is usually inappropriate. I think I'll have to ask Thomas nicely for some algebra lessons ... maths was never really my strong point!

Hi Thomas, What type of camera / lens are you using, and what is the lighting? It just looks like a very high noise level Have you bench tested the camera (in low light) before you installed it?

DVR Expert Australia, Sorry but I have to disagree with you. C and CS mount have nothing to do with the focal length of a lens. The focal length of a lens is fixed, and cannot be changed (basic optical principles). When lens designers calculate the point at which the image is brought into sharp focus, they try and engineer this effect to a common point. The difference between a 'C' mount lens, and a 'CS' (C-Short) is simply that without the 5mm spacer ring on a 'C' lens, the image will be brought into focus 5 millimetres behind the face of the CCD imager, so you end up with a picture that cannot be focussed. C lenses focus 17.625mm from the back focal point (technically known as the secondary focal point), whilst CS lenses do the same at 12.5mm. That is why you can fit a spacer adaptor onto a 'C' to make it work on a CS camera. You cannot do it the other way round, as a CS lens on a C camera, would produce a sharp image 5mm in front of the CCD, so again you'd have an image which cannot be brought into focus. In practice the longer back focus 'C' lenses are generally much better corrected than their 'short' cousins. So if you want the best quality, C mount will generally outperform a CS everytime. For my own work, I will rarely if ever use CS lenses, unless there is no alternative (for example, ultra wide CS lenses on 1/3" format).

Hi Thomas O.K. on that one. The greater the focal length (i.e. the millimetres), the narrower the angle, so the lens makes objects appear larger at distance. You don't HAVE to match the size of the lens to the CCD; in fact it's generally an advantage to use a larger format lens on a smaller format camera. The lens coverage means that a 1/3" lens will give a full image on screen with a 1/3" or 1/4" CCD (or MOS) camera; in the majority of cases, it will not cover the whole of a 1/2" or 2/3" imager (the corners will be missing, or you see a circular image). You can successfully use 1" or 2/3'" coverage lenses on any of the major formats. When you use both large and small format lenses side by side (you know what I mean), if the focal length is the same (or equivalent) then you will have virtually the same degree of coverage; For example, a 6mm 1/2" lens or a 6.5mm 1" lens will both provide about the same effect on a 1/3" camera, but the optical performance on the 1" lens will be vastly superior. That said, if you use a 6mm lens on a 1/2" camera it will be a normal 'wide angle', but if you put the same lens on a 1/4" camera it becomes a 'standard'. In this situation, using a 'larger lens with a smaller CCD' actually gives you a narrower view. And I used to think that life was confusing

If you use 12v DC cameras, then obviously back up supplies are relatively easy. In the past, I've used small groups of 24Ah sealed batteries (usually 3 or 4) for complete system 'back up'. Then if you need to change low batteries during back up operation, they can be replaced one at a time, without taking down the whole system. They're generally more stable than a car battery which is designed to release a large amount of energy for 'starter' cranking. Sealed cells are much better suited to constant drain applications. For individiual camera back up, you could perhaps use smaller 9Ah trickle charged cells located close to the camera (simple relay changeover when the mains supply goes off). A bit more expensive, but very reliable. It obviously all depends on the wiring layout, and the size of system. If you're having problems with spikes, have you tried using suppressors / capacitors to smooth them out?

kdberg, I was trying to remember where I'd seen something similar in the past. This is going to sound a bit nuts; as far as I recall, some of the early 2/3" Interline Transfer CCD's suffered something not disimilar from this, which was I believe increased 'on chip' noise, resulting from the camera being operated at a higher than normal temperature. Maybe just a coincidence, but it certainly looks familier.

Rory, Ever thought of getting a wind generator Given that the power situation is as bad as you say, don't your customers insist on back up supplies? I would imagine that in retail outlets, there would be quite a high risk of looting stock. I can't say I've ever come across a coax + 3 cores, but then 24v AC isn't that popular over here. 12v DC is far more widely used.

You have to gound (earth) 24v AC cameras in our neighbourhood. One thought Rory, if you are grounding an AC camera 'locally', their is a small risk on some installations, particularly on larger sites, that you could end up with earth loop problems. Wherever possible, it is preferable to use 3 core cable back to a common point. Just a suggestion.

Correct, The only problem with comparing specs, is that we don't know exactly what the conditions were, when the cameras were tested. So comparing like for like can be a bit hit and miss. Some manufacturers, particularly the reputable ones, are more accurate (or should that be less creative) than others. S/N as a guide, fine; written in stone, I'd rather pass.

What a coincidence, so was I Rory is spot on about the quality issues with some ultra wide 'board' camera lenses. That said, if you really don't want to go that wide (2.8mm is about 92 degrees coverage horizontal), try using a 1/2" format 3.7mm lens - still an ultra wide, but not quite as much. Bigger people on screen, better optical quality, but perhaps a few bucks more. Hope it works out ok. Maybe let us know how you get on. Cooperman

Hi mitt, Thanks for the jpegs. Nice colours ... shame they're the wrong ones I doubt that it's a (video) cable or attenuation problem. It could easily be a termination problem, although voltage drop is still a distinct possibility, as is earth loop hum. When you do your tests, first up, disconnect all but one of the cameras (remove both video and power connections from the others), then check the video quality on the output socket of the single powered up camera. If the picture is poor, (very carefully) measure the voltage going in to the camera. If it's low or borderline on the manufacturers specs. try testing the camera with an adjacent power pack and short lead. If the picture improves, it's a voltage problem, if it doesn't the camera will have to go back. If the picture quality is good, keep the test monitor connected, then start to reconnect the power feeds (only) to each camera, and check the picture quality as each is reconnected. If the picture degrades, again measure the voltage going in. By the way, I'm assuming (I know I shouldn't) that all the cameras are powered from a single supply. If the voltages are o.k., then the last camera you connected may have an internal fault which is bringing the others down. Disconnect the suspect unit, and carry on with the remaining cameras. If you have repowered all cameras, and the picture quality is ok on camera 1, start to check the picture quality on the remaining units. If they all check out ok, then the next stage is to disconnect the camera video leads at the monitor / record end, connect the leads to each camera, and then systematically check the video quality from each camera, at the monitoring end. If you have a suspect cable/s, it will show up a degraded picture. If so check the quality of your plug connections on that lead (one dodgy lead can affect the whole system when connected to a common item, such as a DVR, Multiplexer, etc). If all the pictures check out ok, reconnect one to the DVR, and check the picture quality. If the quality is poor, make sure that any looping outputs are correctly terminated. You mentioned that the monitoring equipment is in a trailer house, which makes me think there is a possibility it might be a slight earth loop problem - if the problem appears and you've exhausted all other possibilities, temporarily disconnect, and insulate away the earth lead in the DVR, Monitor, etc., mains leads. If the problem has disappeared, then the mains supplies to the building and trailer are earthed at different points (potentials). Your options then are either, to fit video isolation transformers, or run an earth lead to each camera position from the monitoring end. If the picture quality is okay on the first camera output, continue connecting one camera at a time, checking the quality of each picture as you go along. Hopefully this should point you in the right direction, and I'm sure you will get it sorted. If you've already tried all this, apologies for the above, but hopefully others might find it useful. Good luck!