jhonovich

Milestone is far from a cash cow. Milestone's 2013 revenue was ~$72 million USD. Canon's revenue was 500x greater than that - $36 billion USD. Even among surveillance companies, Milestone's revenue was mid tier at best (closest revenue comparable - Geovision). Selling more Canon cameras is the best way for Canon to maximize revenue growth as Canon easily gets 4x more revenue for every camera sale than Milestone gets on a VMS license. We have a thorough analysis and discussion on the Milestone / Canon deal here.

We've tested the low light performance difference between smoked and clear domes. Here's an example of image quality difference:

"if you zoom in to the details on a 5MP IPC it would looks much better right?" If you digitally zoom in, you do not need a 4K monitor, right? You can digitally zoom in on an 1080p one and have the same outcome. The other part of the question is, how much better is a 5MP camera than a 1080p one? In wider FoVs with even bright lighting, that's the best case scenario for looking 'much better'. Here's an excerpt from one of our tests showing that best case scenario: However, in narrower FoVs, the difference tends to be minimal and in low light, the 1080p can often be better than the 5MP.

Scooby, This is John from IPVM. On the 4K test, we found that the only visible improvements vs a 1080p monitor was for single display of 5MP (or higher res) cameras. Even for those cameras, it was modest, at best. For 2 x 2 layouts (or greater), no meaningful visible differences at all. Hope that helps.

We did a test of Xeoma. There are a number of strengths, especially for the price. For those looking for potential issues / limitations, here's an excerpt of the downsides we noted: Key Disadvantages Fundamentally, this is a borderline professional VMS, at best, lacking many critical enterprise functionalities: access control integration, alarm management, video analytics, network video distribution. Moreover, ONVIF support, though claimed, did not work with any of the 3 ONVIF cameras we tried plus the manufacturer confirms that they have not run the official ONVIF conformance test. Beyond those big structural ones, a number of features are missing and or weak, including: No archive search: no date/time, calender feature or the ability to search across multiple cameras No digital zoom via software, has to be a PTZ capable camera with optical zoom to use. No Maps No ability to TAB between entry fields, frustrating for avid keyboard users and is apparent when configuring settings via UI. Passwords are in clear view in UI, both in password fields and URL of cameras connected to via VMS (security issue) End user manual is built into the software via hyperlinks and pop-ups. This results in nested child pop-ups, which are annoying, some area tooltips will disappear once shown 3 times, others will always remain. No iOS app available SMS capability is an add-on service that costs ~1.3 cents per message- added cost, albeit low. Raw video files are proprietary .xem files, play via Xeoma or export in another format from software. Support: Company is located in Russia and support via email only; adds a delay in response given hours of operation are 1AM-10AM CST.

SonnyD, We regularly use an Extech LT300 (costs ~$150) and it works well even in low light. We've also tested a number of lux meter smartphone apps but they work very poorly in low light, which defeats the purpose for surveillance. We also tried Luxi which is a ~$30 add on to an iphone. It actually works pretty well but it needs to be calibrated against a real lux meter (like the Extech above) to be accurate. That said, I am not sure how critical a lux meter is for a learning type lab. It's more helpful for doing more advanced testing/comparison/specification.

We have done tests of multi-exposure WDR with cars going 50 miles an hour. None had any ghosting / blurring / trailing issues except for the Sony 6th gen at max WDR, which Sony later informed us uses 4 exposures. Reducing it to 2 exposures eliminated that. Beyond that, WDR is typically used in entrances, very commonly with people. In those scenarios, objects are moving fairly slow anyway. In our tests, we aim for a 5x+ lux variance between a dark and bright spot (e.g., the bright area is 2000 lux, the dark area a few feet away is 300 lux). This is typical for entrances / openings to the outdoors and multi-exposure is much better than digital / basic WDR here. In easier / lower light variance scenes, the difference in WDR performance is less significant since there's less of a light variance that needs to be handled.

WDR specs (in dBs) like minimum illumination ones are mostly worthless, primarily because they are incomparable and not based on a uniform standard. I've seen many manufacturers rate their WDR as 100dB+ only to have our tests show poor performance. If a manufacturer lists their camera as being ~50dB or ~60dB, for sure it's poor WDR. If a manufacturers lists their camera as being 100dB+, it might be strong WDR but you still need to test to verify that they are not lying / fudging / wrong. Short of testing, the best way to check is to ask whether the camera's WDR uses multiple exposures. Outside of Pixim (who is SD only), all the 'true'/good WDR implementations combine multiple exposures (one long for dark areas, one short for bright areas). Beware that a lot of manufacturers have created crazy categories like 'basic', 'pro', 'advanced', 'enhanced', etc. for describing their WDR. If it's not multi-exposure, it most likely makes very little difference.

To clarify and close this out, Alex K alerted me to the misuse of IPVM's reports and I immediately filed a DMCA take down request with SlideShare. I have no idea who avigilonworker is. Moreover, if I want to say something, positive or negative, about Avigilon, I would say it on IPVM, as I regularly do. Buellwinkle, good luck getting an Avigilon camera. Perhaps you can do like us and just buy them with your own money.

I thought half this board buys Dahua cameras for $200 or less. Btw, the new ACTi models are quite inexpensive as well. Actually I am surprised that the Avigilon quotes are so high. Perhaps that has to do with country / currency pricing differences.

Re: Intransa, are you aware that Intransa went out of business? Their assets were purchased, they regrouped under a new corporation. We received a letter saying that warranties were voided, etc.

The other important thing is checking the responsiveness of the imager at 940nm. Imagers tend to be less responsive (sometimes significantly) at 940nm than 850nm but they can vary. Even getting 940nm external IR illuminators is uncommon. I've spoke to at least one manufacturer who said shipments were 9 to 1 in favor of 850nm units.

We did a survey on frame rate used in production systems and the average was 6 - 10. So your 8fps falls within that range. That said, when asking for a 'standard' that is more complex, as it implies what is 'right'. As for resolution, at least on the IP camera side, 1.3MP/720p is most common for new cameras with an ongoing shift up to 2MP/1080p. Note, when I say 'most common', I mean statistically what is purchased. There are obviously many cameras with higher resolution, however, those are purchased far less frequently today than 1MP/2MP ones.

There's two main types of WDR - one that is typically 'fake' and the other 'real'. The fake WDR is often marketed as 'electronic WDR' and typically does a contrast adjustment. However, real WDR uses multiple exposures (frequently, one fast to capture the bright areas and one slow to capture the dark areas), combining them to deliver both areas. That said, most manufacturers offer both types of WDR. For instance, Axis calls one 'WDR with Dynamic Contrast' and 'WDR with Dynamic Capture.' Our testing shows that only the later is really worth anything. You'll see similar segmentation, though with different marketing terms, for many manufacturers. I recommend you asking manufacturers specifically, "Does your WDR use multiple exposures?" That's the best way to get a clear answer. If it does not, it is probably not worth much of anything.

This is the image quality of a group of mainstream panoramic cameras delivered at 18 feet in well, evenly lit conditions: Obviously, don't expect many fine details. We did a month long panoramic shootout both indoors and outdoors.

We (IPVM) have a free/public IP Video 101 Training that has 6 video screencasts and quizzes to help people get started setting up and configuring IP cameras.

Do you have any specific critique on the details and analysis I presented?

Ilan, Avigilon and Mobotix have significantly different design approaches. As you know, Mobotix puts a ton of hardware and software features in to their cameras - PIR, SIP, edge storage, panoramic dewarping, dual imagers, analytics, etc. Avigilon's cameras have less features - no edge storage, no audio, no analytics, etc. Whereas Mobotix's software configuration has hundreds of options available, Avigilon's is much simpler. Mobotix's positions its cameras as a system in itself that does not require a server (decentralized architecture, etc.) while Avigilon integrates with their server based VMS software. Avigilon is clearly a more mass market solution. They have a broader lineup of cameras, encoders, PTZs, etc. Most would agree that their VMS is easier to use for non technical, non trained users. Also, Avigilon is clearly on its way up while Mobotix is not. If you are betting on trends, Avigilon is it. If you like all the Mobotix software features, the serverless recording, the T24 door station, etc. you are not going to get that from Avigilon. That's not their approach. However, if you are looking for something more mainstream and for the average user, Avigilon is far ahead of Mobotix. If you like the Mobotix approach but want an alternative supplier, Axis's feature sets are the next closest. However, if you want to get away from the Mobotix technical approach, Avigilon is a good choice.

Axis has a design tool that lets you pick the model you are using, the scene it is in and generates how the bitrate and total storage. See here - http://www.axis.com/products/video/design_tool/index.htm Beyond that, verify with Milestone pre-sales how many servers and what CPU / RAM they want you to use. They do this daily and will be able to calculate. Plus, if you follow their recommendations here, you reduce future troubleshooting and eliminating fingerpointing for underspec'ing your server.

Check your PC's cpu utilization. When playing back video (especially higher resolution / higher frame rate), CPU utilization can spike to 100% and cause a video client to fall behind and miss displaying frames, making it look jumpy or stuttering. Not sure if this is what's happening in your case but I've encountered the same type of issue caused by spiking CPU use.

Sounds like either a bad camera then or a bad manufacturer You may want to get a replacement model and see if the problem goes away.

First guess is that it is a compression / bandwidth issue and can be fixed by changing settings in the camera. Is it set to CBR or VBR? If CBR, what's the target bit rate? Try doubling. If VBR, increase the quality/compression level. When moving objects display blocking artifacts, it is typically that the encoder cannot handle the changes in the scene. Typically that's because of a compression / bandwidth limitation. If that doesn't work, factory default the camera. The other common issue is that settings were changed over time, causing the problem.

I believe it's from Watec. We investigated it - It may have potential but I am not sure why it's gotten this much hype http://www.wateccameras.com/products.php?subcat_id=7

I agree that buellwinkle's blog may be a better fit for someone looking to install cameras in their home. Those tests feature shots of a driveway which make sense for home users. By contrast, we do controlled, simultaneous, measured camera shootouts (of 4 to 8 cameras at a time) rather than individual cameras in a driveway. While it is more expensive and complex to do, it provides much better information about what really works the best. This may not be important to home users but is valuable for professionals.

As the founder of IPVM, I wanted to give you some feedback about our fit for your needs. I am not sure if IPVM will be worth it if you are just looking for some IP cams for your parent's house. IPVM focuses more on larger scale professional deployments, advanced technical issues and industry trends - and for that I don't think there is anything close. While we have numerous articles and reviews on less expensive cameras and smaller systems, it may be harder to find and piece together. That noted, we offer personal assistance to all end user and integrator members and a 100% money back guarantee anytime, no questions asked. I actually think CCTVForum is an excellent place to get help on such projects. If you haven't already posted a discussion explaining your project, I would recommend you do so. See what responses you get and how close it takes you to your goals.