Axis vs ACTi

[jhonovich 0]

I think this will be an interesting topic for debate

 

Yesterday, I released an article comparing Axis and ACTi's approach: http://ipvideomarket.info/review/show/149

 

My basic point was that ACTi does not have all the bells and whistles of Axis but was good enough for many applications and is far cheaper. As such, I claimed that ACTi is doing a lot to make ip cameras more mainstream.

 

 

I cited discussions on this forum as references. While I did not mention Vivotek, it has been mentioned in the comments as another low cost, solid alternative to Axis.

 

What do you think?

[metafizx 0]

I haven't tried the ACTi cameras yet, but have been tempted.

 

my experience with Vivotek has been decent. What I liked was that it worked, when the Axis camera has a problem still. I definitely would buy more Vivotek's. The free software is a nice feature. However, I'd like to try ACTi's free s/w too.

 

While Axis claims they are working on a fix, it has been 2 months since I opened the ticket. I am a patient person, my customer was losing patience, and that's where Vivotek bailed me out.

 

I still hope that Axis fixes the wireless problem with the 207w, since I have a bunch of these cameras. Good image when they work.

 

the image on the vivotek was ok, but I didn't have much time to experiment with it.

 

I just ordered a Arecont 3100, 3MP hoping to use for detailed viewing.

[Thomas 0]

I think this will be an interesting topic for debate

 

Yesterday, I released an article comparing Axis and ACTi's approach: http://ipvideomarket.info/review/show/149

 

My basic point was that ACTi does not have all the bells and whistles of Axis but was good enough for many applications and is far cheaper. As such, I claimed that ACTi is doing a lot to make ip cameras more mainstream.

 

 

I cited discussions on this forum as references. While I did not mention Vivotek, it has been mentioned in the comments as another low cost, solid alternative to Axis.

 

What do you think?

 

ACTi makes a fairly sold camera and cost wise it's a good alternative to Axis. The key difference being that installers can actually make some money on ACTi where as Axis's pricing makes that difficult.

 

But Vivotek isn't a viable option. The cameras have a **** image and a couple of things on the SDK side that make them a PITA.

[securitysys 0]

I wish there was an emoticon for a middle finger.... Vivotek is like the Q-See of the IP Camera arena, and even then that's a stretch.

[metafizx 0]

I wish there was an emoticon for a middle finger.... Vivotek is like the Q-See of the IP Camera arena, and even then that's a stretch.

 

geez I didn't know there was so much dislike for vivotek floating around.

 

I've only gotten one of the wireless models, and it worked when Axis didn't. Although I have to agree I didn't care for the image too much.

maybe the other models are worse ?

 

for a cheap IP cam, it was usable IMHO

 

unfortunately there aren't that many low cost wireless IP cams that work.

I wish Axis would fix the problem with the 207w.

[mastrmind 0]

I've only purchased Axis (4 206s, 3 241Qs, 211A, 233D) and an IQEye 703 so far. They have all been rock solid with no issues so far in 6 months.

 

I have avoided the smaller brands so far because I needed to make sure everything just worked and it seemed like the other brands had random software issues, or low quality images, etc. I have been looking for other options that can be just as reliable and hopefully a bit cheaper to make further expansion easier.

 

I read jhonovich's review of ACTi and would like to hear if anyone else likes and recommends ACTi, and what cameras specifically you like. I'm also thinking about getting an Arecont to try out; metafizx, let me know what you think of yours when you get it.

[ak357 0]

I've only purchased Axis (4 206s, 3 241Qs, 211A, 233D) and an IQEye 703 so far. They have all been rock solid with no issues so far in 6 months.

 

I have avoided the smaller brands so far because I needed to make sure everything just worked and it seemed like the other brands had random software issues, or low quality images, etc. I have been looking for other options that can be just as reliable and hopefully a bit cheaper to make further expansion easier.

 

I read jhonovich's review of ACTi and would like to hear if anyone else likes and recommends ACTi, and what cameras specifically you like. I'm also thinking about getting an Arecont to try out; metafizx, let me know what you think of yours when you get it.

 

I tried ACTI ACM 4200 and ACM 1231 did not like both

return back to distrubutor

in my opinion poor noisy pix

was talking to ACTI tech support and prove to them it is not acceptable

 

I can get better pix on certain Vivotek models (not mega pix)

talking about reg day time shots

[Thomas 0]

I wish there was an emoticon for a middle finger.... Vivotek is like the Q-See of the IP Camera arena, and even then that's a stretch.

 

geez I didn't know there was so much dislike for vivotek floating around.

 

I've only gotten one of the wireless models, and it worked when Axis didn't. Although I have to agree I didn't care for the image too much.

maybe the other models are worse ?

 

for a cheap IP cam, it was usable IMHO

 

unfortunately there aren't that many low cost wireless IP cams that work.

I wish Axis would fix the problem with the 207w.

 

If you're going cheap, then it generally doesn't make sense to go IP anyway.

[zmxtech 0]

Some real world experience >

 

The AXIS 206 are useless after dark the BW image looks ok till you see how much blur there is when there is motion ! Try and get a face shot forget it

 

I modified one with a new "IR" lens and used a IR spot light [850nm] the result a much better but still useless.

 

There may be a way of turning up the shutter to 500+ but have not found it

 

You get what you pay for. /sales brochures lie !

 

oh and while im at it -the pelco spectra "color night" again useless at night ! ahhhhhhhhhhh

[kalpesh_nikumbh 0]

Some Fact about Wireless Cameras!!!

 

There performance depends more on The receiver used to collect the signal....

 

I personally used AXIS 207W with a good Wifi Receiver ( having 12 small small antennas ) and could logged on to the camera thro' 6 walls !!!!!

 

receiver tested by me was designed by : convergentindia

 

the same with just another cheeper recever ....was just could manage thro' line of sight.......

 

other problems may be model specific!!

 

My only warry about AXIS is the prices...

[avinash.trivedi 0]

Hi,

 

Thanks for enhancing our knowledge base by providing such a meaningful comparison.

 

I would like you to throw some light on a feature of Axis 221 D/N Network camera which claims to have resolution of 45fps at VGA and 60fps at half VGA for MJPEG and 30fps at VGA and 60fps at half VGA for MPEG4.

 

I am not sure whether this is technically possible to achieve such a resolution (in PAL) ! I have heard of best resolutions of 25fps at 4CIF for MPEG4 etc and any thing beyond that or higher fps at lower resolution is beyond my current knowledge.

 

I hope you will be able to enlighten me on this issue.

 

Regards

[jhonovich 0]

a feature of Axis 221 D/N Network camera which claims to have resolution of 45fps at VGA and 60fps at half VGA for MJPEG and 30fps at VGA and 60fps at half VGA for MPEG4.

 

I am not sure whether this is technically possible to achieve such a resolution (in PAL) !

 

The PAL standard has a frame rate of 25. NTSC is 30.

 

Because Axis is digital, they do not need to conform to those standards.

 

As such, they can do more than 25/30 fps.

 

The question is: why would you need more frames? High frames rates are helpful in casinos, missile launches, etc - applications where things are moving very very quickly. For the overwhelming majority of applications that are viewing general activity, 5 - 15 fps should be more than enough.

[kalpesh_nikumbh 0]

Hi Avinash

Good Morning!! & Welcome to the Forum!!

 

Some Point would like to Highlight

1. In case of digit Cameras (IP) no matter it’s PAL or NTSC…

2. It is possible to go beyond 25 fps & 30 fps …

3. You must be comparing the Interlaced scanning technique where in fps depend on frequency of the main power supply (50Hz / 60 Hz )

4. If the scanning technique is “ Progressive Scan “ then there is no limitation ..here entire picture is scanned in one shoot..

5. then the fps will be totally software based!!

6. If your application has still images only with very slow motions , just normal surveillance …no matter about fps and scanning techniques….it affects when you r watching recordings of Highly motioned images s.a. highways etc.

7. As said by previous friend …yes for normal surveillance 5-15 fps is OK. Our eye can sense on 18 fps!!!!!

8. But in case of analyzing the Recorded images for threat …all these goodness of cameras come in to the picture!!!! used in Military surveillance

 

AXIS 221 has really good features…but examine your application first… whether you need really such good ?

 

Very good technical info is available on AXIS website …you can go thro’ it!!

 

Good Luck

 

Kalpesh Nikumbh

 

Mumbai India

[avinash.trivedi 0]

Hi Kalpesh,

 

Thanks for your prompt reply. The application is highly demanding of higher frame rate/resolution since it involves surveillance of tunnels/tracks in tough weather conditions.

 

However even if it is software based or digital, the camera is still analog in nature when it captures the frame (through CCD or CMOS whichever is the case) so it has to be governed by effective pixels, scanning system and TVL. The actual captured frame quality cannot be enhanced dramatically higher just by use of high quality encoder of NVMS etc. For example if an analog camera of 480TVL is connected to an encoder which is capable of producing 25fps, 4CIF at MPEG4, still will not be able to optimally achieve 4CIF in real time because of poor TVL capabilities of the camera! It requires minimum 530TVL camera to achieve 4CIF resolution.

 

I have gone throuh the axis website and could not find any whitepaper in this regard.

 

I believe this may be some marketing gimmick based on some mathematical calculations which they have used to promote the product.

 

You may like to advise me further on this issue.

 

regards

 

Avinash

[kalpesh_nikumbh 0]

If it is that much req...then go ahead..

is the are req. explosion proof system Too??

 

system you are talking about is analog camera with external encoderbased IP....

 

when we says IP ...both camera n encoder are on single chip ( PCB)

so the Resolution confired by manufacturer will be end o/p.....

 

there is no sales talk mention by axis..what i experienced practically!!

 

Have you checked the link i posted in previous post?? which part of india you belong??

 

Kalpesh Nikumbh

 

India

[Thomas 0]

If it is that much req...then go ahead..

is the are req. explosion proof system Too??

 

system you are talking about is analog camera with external encoderbased IP....

 

when we says IP ...both camera n encoder are on single chip ( PCB)

so the Resolution confired by manufacturer will be end o/p.....

 

there is no sales talk mention by axis..what i experienced practically!!

 

Have you checked the link i posted in previous post?? which part of india you belong??

 

Kalpesh Nikumbh

 

India

 

Having taken apart a couple of Axis cameras, I can assure you that there is a separate encoder chip handling the encoding at least on older cameras.

[kalpesh_nikumbh 0]

Ya !!

 

Both the fuctions viz. image & encoding are diffrent and must be hadelled by diffrent sections of the PCB...but the idea is the Specs. mentioned is overall o/p....no separate specs of camera and encoders in AXIS

Great Time!!

 

Kalpesh Nikumbh

 

India..

[avinash.trivedi 0]

Hi,

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

I am from Delhi NCR.

 

Regards

[phoenixad 0]

sorry dude...

 

He is right about the IP cam specs.. it is a gimmick. They (Axis) never disclose any CCD resolution so that they can use inexpensive 512x492 or 380TVL camera technology... (some models are cheap CMOS too)

.. it is a standard CCD capturing the image which is then saved to to digital format.

 

Just like a regular camera with a webserver or even a DVR.

 

When I need to use IP cameras, I prefer to use a high end legacy camera with a server. I always get much better results.

 

After all, why should I let Axis tell me what camera technolgy to use?? They are IP server people.. not camera people.