TVL Measuring

[Zaher 0]

Dear All,

 

I need to know if there is any CCTV testing device that can measure the resolution or TVL of the camera, due to some exageration from some suppliers about their cameras' resolution and picture quality.

 

Regards.

[Scott Broscious 0]

the only accurate way to measure this (that i know of) would be with an oscilliscope sometimes called a spectrum analyzer, a signal generator (or a test pattern generator or a video camera you've already measured the output signal of) and the system you plan to test. This actually would be used to measure bandwidth (which would give you the TVL).

 

The bandwidth should be measured at the point in the output wave where the frequency of the output signal no longer matches what you known to be going in (by the signal/test pattern generator/signal coming from camera...which you've already measured) or the amplitude of the output signal is half that of the input. Basically you'd first generate a signal and measure the input signal with the oscilliscope. Then you'd measure the output signal of the receiver.

 

As an example, if you have a system that should be getting you 540 tvl you should be seeing a bandwidth of about 5.2Mhz (my math be a bit off here). If at any point during your tests you measure something less than 5Mhz you know that you're not getting 540 tvl from your system.

 

This is the only way that I, personally, know how to test accurately. It does require some understanding of, not only the equipment, but how bandwidth can affect resolution. There are probably other, easier less technical ways...but again this is the only way I know.

 

 

 

edit after some thought-

A less technical, less accurate way, would be to take the recording from your video cameras, get it onto your computer and use a program like vlc (or maybe windows media player...i dont really use it though so im not sure) to view the video. VLC will ensure the video is played at the resolution it was recorded and you can either pull the resolution directly from that or you can take a screen shot and paste it into your favorite image editing program which will give you the resolution of the image, after you resize the screenshot to only include the video and not your whole desktop that is.

[ak357 0]

the only accurate way to measure this (that i know of) would be with an oscilliscope sometimes called a spectrum analyzer, a signal generator (or a test pattern generator or a video camera you've already measured the output signal of) and the system you plan to test. This actually would be used to measure bandwidth (which would give you the TVL).

 

The bandwidth should be measured at the point in the output wave where the frequency of the output signal no longer matches what you known to be going in (by the signal/test pattern generator/signal coming from camera...which you've already measured) or the amplitude of the output signal is half that of the input. Basically you'd first generate a signal and measure the input signal with the oscilliscope. Then you'd measure the output signal of the receiver.

 

As an example, if you have a system that should be getting you 540 tvl you should be seeing a bandwidth of about 5.2Mhz (my math be a bit off here). If at any point during your tests you measure something less than 5Mhz you know that you're not getting 540 tvl from your system.

 

This is the only way that I, personally, know how to test accurately. It does require some understanding of, not only the equipment, but how bandwidth can affect resolution. There are probably other, easier less technical ways...but again this is the only way I know.

 

 

 

edit after some thought-

A less technical, less accurate way, would be to take the recording from your video cameras, get it onto your computer and use a program like vlc (or maybe windows media player...i dont really use it though so im not sure) to view the video. VLC will ensure the video is played at the resolution it was recorded and you can either pull the resolution directly from that or you can take a screen shot and paste it into your favorite image editing program which will give you the resolution of the image, after you resize the screenshot to only include the video and not your whole desktop that is.

 

Hmm

He is talking about Camera TVL not recording res

You can capture at any res u want from any camera u want right ?

VLC will show only at what res video was captured and recorded

which have nothing to do with your incoming video signal

I guess what I am trying to say I can record at D1 (720x480)

but my camera is piece of s...t with 320 lines or less

[Scott Broscious 0]

 

Hmm

He is talking about Camera TVL not recording res

You can capture at any res u want from any camera u want right ?

VLC will show only at what res video was captured and recorded

which have nothing to do with your incoming video signal

I guess what I am trying to say I can record at D1 (720x480)

but my camera is piece of s...t with 320 lines or less

 

I know what he's talking about which is why I provided him the info to find that answer. What I think the problem may be is that you skipped my actual answer and read only the part that clearly says a "less technical less accurate way". Possibly thinking my entire answer had anything at all to do with VLC. Or maybe I misscommunicated my edited after thought to be something other than the inaccurate not in any way tchnical suggestion I thought I had made it out to be.

 

Again, I suggested an oscilliscope as the only means I knew of to accurately measure what he wants to test, which doesnt rely on anything other than the bandwidth used to come up with the accurate resolution. Even if it was recorded at a higher resolution that what the camera was capable of, with an oscilliscope youd be able to spot the difference with the "empty" bandwidth.

 

An oscilliscope is the end all be all of finding out what is actually happening when your talking about any type of signal. But vlc (and other similar programs) is a less technical, less accurate, means of verifying that your image is as you were told it would be. You were told the camera is capable of 720*480? Well vlc, and programs like it, will verify this....is it accurate? No! But is it better than guessing and hoping that your system is pushing out what you think it is? Yes!

 

Thats not even considering the fact that you can hook your camera directly up to your computer, even if its not an ip camera (in most cases only needing an adapter), and view the image generated directly thru vlc or a program like it....thus completely ignoring any type of image that may have been recorded at a higher resolution than was necessary. (thanks for giving me a reason to reword/rethink my previous edited after thought to be a more accurate representation of a "less accurate less technical" solution as doing it this way would be even easier)

Edited June 17, 2009 by Guest

[Soundy 1]

Thats not even considering the fact that you can hook your camera directly up to your computer, even if its not an ip camera (in most cases only needing an adapter), and view the image generated directly thru vlc or a program like it....thus completely ignoring any type of image that may have been recorded at a higher resolution than was necessary. (thanks for giving me a reason to reword/rethink my previous edited after thought to be a more accurate representation of a "less accurate less technical" solution as doing it this way would be even easier)

 

The problem is, you're still only measuring the capture resolution of the input device, be it a DVR card, or a simple USB TV-tuner device. It won't tell you the TVL resolution that the camera is outputting.

 

This may be of some help:

http://www.indigovision.com/whitepapers_resolutionandtvl.php

 

and specifically:

http://www.indigovision.com/whitepapers_resolutionandtvl.php#MeasuringTVLofadevice

[Scott Broscious 0]

 

The problem is, you're still only measuring the capture resolution of the input device, be it a DVR card, or a simple USB TV-tuner device. It won't tell you the TVL resolution that the camera is outputting.

 

I'd like to see a couple of examples of this computer equipment that relies on something other than 1's and 0's. Computers dont care about input resolution, they dont care about output resolution, they dont care about format....they care about 1's and 0's. This is the same reason you can have both a PAL and NTSC camera hooked up to the same computer and watch both video feeds by doing nothing more than hooking the cameras up.

 

Now software...thats a completely different story, unless you can read higher lvl comp languages you need this software to translate those 1's and 0's into a format you can read/understand, and it almost always does change the output into a format that the developers thought was better for whatever purpose/reason and, thank god, is also almost always configurable!

 

A computer only changes the input signal when YOU make it (you make it do something, even if you dont know you're doing it, by your choice of software and in some cases hardware as well), otherwise it takes those 1's and 0's and pops them out the same as they come in. Unless VLC has changed its code it's not a software that automatically changes the input resolution so my rethought suggestion should still work

 

HOWEVER I STILL STATE THAT AN OSCILLISCOPE IS THE ONLY WAY TO ACCURATELY TEST THIS (the link provided by soundy has a table for the converting the bandwidth read by the oscilliscope into the resolution produced by the equipment)

 

 

-soundy the two links you've provided are to the same paper. they are still helpful to me because its been awhile since i've had a legible table showing bandwidth::resolution (mines been around the block more times than it should have) so thanks for giving me a replacement! Though I believe its inaccurate in regards to the bandwidth for SVHS...ill have to check on it to be sure. The rest of the paper looks very accurate (and they even use my oscilliscope method...well not "MY" method becuase thats what my electronics teach taught me and its what his taught him and so on lol) so I think this might just be my mistake.

[Soundy 1]

 

The problem is, you're still only measuring the capture resolution of the input device, be it a DVR card, or a simple USB TV-tuner device. It won't tell you the TVL resolution that the camera is outputting.

 

I'd like to see a couple of examples of this computer equipment that relies on something other than 1's and 0's. Computers dont care about input resolution, they dont care about output resolution, they dont care about format....they care about 1's and 0's. This is the same reason you can have both a PAL and NTSC camera hooked up to the same computer and watch both video feeds by doing nothing more than hooking the cameras up.

 

Now software...thats a completely different story, unless you can read higher lvl comp languages you need this software to translate those 1's and 0's into a format you can read/understand, and it almost always does change the output into a format that the developers thought was better for whatever purpose/reason and, thank god, is also almost always configurable!

 

A computer only changes the input signal when YOU make it (you make it do something, even if you dont know you're doing it, by your choice of software and in some cases hardware as well), otherwise it takes those 1's and 0's and pops them out the same as they come in. Unless VLC has changed its code it's not a software that automatically changes the input resolution so my rethought suggestion should still work

 

This is babbling, it makes no sense. Your signal still has to pass through hardware before the software can do anything with it, and what your software - VLC or otherwise - can calculate on the data will be determined on the quality of that data. If your capture hardware can only capture at 320x240, then how is the software going to determine TVL resolution beyond 240 lines?

 

HOWEVER I STILL STATE THAT AN OSCILLISCOPE IS THE ONLY WAY TO ACCURATELY TEST THIS (the link provided by soundy has a table for the converting the bandwidth read by the oscilliscope into the resolution produced by the equipment)

 

Nobody's disagreeing with that.

 

 

-soundy the two links you've provided are to the same paper.

 

No kidding? I hadn't noticed. Yes, it's a whitepaper on "Understanding TV Lines", with an internal link SPECIFICALLY to the section on MEASURING TVL... which is why I added that with "and specifically".

[Scott Broscious 0]

This is babbling, it makes no sense. Your signal still has to pass through hardware before the software can do anything with it, and what your software - VLC or otherwise - can calculate on the data will be determined on the quality of that data. If your capture hardware can only capture at 320x240, then how is the software going to determine TVL resolution beyond 240 lines?

Babbling? Hardly not. I'd still like to see computer hardware that is limited to 320x240.

 

See I'm not to sure you understand what I'm saying, especially if you think the software starts working AFTER your signal passes thru the dvr card or whatever your using. Without pre-installeld software (usually called firmware) your hardware would not function. Camera, compter, dvr....whatever. No software to stipulate the use of the hardware...no use of the hardware.

 

Software is coded to produce whatever the developers decide on (engineers create circuits that handle a predetermined amount of bandwidth determined by the components themselves, however the developers are the ones that create the software that ultimately decides how to utilize that hardware), so software can quite easily turn your dvr card, which by todays standards should be able to handle well over 5Mhz (keeping with the numbers posted here already) of bandwidth, into a piece of hardware that will only allow 320x240 as the max resolution. This has NOTHING to do with what the hardware is capable of...its a software limitation.

 

Again computers dont care about format, they don't care about resolution. They care about data, and that data comes in the forms of 1's and 0's.....not 320*240. The software is what determines that 320*240 is all you're going to get becausae the developers, for whatever reason, decided that was what was best. With older hardware...yes the hardware may be the limiting factor in the bandwidth (not to be confused with resolution) your going to get, especially when combining old hardware with new hardware.

 

However, with today's technology, its increasingly common to find hardware that is capable of far more than what the software is limiting you to (and this is due more to marketing others versions of the same hardware with "enhancements"), otherwise modding wouldn't be possible. Seeing as you've previously suggested someone seek out a dev SDK I'm sure you know modding happens all the time, otherwise you only know part of the purpose behind software development kits.

 

Before you decide to try and insult someone...be sure you know exactly what's going on. Otherwise you're the one left with the feeling "this is babbling, this doesn't make any sense" when in fact...it's perfectly sensible.

 

-soundy the two links you've provided are to the same paper.

 

No kidding? I hadn't noticed. Yes, it's a whitepaper on "Understanding TV Lines", with an internal link SPECIFICALLY to the section on MEASURING TVL... which is why I added that with "and specifically".

No need to be sarcastic, I was pointing it out in case you didnt mean to do this. Personally I see no need to link to a paper, then link to the second paragraph in that paper...unless of course your making sure that that paper is optimized for search engines, which is why they did it, yet even with your sarcastic explaination...I still don't see why you did it.

 

Thanks for clearing up what the links were pointing too though...I hadn't actually read it before making my statement! See sarcasm doesn't typically come off as sarcasm over the internet. It comes off as ignorance...especially when there really was no need for it.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Guest

[Soundy 1]

This is babbling, it makes no sense. Your signal still has to pass through hardware before the software can do anything with it, and what your software - VLC or otherwise - can calculate on the data will be determined on the quality of that data. If your capture hardware can only capture at 320x240, then how is the software going to determine TVL resolution beyond 240 lines?

Babbling? Hardly not. I'd still like to see computer hardware that is limited to 320x240.

 

Software is coded to produce whatever the developers decide on (engineers create circuits that handle a predetermined amount of bandwidth determined by the components themselves, however the developers are the ones that create the software that ultimately decides how to utilize that hardware), so software can quite easily turn your dvr card, which by todays standards should be able to handle well over 5Mhz (keeping with the numbers posted here already) of bandwidth, into a piece of hardware that will only allow 320x240 as the max resolution. This has NOTHING to do with what the hardware is capable of...its a software limitation.

 

Oh... so you're saying all these cards everyone is using that do 740x480 at best... that that's a limitation of the software? That all someone needs to do is step up and write software that will sample at ten times that resolution, and we can consider megapixel network cameras obsolete?

 

I guess someone should have told that to all the developers of audio A/D converters 20 years ago, when 44.1k/16-bit stereo for CDs was pushing the limits. Guys, the digitizing hardware is irrelevant - your ADATs can actually do 192k/48-bit recording, it just needs the right SOFTWARE written for it.

 

Sorry, but it don't work that way: the HARDWARE, the DIGITIZING HARDWARE, the ANALOG-TO-DIGITAL CONVERTER HARDWARE is still required to take your analog signal and put it into a digital form BEFORE the software can do anything with it... even at D1, you're going to hit that 480-pixel limitation (with NTSC) and you won't be able to determine TVL any higher than that.

 

-soundy the two links you've provided are to the same paper.

 

No kidding? I hadn't noticed. Yes, it's a whitepaper on "Understanding TV Lines", with an internal link SPECIFICALLY to the section on MEASURING TVL... which is why I added that with "and specifically".

No need to be sarcastic, I was pointing it out in case you didnt mean to do this.

 

I thought it was obvious from the "and specifically" that I was intentionally linking the same page. "See, here's some general information on the subject... and if you look here, here's some more specific content."

 

Personally I see no need to link to a paper, then link to the second paragraph in that paper...unless of course your making sure that that paper is optimized for search engines, which is why they did it themselves.

 

No, the idea was to point the main page in general as a source of information, and then to the "measuring" portion specifically, as that was the topic of discussion. Without doing that, some might click the first link, not bother reading any farther, and then say, "Oh, that's nice, but I want to know how to MEASURE it, I don't care about UNDERSTANDING it." And yes, that does happen - I've been online for 20+ years, I see it all the time. People are lazy if you don't stick information like that right under their noses.

 

Thanks for clearing up what the links were pointing too though...I hadn't actually read it before making my statement!

 

I rest my case

[Scott Broscious 0]

Oh... so you're saying all these cards everyone is using that do 740x480 at best... that that's a limitation of the software? That all someone needs to do is step up and write software that will sample at ten times that resolution, and we can consider megapixel network cameras obsolete?

See, still trying to do whatever it is you trying to do. With your hardware there is a max bandwidth available determined by the components used. However I can garuntee that in almost every case you can provide there is another form of the same exact hardware being used more effeciently to what you have in your hand. Again...software. Do you literally think the cards your using are all that different than the cards a government agency is using, in most cases the only differnce is firmware! Only when you start getting into specialty cases, like say nasa's surveillance needs over the us marine corps surveillance needs would the hardware change.

 

Here's a hint: I've worked with satallite surveillance systems that are capable of handling 100's of tb's of video data instantly (ironically making megapixel cameras obsolete...especially when they find a cheaper means to produce it), which was created around the same dvr card in my computer yet my system can't come close to that hitting number. No I'm not saying sort of the same. I'm saying besides the nomenclature (sp?) and firmware installed they are IDENTICAL.

 

Yes, hardware CAN be a limiting factor. But today we're dealing with technology that is already far beyond what we need. Most consumer electronics are born and bred after the tech has been tested by the military and agencies like it. You stated something about going back 20 years, well 20 years ago the circuits being built can't compete with todays circuits.

 

I'm an electronics/satallite communications expert. You're not going to be able to sit here and tell me that a card made today is only capable of 740*480 no matter how much you try, unless the hardware was specifically desinged to only handle that (and there's no engineer anywhere in the world saying "here I'll willing gimp myself). The question is, is it cost effective to mass produce for the consumer? The answer? Sometimes...especially when combined with software that limits its function in order to sell upgraded versions.

 

You're trying to read into something that isn't there. All I've said is "your hardware is limited by the software being used, not the other way around" and you come back with "let's go back 20 years"? Nowhere did I say you can turn dust into a diamond.

 

 

Here lets put it into different terms.

 

You've got an engineer that makes a card capable of handling 5MHz of bandwidth (again...going by numbers here).

You've got the company that paid the engineer to make this card who now needs a developer to write the code to use that card.

The developer writes the code and the card works exactly as intended.

The company then gets a "sales minded entity" to sell this equipment only they say, "hey in order to make more money...how about making another version of that software that limits the card to 320*240 so we can sell one to the commercial audience and sell the other to a government agency."

 

(note this isn't exactly how the process works...but hopefully it's close enough to get the point across to you)

 

Bam...you have 2 forms of the same exact hardware...only one can't reach the resolution produced by the other because of the firmware on it. Do we get it yet....is it sinking in now? Are you going to try and come up with another smart ass way of trying to dispute what's being said here? Because I can come up with other examples though I don't think I can make it any clearer. I've gone as far as I can with trying to make it clearer...even to the point where it's becoming over simplified.

 

the idea was to point the main page in general as a source of information, and then to the "measuring" portion specifically, as that was the topic of discussion. Without doing that, some might click the first link, not bother reading any farther, and then say, "Oh, that's nice, but I want to know how to MEASURE it, I don't care about UNDERSTANDING it." And yes, that does happen - I've been online for 20+ years, I see it all the time. People are lazy if you don't stick information like that right under their noses.

People are only lazy because they're allowed to be. They're constantly given reasons to be lazy. Case in point, the link you provided (the "specifically" link) says exactly the same information I included in my first post suggesting an oscilliscope. You and I have both given this individual a reason not to look this information up. I put it right into words and you gave him a link to the paper for the info...and then a link to the exact paragraph.

 

Had we said, "google is a wonderful tool!", the laziness would have stopped, maybe temporarily as he would have just gone elsewhere for his info, but by going elsewhere....well you get the point.

 

 

Meh, this thread is no longer about the measurement of tvl. Soundy if you wish to continue this conversation we can do so in pm form, but i'm done hijacking this thread trying to show you something you don't want to believe...even though you've suggested software to other users that is used for this exact purpose. I'm left to believe your either ignorant...or your just screwing with me.

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry for destroying your thread OP-back to my original suggestion...use an oscilliscope.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Guest

[Soundy 1]

Meh, this thread is no longer about the measurement of tvl.

 

Okay then, let's bring it back on topic. Instead of theoreticals, tell us exactly how to use VLC to determine the TVL of our cameras.

 

You say the hardware is irrelevant, so let's start with the obvious: tell me how I'm going to get the signal from the camera into my computer so I can view it in VLC. I have a number of different analog cameras to test this with. I have several computers with Windows XP Pro and the latest version of VLC. Come on now, it's put-up-or-shut-up time.

 

Soundy if you wish to continue this conversation we can do so in pm form,

 

No thanks, I get enough nonsensical babbling at home with my wife on a cleaning spree.

 

but i'm done hijacking this thread trying to show you something you don't want to believe...even though you've suggested software to other users that is used for this exact purpose.

 

I have?? Where?? What software??

 

I'm left to believe your either ignorant...or your just screwing with me.

 

Must be the former, because I don't have time for the latter.

[Scott Broscious 0]

Okay then, let's bring it back on topic. Instead of theoreticals, tell us exactly how to use VLC to determine the TVL of our cameras.

I'm sorry, sometimes I think analogies are easier for people to understand. Other than that I dont deal in theoreticals, I fix and create what's already been built. I'm no engineer.

 

 

1. Take your camera and equip it with its appropriate usb adapter.

2. Plug said usb adapter into your computer.

3. Open your latest version of vlc.

4. follow this link http://www.videolan.org/doc/play-howto/en/ch03.html

5. "Specifically" search for "Play from an acquisition card" and treat your security camera just as you would a webcam you had no driver for. Or in other words no driver...no options to configure. (hey isn't that what part of this discussion is about? Software limitations....wierd)

6. Just remember VLC has no set display resolution unless you've configured it that way. It uses the default input to determine resolution. Which means if your desktop display is set to low resolution and your using a high resolution camera...alt + f4 lol.

 

You say the hardware is irrelevant

nope never did. show me where i said that. please.

tell me how I'm going to get the signal from the camera into my computer so I can view it in VLC. I have a number of different analog cameras to test this with. I have several computers with Windows XP Pro and the latest version of VLC.

You can test following my instructions above.

Come on now, it's put-up-or-shut-up time.

will you be shutting up now...or am I right in expecting even this wont be good enough for you

 

No thanks, I get enough nonsensical babbling at home with my wife on a cleaning spree.

I see similarities between you and my wife also. Wierd.

but i'm done hijacking this thread trying to show you something you don't want to believe...even though you've suggested software to other users that is used for this exact purpose.

 

I have?? Where?? What software??

You've never suggested someone look into a software developement kit? ....hmmm http://www.cctvforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=101972&highlight=#101972

heres a clueP: sdk's do more than support your equipment. they're actually used by developers to develope added functionality to EXISTANT hardware. IE...you have a docsys 2.0 modem and you happen to have the sdk for it for whatever reason or have made your own "sdk" for the modem, and the modem has the capability of docsis 3....if you have the know how (which you should if you have the sdk) you can take that docsis 2.0 and make it docsis 3.0 before the actual firmware is released. Complying with docsis 3.0 standards before the same modem in your neighbors house can. The hardware hasn't changed...but yet its capable of so much more. Now am I saying all modems will be able to go from docsis 2.0 to 3.0, no. That's a hardware limitation, and this is an example not of that but of using an sdk to mod the functionality of EXISTANT hardware. The same can be said of almost any piece of electronic gear you have ever touched in your LIFE! Can you add night vision functionality to a camera...no thats a hardware limitation. Can you increase the frame rate that camera tops out at? Depending on the electronic design...yes, and you can continue to increase it until you eventually hit the limitation set by the hardware and blow something.

I'm left to believe your either ignorant...or your just screwing with me.

 

Must be the former, because I don't have time for the latter.

Well that's great because I love to help out those that are capable of understanding but as of yet dont.

 

The only problem I have is that you took a "less technical less accurate" after thought and made me elaborate on it to the point of stupidity. You seem to think I've said that hardware doesn't matter...which never happened. I guess I just didnt believe that you actually needed a lesson. Oh well, it's not the first time I've been wrong. I only ask, once again, if you want to continue that you contact me via pm. I'm not coming to this thread again until it becomes about TVL.

 

OP-sorry, but again these are instructions for a less than accurate way to get your tvl from a known resolution, my number one recommendation is still to use an oscilliscope. Soundy said something about "my software" VCL is not my software, it is open source multimedia player that is open to modification by any and all that want to add to it.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Guest

[ak357 0]

 

1. Take your camera and equip it with its "appropriate usb adapter. "

2. Plug said usb adapter into your computer.

3. Open your latest version of vlc.

4. follow this link http://www.videolan.org/doc/play-howto/en/ch03.html

5. "Specifically" search for "Play from an acquisition card"

quote]

 

 

O, my God Scott u are setting up yourself big time

Soundy will destroy you just for those words above

U are wrong

Your USB Adapter or acquisition card decide at what res video will be captured

VLC just show final result

That it

 

This Thread become real fun

Edited June 14, 2009 by Guest

[Scott Broscious 0]

 

1. Take your camera and equip it with its "appropriate usb adapter. "

2. Plug said usb adapter into your computer.

3. Open your latest version of vlc.

4. follow this link http://www.videolan.org/doc/play-howto/en/ch03.html

5. "Specifically" search for "Play from an acquisition card"

quote]

 

 

O my God Scott u are setting up yourself big time

Soundy will destroy you just for those words above

U are wrong

Your USB Adapter or acquisition card decide at what res video will be captured

VLC just show final result

That it

 

This Thread become real fun

 

USB Adapters do nothing but convert information into a format ready for your computer. This is read by your computer as 1's and 0's, not tvl or resolution. that data is then converted into the image at the appropriate resolution. Maybe had you said the USB port would limit the resolution (which it can), but no...adapters do nothing but make something adapt from one form to another incompatible form...hence the name. If your adapter is changing anything other than format...you need a better adapter.

 

I also said nothing about a data aquisition card other than directing soundy to look at that section for instructions he must need, otherwise he wouldnt have asked for them. Did you actually read those instructions or did you just assume 'soundy will destroy me'. If you didnt read it, Play from a data aquistion card, is only the name of the section. In the case we're using it the closest thing to a data aquisition card would be your camara

 

I keep coming back for more and dont know why...lets try it again

Edited June 14, 2009 by Guest

[ak357 0]

[quote name="Scott Broscious

 

USB Adapters do nothing but convert information into a format ready for your computer. This is read by your computer as 1's and 0's' date=' not tvl or

 

[/quote]

 

Can i ask u for model number, brand name of your USB adapter please

Thx

Edited June 14, 2009 by Guest

[Scott Broscious 0]

Can i ask u for model number, brand name of your USB adpter please

Thx

Yeah let me pull a USB adapter out of my ass. We're not dealing with specialized gear here. It may be a security camera, but its only a camara. Any bnc-usb, and rca-usb, and cat5-usb will do the trick. The only time an adapter will affect the information being passed to it is if it designed to (either as a limitatition of the hardware or any other reason). Again, if your adapter is changing anything other than format...you need a better adapter that can handle what you're trying to do. In this case USB would be the limiting technology...not the adapter. If you're really strung up on finding one, I'm sure you can find what you need at your local radio shack, and if you can't they'll order it for you!

 

You guys act like this is all "new" equipment or technology. If a camera comes out next year...the technology has already been around for years. You guys may be able to run circles around me rattling off all sorts of surveillance equipment and their model numbers and brand names, however at the end of the night it's me, my oscilliscope, my meter, my soldering iron and a schematic that actually fixes that equipment, or equipment like it, or builds similar equipment. Not saying you guys cant, but at this point I can only assume you can't.

 

Surveillance equipment is a very small niche in the world that is electronics. You guys may be **** hot salesmen when it comes to surveillance equipment, but you're not striking me like the type that has even ever taken a camera apart just to look at the insides...but who knows? I've been wrong before.

[Soundy 1]

Well, so far I've found that VLC doesn't view my Vigil ComArt HICAP50B as a "supported device"... so using it on the actual DVR is out.

 

Version 1.0.0-rc3 of VLC on my laptop just locks up when I try to open my Adaptec GameBridge. 0.9.9 just crashes. Version 0.8.6 of VLC sees my GameBridge and shows me the camera video, but information is very limited: View -> Stream and Media Info -> Advanced Information shows me only the Codec (UYVY), the type of stream (video), the capture resolution (740x480), and the frame rate (29.970000). Switching to the Statistics tab, I get the amount of data demuxed, and a stream bitrate that changes with the actual movement in the image.

 

Sorry, but the only relevant data here is actual capture resolution of the capture device, as I stated - nothing that would serve to indicate or even hint at the TVL of the camera itself.

[Soundy 1]

5. "Specifically" search for "Play from an acquisition card" and treat your security camera just as you would a webcam you had no driver for.

 

See, there's where your assumptions fall down: the camera isn't connected to the computer. It's connected to the adapter. The software has to communicate with that adapter, not with the camera. That adapter has no way of knowing the TVL of the camera's sensor, it's just reading the NTSC output of it, 525 lines, 30 times per second (substitute appropriate numbers for PAL, if that's what you're using).

 

For that matter, the assumption also trips over the fact that the sensor itself - which is where your relevant TVL number comes from - doesn't connect directly to the adapter or computer, but to the camera's internals, which generate the 525-line NTSC-standard output.

 

6. Just remember VLC has no set display resolution unless you've configured it that way. It uses the default input to determine resolution.

 

That's correct... in my tests, according to your instructions above, it displays a 740x480 pixel window (plus frame, toolbar, etc.), and states the video resolution as 740x480. I didn't tell it what resolution to use; I didn't give it any configuration other than what adapter to use, and what input pin to use on that adapter.

 

Which means if your desktop display is set to low resolution and your using a high resolution camera...alt + f4 lol.

 

That's the standard Windows key combination to close the current window.

 

Come on now, it's put-up-or-shut-up time.

will you be shutting up now...or am I right in expecting even this wont be good enough for you

 

It would, if it worked. It doesn't.

 

but i'm done hijacking this thread trying to show you something you don't want to believe...even though you've suggested software to other users that is used for this exact purpose.

 

I have?? Where?? What software??

You've never suggested someone look into a software developement kit? ....hmmm http://www.cctvforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=101972&highlight=#101972

heres a clueP:

 

That's got nothing to do with this thread.

 

The only problem I have is that you took a "less technical less accurate" after thought and made me elaborate on it to the point of stupidity.

 

How is this "the point of stupidity"? You claimed true TVL of a camera could be approximately determined using simple software such as VLC, regardless of the intermediate hardware used. I claimed it wasn't possible, you insisted it was, so I asked for the details. What you've provided so far doesn't support your claims, and I still say you're out to lunch.

 

OP-sorry, but again these are instructions for a less than accurate way to get your tvl from a known resolution,

 

Or would be, if this idea worked, but it doesn't.

 

my number one recommendation is still to use an oscilliscope.

 

That's the one thing I agree with.

[Scott Broscious 0]

That adapter has no way of knowing the TVL of the camera's sensor, it's just reading the NTSC output of it, 525 lines, 30 times per second (substitute appropriate numbers for PAL, if that's what you're using).

So, are you saying that the adapter translates the information passed to it into a format usuable by your computer, or are you going to try and tell me that the adapter changes the information in some other way, as ak did.

 

 

Which means if your desktop display is set to low resolution and your using a high resolution camera...alt + f4 lol.

 

That's the standard Windows key combination to close the current window.

No kidding. Did you know this before hand or did you find it out by trial while reading the post or by googling it? Not suprisingly it's a combination you'd have to press if the resolution you're trying to view is higher than your desktop resolution...effectively making it very difficult to close the window any other way.

 

Come on now, it's put-up-or-shut-up time.

will you be shutting up now...or am I right in expecting even this wont be good enough for you

 

It would, if it worked. It doesn't.

You couldn't get it to work, so it doesn't work at all. Good arguement.

 

I'm actually still trying to figure out why you'd try to use a dvr when the purpose of this test was to avoid using a signal other than the one provided by your camera. Which also makes my want to know why you tried using a video game console adapter as well. Sure it'd work with getting the signal to where it had to go, but your not playing video games with VLC, and you also need additional software installed on your computer in order for it to work at all.

 

Also, and this is just for future information, the game adapter your using doens't work with hd signals making your use of it in this test one of those "hardware limitations" I keep speaking of, especially if you tried using a 740*480 resolution or higher...which, at this point, I wouldn't doubt is what you tried to do.

 

but i'm done hijacking this thread trying to show you something you don't want to believe...even though you've suggested software to other users that is used for this exact purpose.

 

I have?? Where?? What software??

You've never suggested someone look into a software developement kit? ....hmmm http://www.cctvforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=101972&highlight=#101972

heres a clueP:

 

That's got nothing to do with this thread.

It's amazing...you've described what hijacking a thread is all about in one sentance. You're right, it has nothing to do with the original point of this thread, but it does have to do with modding firmware...which you expressed disbelief at being able to do...and you did it in this thread.

 

The only problem I have is that you took a "less technical less accurate" after thought and made me elaborate on it to the point of stupidity.

 

How is this "the point of stupidity"? You claimed true TVL of a camera could be approximately determined using simple software such as VLC, regardless of the intermediate hardware used. I claimed it wasn't possible, you insisted it was, so I asked for the details. What you've provided so far doesn't support your claims, and I still say you're out to lunch.

No I never said it was accurate, and I never said regardless of the hardware used. You may want to actually read what is said before disputing it. As a matter of fact I said the exact opposite.

 

Also, VLC is not "simple" software. It may have a simple interface but if it were "simple" software I'd hope that you'd be able to use it. What I've provided does support my claims, by your own words. It's not my fault that you're not able to get it to work properly.

 

I have done nothing with the program lately so I can't point you to where you went wrong, however VLC is well documented software, so I'm sure if you looked hard enough you'd be able to find out where you screwed up by yourself.

 

 

OP-sorry, but again these are instructions for a less than accurate way to get your tvl from a known resolution,

 

Or would be, if this idea worked, but it doesn't.

Again, you can't get it to work, so it doesn't. Good arguement. If a squad of marines, which I was part of, can throw this solution together well over 5 years ago and have it work beautifully during our GBS testing there's no reason you shouldn't be able to get it to work today.

 

my number one recommendation is still to use an oscilliscope.

 

That's the one thing I agree with.

Good. Because it was the only reason I posted to this thread. But again you wanted to tear into a "less accurate less technical" after thought. Unfortunately for the OP you've added nothing to this thread. The closest thing resembling a contribution from you was a link to how a company tests their equipment. Information I provided him in my very first post. Unfortunately, at this point, I'm not impressed with what you agree with any more.

 

Im beginning to think that I was right about the salesmen thing. Soundy...tell me...if it wasn't in the owners manual for your equipment, would you still be able to explain the function of the automatic gain control, or any one of the other dozens of features your cameras are capable of, without using google?

 

since you guys seem to only want to impress with your vast knowledge of surveillance equipment and the exactness of your numbers (29.970000 lol the accepted number is 30fps) lets try and remember that that 740*480 pixel resolution is actually 740*486 and is actually lower than both of those numbers by the time it gets to a viewable format....otherwise when the real techies start showing up you're going to be in the same position you are now. Assed out claiming "I cant get it to work so it doesn't work".

 

Your entire arguement is based around your idea that ive claimed vlc would be acccurate...yet i didn't say that anywhere in this thread, so your entire arguement has been a waste of time for everyone thats posted in this thread.

 

You expressed disbeleif in the vlc after thought from the start of this thread, then you expressed disbelief that the embedded software in your hardware could be modified (even though you've suggestion the use of the same exact type of software in the past...though it was for a different purpose), then you express disbelief that you can get the video to vlc at all and I showed you how, you were even able to do it, and now you want to turn it into an arguement that vlc doesnt show you the exact resolution or shows incorrect resolution when you're trying to use external hardware which limits the resolution and probably have never used vlc for this purpose prior to trying to prove how wrong I am.

 

Stick to one arguement at a time and stick to argueing things you understand without having to refer to documentation, or a list of step by step instructions, in order to do it. I only suggest this because it seems as if you've some how confused yourself. If I'm wrong in guaging the need for these suggestions...usually I'd say sorry for this misunderstanding, but I'm not going to do that this time. "Difficult" people sometimes deserve to be treated in a "difficult" mannor.

 

You've claimed i said hardware was irrelevant and have yet to shown me where i said it, you've said I said the vlc suggestion was accurate or you could use it to get true tvl, regardless of the hardware used, and you'll fail to show me where I said that as well...because, again, I've never said the hardware is irrelevant or that this method was accurate.

 

What I did with the vlc suggestion was show you how to get the resolution of an image produced by your camera, and then use that to determine the approximate tvl used to get that resolution. I literally said the only accurate way I knew of measuring this was with an oscilliscope, any other suggestion was laced with words that specifically said less than accurate. I have been told I rely on the common sense people should have far to often. I guess this is one of those situations. For everyones benefit - less than accurate is not the same thing as accurate.

 

 

 

Finally I can say I'm done with this thread, because even with specific instructions you still attempt to circumvent what I've said by introducting external hardware that has its own specific software in order to even operate correctly, and then try to use this information to debunk what I've said. The data you received from your test stopped being close to the data you may have gotten via the method I suggested you use the minute you plugged in an adapter that a) has its own operating software and b.) possibly tried passing hd thru hardware can't handle hd. You've shown nothing but that you have limited knowledge of electronics (again surveillance equipment :: electronics as small :: large), limited knowledge of software, and limited knowledge of how they work together. If you require any further information to ease your ignorance....google is a wonderful tool. If I believed you were doing anything other than trying to continee this conversation in order to disprove my suggestion (otherwise why haven't you shown me where I've said the things you've based your entire arguement on, and why have you deliberately decided to alter my instructions on how to go about doing what I've suggested) then I'd have no problem wasting more of my time to help you do otherwise.

[Soundy 1]

That adapter has no way of knowing the TVL of the camera's sensor, it's just reading the NTSC output of it, 525 lines, 30 times per second (substitute appropriate numbers for PAL, if that's what you're using).

So, are you saying that the adapter translates the information passed to it into a format usuable by your computer, or are you going to try and tell me that the adapter changes the information in some other way, as ak did.

 

I'm saying the adapter has no way of knowing the TVL capabilities of the sensor.

 

Which means if your desktop display is set to low resolution and your using a high resolution camera...alt + f4 lol.

 

That's the standard Windows key combination to close the current window.

No kidding. Did you know this before hand or did you find it out by trial while reading the post or by googling it? Not suprisingly it's a combination you'd have to press if the resolution you're trying to view is higher than your desktop resolution...effectively making it very difficult to close the window any other way.

 

I've actually known that since about Windows 3.0 and OS/2 2.0. So no, I didn't have to try it or google it. How is closing the window supposed to help me if it's displaying video at a higher resolution than my desktop? Minimizing it maybe, or de-maximizing it, might help. Closing it won't, unless those keys are given a different function on some specific software.

 

Come on now, it's put-up-or-shut-up time.

will you be shutting up now...or am I right in expecting even this wont be good enough for you

 

It would, if it worked. It doesn't.

You couldn't get it to work, so it doesn't work at all. Good arguement.

 

Well, I followed your instructions to the letter. VLC doesn't do what you claim it does.

 

If you know how to get it to do what you say it should, then either provide better instructions, or better yet, use a screen-recorder utility to make a video showing how it's done (with the TVL display).

 

I'm actually still trying to figure out why you'd try to use a dvr when the purpose of this test was to avoid using a signal other than the one provided by your camera.

 

I thought the idea was to do it using a signal other than the one recorded by the DVR software. You say this should work with any hardware, so why not the DVR capture card? Or does it only work with single-input USB adapters?

 

And BTW... what other signal am I supposed to be using here, if not the one provided by the camera? I want to know the TVL of that camera, is it not required to then use the video coming out of that camera?

 

Which also makes my want to know why you tried using a video game console adapter as well. Sure it'd work with getting the signal to where it had to go, but your not playing video games with VLC, and you also need additional software installed on your computer in order for it to work at all.

 

I do? What additional software would that be? This is not a gaming adapter; this is a USB-connected video-input-and-tuner adapter that's marketed specifically for playing and capturing video games via your PC display. The "game" component of it is a marketing term only.

 

Yet more proof you're talking out your arse - you claim this process is entirely dependent on the software and should work the same with any hardware, but then you tell me all the hardware I'm using is wrong, when you obviously don't even know what the hardware is.

 

Also, and this is just for future information, the game adapter your using doens't work with hd signals making your use of it in this test one of those "hardware limitations" I keep speaking of, especially if you tried using a 740*480 resolution or higher...which, at this point, I wouldn't doubt is what you tried to do.

 

What HD signals am I trying it with? This NLC5700 doesn't output HD, it outputs NTSC SD video. And again, I never specified any resolution for it to use.

 

 

I have done nothing with the program lately so I can't point you to where you went wrong, however VLC is well documented software, so I'm sure if you looked hard enough you'd be able to find out where you screwed up by yourself.

 

Wow... that's a great cop-out. "Hey, this will work if you follow these instructions"... "Okay, you followed the instructions I gave you and it doesn't work, so obviously YOU screwed up... but hey, I haven't actually used it for a long time... but it's still YOUR fault."

 

since you guys seem to only want to impress with your vast knowledge of surveillance equipment and the exactness of your numbers (29.970000 lol the accepted number is 30fps)

 

Hey, I was just quoting what VLC told me. My bad for not including a screenshot. And BTW, 30fps is only accurate for black-and-white NTSC video. 29.97 is the commonly-accepted approximation for 30fps drop-frame for NTSC color video.

 

Your entire arguement is based around your idea that ive claimed vlc would be acccurate...

 

No, it's based on your claim that VLC could easily reveal at least an approximation of the TVL resolution of the camera sensor.

 

yet i didn't say that anywhere in this thread, so your entire arguement has been a waste of time for everyone thats posted in this thread.

 

Umm, sorry... the whole point of the thread was to determine the "actual" TVL resolution of a CCTV camera sensor. You claim it's possible to do , at least approximately, with VLC. So far, you've been unable to prove that theory. THAT is where the waste of time comes in.

 

Stick to one arguement at a time and stick to argueing things you understand without having to refer to documentation, or a list of step by step instructions, in order to do it.

 

I followed YOUR step by step instructions in an effort to substantiate YOUR claims. If I do it by my own methods, that doesn't do anything for your claims. Thus, I use YOUR method.

 

Finally I can say I'm done with this thread, because even with specific instructions you still attempt to circumvent what I've said by introducting external hardware that has its own specific software in order to even operate correctly,

 

The GameBridge requires no specific software. VLC accesses it via its own DirectShow drivers.

 

The burden of proof is still on you to substantiate your own claims. I tried a method you said would work, and then within the same response you dismiss the attempts as me not knowing what I'm doing, stated I'm not using the correct hardware, and then berated me for using YOUR procedure.

 

You've contradicted yourself repeatedly throughout this discourse and seem to be operating by the theory, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$#!t." Well sorry, I'm neither dazzled nor baffled.

 

You want to be useful? Fire up a screen recorder, load up your VLC, and put a video up on YouTube for us showing exactly how this will work. Until then, it's just smoke and mirrors.

 

Oh, but I forgot, you're done with this thread. So we'll see no proof of your claims, and you can sit back and back in your superiority. Well, enjoy that.

[Scott Broscious 0]

I think the reason I keep coming back is because you keep saying the funniest things. It's almost like I'm hooked on finding out what you're going to say next. Case in point:

Well, I followed your instructions to the letter.

No you didn't. Tell me where in my instructions did I say to use a card like your old hicap, nor did I say to use an adapter with it's own software....though I really wasn't to specific on this. I guess I relied to heavily on your understanding of electronics.

 

This one was funny too:

Minimizing it maybe, or de-maximizing it, might help

In this case minimizing and "demaximizing" are the same thing...cpt redundant strikes again.

 

Question: You've been using windows since 3.0 yet call it de-maximizing? I know people that have been computer literate for less than a year that know its called minimizing, and children in grade school that know de-maximizing isn't a word (hyphenated or otherwise).

 

Another question-how do you minimize a window when the resolution of that window is greater than that of your screen? Unless you get lucky and the title bar is on screen alt + f4 is your friend...maybe you would have been more comfortable with either the ctrl + tab or alt + space + n routes? Personally i like alt +f4, which is why I suggested it.

 

On to the next electronics lesson:

 

 

What additional software would that be? This is not a gaming adapter; this is a USB-connected video-input-and-tuner adapter that's marketed specifically for playing and capturing video games via your PC display. The "game" component of it is a marketing term only.

Here's where the fun comes in. I've barney styled it just for you!

 

Unplug every wire to that game adapter. Hold it above your head. Say to yourself, "there are dozens (dont know if this is correct id have to take it apart to be sure, but its a decent guess considering the function) of circuits in this piece of electronic equipment, and any one of these circuits (though its more likely that they all do) may have programmable components that determine how these components operate within the limitations decided by the circuits design and I know for a fact that there is software (aka firmware) installed which governs the operation this equipment."

 

As another example, to help you understand it a bit better, pick up the camera you tried testing my "theory" on, hold it above your head...shake it and say confidently "THERE IS SOFTWARE (aka firmware)IN THIS CAMERA"

 

Are we getting it yet? You seem to think software is limited to what you put on your computer. Any electronic device, even something as simple as a digital watch, has programmable components. some can be programmed electronically by just passing voltage thru them (like a digital watch), others require the use of prewritten code (from here on out you should know that software is just code or computer langauge...you know the 1's and 0's you described as babbling lol).

 

This wasnt the case with the all the technology when you grew up (remember when I said circuits from 20 years ago can't compete with those made today), however as the hardware gets smaller (because we find better ways to do things) more and more code is included. (this statement is only partially true, the simpler the design, or intended function, the less likely there is a need for anything to be programmable)

 

I'd like to thank you for explaining that the "gaming' part in the adapters name is only a marketing tactic. With all my statements saying surveillance equipment is a small niche in electronics I'd have figured you knew that I understood what marketing was all about. BTW gaming is a small niche in electronics as well.

 

Yet more proof you're talking out your arse - you claim this process is entirely dependent on the software and should work the same with any hardware, but then you tell me all the hardware I'm using is wrong, when you obviously don't even know what the hardware is.

Nope again show me where I said anything about it being dependant on the software. In fact I said use vlc or another media player like it...and went on to say maybe windows media player...but I guess I can get where you'd think that meant this process was dependant on software (hopefully the sarcasm is easily read in that statement).

 

Personally I think you have an issue with understanding written language, because there have been 3 things you've accused me of saying which are written nowhere in this thread.

 

Also, I dare to say that I know more about that adapter than you do. If I came to you with only the circuit board, having snapped off any connection points, would you be able to tell me what it was? Judging by what I know of you...I'd say you couldn't do it if I sat there waiting for the answer forever.

 

 

the TVL capabilities of the sensor.

This is the second time you've used this phrase, and I've let you go with saying it because we're dealing with video cameras and i know what your "TRYING" to say. I find it important to let you know:

 

An image sensor does nothing but turn light into voltage. The only ways it affects the final image are: larger image sensors catch more light (more light more info) and different formats can change field of view. The circuit(s) that turn the voltage created by the sensor into a usuable signal is what "determines" the bandwidth required to carry that signal. This explaination is barney styled to death.

 

 

 

 

 

What HD signals am I trying it with? This NLC5700 doesn't output HD, it outputs NTSC SD video. And again, I never specified any resolution for it to use.

ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU ARE ARENT YOU?

 

 

Lets deal with the trivial first - If vlc media player opened up at 740*480, a resolution was specified. It didn't just make that number up. Computer computations are rarely incorrect, and computers are incapable of acting out of thier own volition.

 

Now that I have the final peice of the puzzle-

 

740*480 pixel resolution is the same vertical resolution as ntsc sd (640*480 to 720*486 depending on the source) and ntsc sd has how many visible horizontal lines? 480. How many tvl is your camera is capable of pushing out? I could find out myself if I had more than a model number which means absolutely nothing to me.

 

If you dont mind, Id rarther not here the answer you think it is. Use the test pattern and instructions here (unless you can do this with an oscilloscope...then use that)-

http://www.adata.co.uk/TVLs.pdf

Not the ones from the white paper you used.

 

As long as you can follow instructions you should have no hard time telling us whats what with your camera.

 

Oh, but I forgot, you're done with this thread. So we'll see no proof of your claims, and you can sit back and back in your superiority. Well, enjoy that

I came to this thread trying to help. You turned this into some sort of test...not me. Edited June 16, 2009 by Guest

[Soundy 1]

I think the reason I keep coming back is because you keep saying the funniest things. It's almost like I'm hooked on finding out what you're going to say next. Case in point:

Well, I followed your instructions to the letter.

No you didn't. Tell me where in my instructions did I say to use a card like your old hicap, nor did I say to use an adapter with it's own software....

 

At the top of this page:

 

ak357: "Can i ask u for model number, brand name of your USB adpter please"

 

you: "Yeah let me pull a USB adapter out of my ass. We're not dealing with specialized gear here. It may be a security camera, but its only a camara. Any bnc-usb, and rca-usb, and cat5-usb will do the trick."

 

Again, the GameBridge is not "an adapter with it's own software". It's an S-video/composite/audio-to-USB capture adapter marketed for a specific use. The only "software" that's specific to it are its own drivers, which conform to DirectShow spec, which is what VLC uses to talk to it.

 

This one was funny too:

Minimizing it maybe, or de-maximizing it, might help

In this case minimizing and "demaximizing" are the same thing...cpt redundant strikes again.

 

Uhh... what?

 

Minimizing - clears the window from the screen, generally removes it to the taskbar, but leaves the program running.

 

Maximizing - enlarges the window to fill the screen.

 

De-maximizing - reduces the window to its previous size and position, as it was before maximizing.

 

Another question-how do you minimize a window when the resolution of that window is greater than that of your screen? Unless you get lucky and the title bar is on screen alt + f4 is your friend...maybe you would have been more comfortable with either the ctrl + tab or alt + space + n routes? Personally i like alt +f4, which is why I suggested it.

 

Umm... alt-f4 will CLOSE THE PROGRAM. That is NOT minimizing.

 

[much more nonsensical rambling trimmed.... seriously, get back to the brilliance you've shown in some other posts, leave this BS behind]

 

What HD signals am I trying it with? This NLC5700 doesn't output HD, it outputs NTSC SD video. And again, I never specified any resolution for it to use.

ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU ARE ARENT YOU?

 

 

Lets deal with the trivial first - If vlc media player opened up at 740*480, a resolution was specified. It didn't just make that number up.

 

Well, I would assume it got that resolution from the adapter. All I'm saying is *I* did not specify the resolution. The adapter is spitting out the signal it wants to spit out, VLC is grabbing that and displaying it at the resolution it's provided at. The only time I need to tell the media player what resolution to use is if I don't want to use the adapter's native resolution. And even then, the video signal isn't changed, it's just displayed scaled-down.

 

Oh, but I forgot, you're done with this thread. So we'll see no proof of your claims, and you can sit back and back in your superiority. Well, enjoy that

I came to this thread trying to help. You turned this into some sort of test...not me.

 

That's because you made some BS claims that I felt it necessary to dispute.

 

This is what it comes down to: you've stated that any media-player software - using VLC as an example - should be capable of providing at least an approximation of the true TVL output of a CCTV camera, using any readily-available capture device.

 

I maintain that this is simply not possible.

 

Since I'm obviously too stupid to figure out how to make it work, it's back to you to demonstrate it for us. A video camera and screen recorder will make quick work of putting together a little video for the rest of the gang. If you're right, you get the joy of not only making me eat my words, but actually providing a useful resource for the rest of the CCTVFORUM community. So... have at it.

 

(BTW, bet I can predict your next response.... you don't have the time to do this for all us ungrateful louts, if we can't figure out how to do it we don't deserve to be able to do it ourselves, any number of other condescending dismissive statements to get out of having to prove yourself... all boiling down to another cop-out)

 

With that, *I'M* out of this discussion. All your arguing and baiting and insulting do nothing to prove your point, they're just more bafflegab. You can prove your statements 100% with a simple exercise, so do it.

 

Until then...

[Scott Broscious 0]

At the top of this page:

 

ak357: "Can i ask u for model number, brand name of your USB adpter please"

 

you: "Yeah let me pull a USB adapter out of my ass. We're not dealing with specialized gear here. It may be a security camera, but its only a camara. Any bnc-usb, and rca-usb, and cat5-usb will do the trick."

The number ONE reason I suggest you read a bit better. You like to take things out of context and then argue your misconception.

 

At the bottom of the first page you'll see what prompted that statement :

 

USB Adapters do nothing but convert information into a format ready for your computer. This is read by your computer as 1's and 0's, not tvl or

 

 

Can i ask u for model number, brand name of your USB adapter please

Which is when I said any usb adapter would work. Basically I was saying a normal old adapter found at radio shack would do the trick if his adapter was doing something other than the name implies. Which could happen if there were design limitations or firmware installed. You may want to reread that part of the discussion.

 

Umm... alt-f4 will CLOSE THE PROGRAM.

Alt + f4 closes the CURRENT WINDOW. Look it up. I like that you're so confident about it though.

 

Either way that was was more of a reference to the situation you'd be in. Which is why I finished the statement "...alt + 4 lol" instead of finishing my sentance like this one. Alt + f4 was referenced because that is what I would do.

 

Minimizing, no matter how you do it, wouldn't even resolve your issue anyway. It'd be a temporary solution because when you maximize that window again...you're still in the same boat as you were before.

 

 

I maintain that this is simply not possible.

 

Since I'm obviously too stupid to figure out how to make it work, it's back to you to demonstrate it for us

LOL

That's correct... in my tests, according to your instructions above, it displays a 740x480 pixel window

A bit later you revealed this.

This NLC5700 doesn't output HD, it outputs NTSC SD video

740*480 pixel resolution is the same vertical resolution as ntsc sd (640*480 to 720*486 depending on the source) and ntsc sd has how many visible horizontal lines? 480. How many tvl is your camera is capable of pushing out?

 

 

Though I'm still waiting on an answer to my question. I doubt that will come as you've yet to answer ANY of the questions I've asked you. You just seem to like to dance around them.

 

 

De-maximizing - reduces the window to its previous size and position, as it was before maximizing.

Who's trying to dazzle with bull**** now? The control you're describing is called "restore down"...not demaximize. Edited June 16, 2009 by Guest

[Soundy 1]

Though I'm still waiting on an answer to my question. I doubt that will come as you've yet to answer ANY of the questions I've asked you. You just seem to like to dance around them.

 

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

Like I said, until you provide the video proof to back up your claims, I'm out of the discussion.

[Scott Broscious 0]

Though I'm still waiting on an answer to my question. I doubt that will come as you've yet to answer ANY of the questions I've asked you. You just seem to like to dance around them.

 

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

Like I said, until you provide the video proof to back up your claims, I'm out of the discussion.

First thing-show me a question you've asked that I've yet to answer. You're not going to be able to because like everything else you've accused me of saying...its nowhere in this thread. instead of the outcome you want, your attempt to discredit me, you only succeed in dancing around another question. Exactly how many dances do you know?

 

Second thing-How long have you been working in this small niche of electronics? No video proof is needed. I thought this was made blatently obvious my last post when I rhetorically asked you how many tvl your camera was capable of pushing out.

 

Lets start out at the beginning where this all started, hopefully you can follow along if its all in one post:

 

I said- Thats not even considering the fact that you can hook your camera directly up to your computer, even if its not an ip camera (in most cases only needing an adapter), and view the image generated directly thru vlc or a program like it. vlc (and other similar programs) is a less technical, less accurate, means of verifying that your image is as you were told it would be. You were told the camera is capable of 720*480? Well vlc, and programs like it, will verify this....is it accurate? No! But is it better than guessing and hoping that your system is pushing out what you think it is? Yes!

 

*It was around this time that, even though its obvious that during this barney styled explaination I said "or a program like it", you started thinking that I said this method was dependant on the software. Again I can only suggest you read more instead of trying to interpret your own meaning. or ask clarifying questions so that you can be sure that the arguement you're about to start is based upon the idea the poster was trying to express...otherwise you're left argueing semantics*

 

you said-If your capture hardware can only capture at 320x240, then how is the software going to determine TVL resolution beyond 240 lines?

 

Which is where you started getting off track for the first time. The method I described never said anything at all about capture hardware. We're measuring the resolution produced by the output signal of your camera to determine the related tvl. No capture hardware is used unless you want to think of your usb adapter or usb port as "capture" hardware...but saying that is a real stretch.

 

i then provided these instructions to your continued questions (oddly enough showing just how much **** your statement, in your post preceeding this one, is full of) which say nothing about a capture card/hardware other than pointing you to the part of the vlc documention that would instruct you on how to set vlc up to accept streaming video from your camera-

1. Take your camera and equip it with its appropriate usb adapter.

2. Plug said usb adapter into your computer.

3. Open your latest version of vlc.

4. follow this link http://www.videolan.org/doc/play-howto/en/ch03.html

5. "Specifically" search for "Play from an acquisition card" and treat your security camera just as you would a webcam you had no driver for. Or in other words no driver...no options to configure.

 

you said-in my tests, according to your instructions above, it displays a 740x480 pixel window (plus frame, toolbar, etc.), and states the video resolution as 740x480 indicating that yes vlc will give you the output pixel resolution of your camera just as I said it would. It wasn't until later that I found out that this resolution was accurate, despite your choice of adapter.

 

you also said-This NLC5700 outputs NTSC SD video which told me the vlc resolution you saw was indeed accurate...again despite yur use of a band limiting adapter.

 

*It's important to note that had you used a hd signal then your game adapter would have limited the output....which is why I first argued about your use of this hardware. Up until you dropped the bomb regarding the output of your camera I had assumed you'd try a hd camera....I assumed this because had I chosen to disprove this method it's exactly what I would have done as the usb port would be the limiting hardware. FYI-if you want to descredit a method in the future go for the weakest link, which in my method is the usb port.*

 

I replied-740*480 pixel resolution is the same vertical resolution as ntsc sd (640*480 to 720*486 depending on the source) and ntsc sd has how many visible horizontal lines? 480. How many tvl is your camera is capable of pushing out?

 

My educated guess was that this answer was somewhere around 480TVL, indicated thru my answer for the belittling question I asked previously.

 

I had doubts you'd answer my question regarding the tvl of your camera, because you've danced around any other question asked, and I was right. Instead of answering my question you resorted to childish word games- "Pot, meet kettle".

 

So I researched your camera for myself. Well...I've found the camera I think you're using. If this is the correct camera then the answer to my question is 470TVL, per documentation which I seldom rely on as accurate, but I'll go with it this time since I have no physical access to this camera to test it myself and couldn't find the schematics anywhere.

 

Hmm seems my method worked. It showed you the resolution that the camera was producing, which was 740*480 by you're own words, which should have gavin you all the information you needed to estimate TVL (480) used to create that pixel resolution.

 

As I've already said, this method isn't accurate (480 isn't 470 but its damn close and almost visually impossible to tell the difference between the two on any display used). Though with the way this was tested I'm happy with the result. But why did I introduce this "after thought" as inaccurate? Because it doesn't take into consideration any band limit/amplification imposed by the hardware/software used and because tvl and pixel resolution are only relative...not the same thing, so it can't be used by itself to determine exact tvl (but then again i never said exact tvl could be gotten via this method...hence the use of the word "inaccurate"), you need further knowledge to do that, it only gives you the output pixel resolution (like i said it did) that you can use to base the rest of your answer on.

 

The point is even if we weren't able to estimate the tvl with the pixel resolution produced like you have proven we can (well actually it was me that did that...you failed to see the relation between the two" the OP's original question ("how do I measure the cameras resolution or tvl") would still have been answered by this suggestion as the resolution was easily found by you using the method I described. You turned this into measuring only tvl. So I continued with the explainations, dependant on your questions and even in the face of the fact that you were blatently trying to discredit me. I even asked you a question of my own so that we could see how this pixel resolution relates to actual tvl.

 

You need to stop trying to bait people into positions that will allow you to discredit them in a (perceived) attempt to establish yourself as the only authority on the subject.

 

 

Like I said before, keep doing this and when the real techies show up you're going to be stuck being assed out claiming "I can't get it to work so it doesn't" Maybe had you said i fail to see the connection between generated pixel resolutions and actual tvl this conversation could have gone a completely different way...but no, you decided to argue a subject which you only have a passing comprehension of. Surveillance equipment may be your world...but the electronics that make that equipment work is mine.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Guest