Arecont/Win2k??

[cglaeser 0]

Also, I've got it in for manufacturers that list their B/W sensitivity as "0 Lux, IR sensitive" ....useless BS!

 

Yes, useless. If you want to say the camera is IR sensitive, then just say the camera is IR sensitive. The B/W minimum lux rating should be stated with an associated shutter speed, without an IR source.

 

Honestly, I think this is an area where the FTC and/or state attorneys general should require some minimum standard for reporting security camera lux values. In my opinion, companies should not be allowed to specify a lux value without an associated shutter speed.

 

Best,

Christopher

[thewireguys 3]

My distributor said 9/22 for the WV-NP502. I am also talking to Axis to see if I can get a demo of the P3344.

[cglaeser 0]

My distributor said 9/22 for the WV-NP502.

 

What is the cost to end users?

 

Best,

Christopher

[hardwired 0]

Just got the bulletin on that one... Here you go

 

http://www.psdn.info/psdn/bulletins/PanasonicBulletinPN2009-11_WV-NP502i-ProFixedCamera.pdf

[thewireguys 3]

My distributor said 9/22 for the WV-NP502.

 

What is the cost to end users?

 

Best,

Christopher

 

looks like $1,415 plus lenses and housing for outdoor use. But I could see this camera selling for around $1000.00

[cglaeser 0]

looks like $1,415 plus lenses and housing for outdoor use. But I could see this camera selling for around $1000.00

 

Just reviewed the PowerPoint presentation. Sweet. I want one.

 

Best,

Christopher

[thewireguys 3]

I watched it myself and I am not that impressed. For what you are using it for it will be fine but only "JPEG only" at 3 megapixel mode isn't gonna work for us. The Arecont 3130/3135 will give you higher fame rates with H.264 compression.

[DoorMan 0]

All Japanese camera manufacturers are bound governmentally by the same testing methods/parameters to derive specifications. From this you can take some assurance in the performance of these cams.....

[cglaeser 0]

From this you can take some assurance in the performance of these cams.....

 

How can I be assured of the performance when they don't specify the performance? I'm not suggesting their numbers are wrong; I'm suggesting they don't give meaningful numbers. 0.05 lux doesn't mean anything without a shutter speed. Is that 1/60? 1/30? 2 seconds? There is a huge difference between 0.05 lux at 1/60 and 0.05 lux at 2 seconds. So, 0.05 lux doesn't mean squat by itself.

 

Oh, and by the way, some manufacturers actually use a shutter speed of 2 seconds to measure their lux ratings, which I suppose is useful if you need to watch mold grow at night.

 

Best,

Christopher

 

"This one goes to eleven." -- Spinal Tap

[DoorMan 0]

Well..Like I said above there. You would need to acquire the test parameters set forth by the gov't testing agency. Therefore the comparison would be clear between Japanese cameras atleast....

 

After speaking directly with Sony Pro that is the truth as they know it to be . Specifying lux value, an IRE, an AGC and an F value is enough to determine a brighter camera from a darker one given the same fixed shutter speed and color temperature.

 

I'll have a look around here to find the test method sent to me...

[cglaeser 0]

I watched it myself and I am not that impressed. For what you are using it for it will be fine but only "JPEG only" at 3 megapixel mode isn't gonna work for us. The Arecont 3130/3135 will give you higher fame rates with H.264 compression.

 

I haven't tested the Arecont 3130 and the Panasonic 502 isn't even shipping yet, so this is shooting from the hip, but the Panasonic could come out on top for the following reasons.

 

For many applications, low light night performance is a priority. The 3130 uses a 1.3 mp sensor at night. The 502 uses a 3 mp sensor for day and night. And, although the 502 H.264 is not 3 mp, the even/odd pixels of the 3 mp sensor are combined to significantly increase the dynamic range. Night scenes are notorious for an extremely wide dynamic range (e.g. cars under the street light are significantly brighter than cars beyond the street lights). So, it is possible for the 502 to have significantly more detail compared to other more conventional 1.3 mp sensors. And, of course, as you point out, the 3 mp jpg stills are also available via a separate stream.

 

In summary, if the minimum lux levels of the 3130 and 502 are comparable (which remains to be seen given that the 3130 does not use an rgp bayer pattern at night and has a 1/2" sensor), it's quite possible the 502 could come out on top at night.

 

Of course, much of this is speculation.

 

Best,

Christopher

[hardwired 0]

There was a key point there in mentioning standards as set forth by the Japanese manufacturers, in that I think you would be hard pressed to get suppliers from other offshore countries to be as truthful, and without enforcing third party testing, the printed specs would only be worth the paper it is printed on.

 

Nonetheless, I think we may be looking at this question from the wrong end, perhaps we need to be looking at raw imager capability, like scientific / astronomical cameras specify. That seems to be a more reproducible, quantifiable standard than anything supplied for our industry.

[Soundy 1]

Well, back (somewhat) to the original bent of the thread... I've just finished bench-testing the last of the seven AV3155DNs, and found a little QC issue...

 

This is how the mounting ring for the "yaw" control is supposed to be attached, using four screws around the upper ring, looking something like this:

 

 

And this is how three of the four screws look on this camera, out of the box:

 

 

It appears the three screws were inserted BEFORE the top ring was in place... an easy fix - take out the one screw holding it all together, remove the ring, remove the other screws, put everything back in the correct order - but still troubling. The holes were NOT stripped, mind you, or broken; the screws were NOT pulled through them... they screws were simply installed before the ring was in place.

 

Normally this would be cause to send the camera back to the factory, but it's supposed to be installed tomorrow on a job that's already been delayed three weeks because the cameras took so long to get shipped... and another delay would probably give the contractor a heart attack!

 

(On a side note, these snaps were taken with my phone's camera under a 20W halogen desk lamp... pretty damn impressed with the picture!)

Edited August 26, 2009 by Guest

[thewireguys 3]

Well, back (somewhat) to the original bent of the thread... I've just finished bench-testing the last of the seven AV3155DNs, and found a little QC issue...

 

This is how the mounting ring for the "yaw" control is supposed to be attached, using four screws around the upper ring, looking something like this:

 

 

And this is how three of the four screws look on this camera, out of the box:

 

 

It appears the three screws were inserted BEFORE the top ring was in place... an easy fix - take out the one screw holding it all together, remove the ring, remove the other screws, put everything back in the correct order - but still troubling.

 

Thanks for that Soundy I will open mine up and check it out

[Soundy 1]

Thanks for that Soundy I will open mine up and check it out

 

It's not hard to miss - with this arrangement, the camera itself flops around pretty loosely in its mount. You can't adjust the "tilt" movement at all without it being painfully obvious something is amiss.

[hardwired 0]

I got (4) AV5155DN's for a job a while back. They will be the last I order. Problems were that the first batch sent out did not have the "yaw" adjustment at all, due to a initial manufacturing problem, and they were sent with really poor lenses.

 

Arecont did, after some discussion, send new lenses, requiring another visit to the job site, and that's when I discovered what I consider to be the biggest flaw: the dome cover is HORRIBLY distorted... worse than any fifty dollar offshore dome.

 

If you happen to have one, hold it up and turn it as you look through it... Really bad. Creates areas of bad focus in the field of view, you have to keep turning it to find the best spot.

 

Also, do any of you really try to stuff that ferrite bead in there, or do you just leave it off?

[thewireguys 3]

I got (4) AV5155DN's for a job a while back. They will be the last I order. Problems were that the first batch sent out did not have the "yaw" adjustment at all, due to a initial manufacturing problem, and they were sent with really poor lenses.

 

Arecont did, after some discussion, send new lenses, requiring another visit to the job site, and that's when I discovered what I consider to be the biggest flaw: the dome cover is HORRIBLY distorted... worse than any fifty dollar offshore dome.

 

If you happen to have one, hold it up and turn it as you look through it... Really bad. Creates areas of bad focus in the field of view, you have to keep turning it to find the best spot.

 

Also, do any of you really try to stuff that ferrite bead in there, or do you just leave it off?

 

When I was at training Arecont admitted to these problems and said they have since been rectified.

[skane 0]

I got (4) AV5155DN's ...

 

Also, do any of you really try to stuff that ferrite bead in there, or do you just leave it off?

 

I don't use the bead, or the foam... just makes the dome more cramped. I also use a right angle connector for the network port to avoid sharp bends in the cable within the dome.

[Soundy 1]

I got (4) AV5155DN's for a job a while back. They will be the last I order. Problems were that the first batch sent out did not have the "yaw" adjustment at all, due to a initial manufacturing problem, and they were sent with really poor lenses.

 

Arecont did, after some discussion, send new lenses, requiring another visit to the job site, and that's when I discovered what I consider to be the biggest flaw: the dome cover is HORRIBLY distorted... worse than any fifty dollar offshore dome.

 

If you happen to have one, hold it up and turn it as you look through it... Really bad. Creates areas of bad focus in the field of view, you have to keep turning it to find the best spot.

 

Also, do any of you really try to stuff that ferrite bead in there, or do you just leave it off?

 

When I was at training Arecont admitted to these problems and said they have since been rectified.

 

Which ones? The bad domes? The "missing" yaw adjustments? The mis-installed screws? The more I read, the more concerned I get about their QA/QC - what other problems can I expect to run across with these things? They're already installing software I don't want, without even asking permission... wonder what's next??

 

My coworker has a few more rants about these things after today... not the least of which is the use of stainless-steel bolts to mount them to their pendants - when you're supporting a camera 40' off the ground and trying to balance the mounting screws on your driver, it would be really nice if they would actually hold to a magnet. All manufacturers who use stainless or other non-magnetic screws for this sort of INTERNAL location should be lined up and shot.

 

BTW, I'm interested in others' experiences with those ferrite beads as well - we've been putting them on, JUST IN CASE, but man, what a PITA to cram them inside the housings! Never needed them on any other IP cams, so I'm wondering what the deal is with these?

[Soundy 1]

I got (4) AV5155DN's ...

 

Also, do any of you really try to stuff that ferrite bead in there, or do you just leave it off?

 

I don't use the bead, or the foam... just makes the dome more cramped. I also use a right angle connector for the network port to avoid sharp bends in the cable within the dome.

 

Right-angle crimp-on RJ45s?? That would be handy! Never seen that!

 

Hey, here's another one for the rant list: the position of the network jack on these 3155s makes it unnecessarily difficult for anyone with even marginally thick fingers to unplug the cable, the gap between the locking tab and the housing is so narrow. How hard would it have been to rotate the thing 90 degrees?? I'd hate to try it with a patch cable with the rubber shroud over the tab.

 

This whole product line looks like a classic case of engineers slapping things together with no clue as to actually USING the product.

[thewireguys 3]

I got (4) AV5155DN's for a job a while back. They will be the last I order. Problems were that the first batch sent out did not have the "yaw" adjustment at all, due to a initial manufacturing problem, and they were sent with really poor lenses.

 

Arecont did, after some discussion, send new lenses, requiring another visit to the job site, and that's when I discovered what I consider to be the biggest flaw: the dome cover is HORRIBLY distorted... worse than any fifty dollar offshore dome.

 

If you happen to have one, hold it up and turn it as you look through it... Really bad. Creates areas of bad focus in the field of view, you have to keep turning it to find the best spot.

 

Also, do any of you really try to stuff that ferrite bead in there, or do you just leave it off?

 

When I was at training Arecont admitted to these problems and said they have since been rectified.

 

Which ones? The bad domes? The "missing" yaw adjustments? The mis-installed screws? The more I read, the more concerned I get about their QA/QC - what other problems can I expect to run across with these things? They're already installing software I don't want, without even asking permission... wonder what's next??

 

My coworker has a few more rants about these things after today... not the least of which is the use of stainless-steel bolts to mount them to their pendants - when you're supporting a camera 40' off the ground and trying to balance the mounting screws on your driver, it would be really nice if they would actually hold to a magnet. All manufacturers who use stainless or other non-magnetic screws for this sort of INTERNAL location should be lined up and shot.

 

BTW, I'm interested in others' experiences with those ferrite beads as well - we've been putting them on, JUST IN CASE, but man, what a PITA to cram them inside the housings! Never needed them on any other IP cams, so I'm wondering what the deal is with these?

 

Man you complain alot The lens and the domes..... I haven't had any of the other problems your talking about.

[Soundy 1]

Well so far with these Areconts, I've found a lot to complain ABOUT. Or maybe I've just been spoiled, because the IQs we've been installing have been solid and easy to use and don't clutter things up with additional software. Seriously, Arecont has NOT made a good first impression around here, and I have a feeling we won't be using any more of them anytime soon.

[thewireguys 3]

Well so far with these Areconts, I've found a lot to complain ABOUT. Or maybe I've just been spoiled, because the IQs we've been installing have been solid and easy to use and don't clutter things up with additional software. Seriously, Arecont has NOT made a good first impression around here, and I have a feeling we won't be using any more of them anytime soon.

 

Well from all the demos I have seen Arecont has a better image. I hope to have IQI stop by tomorrow for some more demos to see if the image has improved

[rory 0]

your argument is the same as saying why doesnt it work with windows 98/ME.

[rory 0]

The IQ BW and IR images are out of focus. Try focusing the IR and see if the color focus remains good enough.

 

Best,

Christopher

 

exactly. even with standard lenses (non IR corrected/DN lenses) one can still focus it so it at least stays focus in full IR or full light, if anything it should go out of focus a little only in extremely low light. I've focused for IR for years. Course could still be a camera/lens problem.