Do wireless IP cameras actually work?!? I DONT THINK SO!

[billeh 0]

So, we have a big installation coming up with 16 wireless IP cameras (Sentry) with a Sentry Hybrid NVR. I have been trying to get these god damned things working properly for a week, to no avail. I've spread the cameras evenly throughout my office, and configured them for CIF @ 30FPS with a variable bitrate. All of the cameras work...sometimes. When I look at the screen, I never see all 16 cameras working at once. They all flicker on and off, like there is not enough bandwidth or something. However, to eliminate that as a suspect problem, I have tried using FOUR different routers. All of them give me the exact same results. Even pinging the cameras is quite painful, as they definitely are a far cry from replying 100% of the time. We spoke with a manufacturer that said wireless setups are flakey at best, and they don't even sell wireless cameras for that reason. So is there something I'm missing? Anyone have any experience with doing something like with through POE instead? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[thewireguys 3]

Wireless can work very well if designed properly. 16 wireless IP cameras streaming back to one access point is not gonna work. On 802.11G network you have 54Mb bandwidth but you only get half if that in the real world so your looking at 25Mb available. The cameras you are using can use up to 3Mb each so that is 48Mb total bandwidth you will need. So now you can see why this is not gonna work

 

You need good wireless gear to make this work and it is not cheap. Cameras with built in wireless are normally useless with more then one or 2 cameras.

 

One way you MIGHT get this to work MOST of the time would be to use 4 access points and group 4 cameras to 1 access point but there is a lot of setup that is involved and you need to do a site survey. Also keep in mind your using cheap cameras so expect cheap results. So to be so blunt.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Guest

[billeh 0]

Great suggestion. I'm working on setting up access points right now, and i'll let you know how it works out. We also decided no matter how much of a pain in the ass it is, we're gonna run cat5 for at least 5 cameras. So hopefully that will also help a bit.

[billeh 0]

I've setup 8 cameras on 2 access points, and the quality is definitely better, but cameras are still cutting out. What kind of gear would you recommend?

[hardwired 0]

If you are still trying to finetune what you have, I would turn the framerate way down, 4-6 FPS is pretty good for most applications.

 

Also, are you running MPEG4 or MJPEG? On flaky connections, MJPEG can often work better, even though it is a higher data rate, because each frame is not dependent on the previous frames getting through in order to be decoded/displayed.

 

If you need different wireless gear to replace the built-in connectivity, I'd take a look at products from Ubiquiti, they have some pretty high performance "N" rate equipment that's very reasonable in cost.

[Guest]

If you are still trying to finetune what you have, I would turn the framerate way down, 4-6 FPS is pretty good for most applications.

 

Also, are you running MPEG4 or MJPEG? On flaky connections, MJPEG can often work better, even though it is a higher data rate, because each frame is not dependent on the previous frames getting through in order to be decoded/displayed.

 

If you need different wireless gear to replace the built-in connectivity, I'd take a look at products from Ubiquiti, they have some pretty high performance "N" rate equipment that's very reasonable in cost.

 

I would agree.

 

I would also suggest hardwiring as many as possible.

 

Also check the quality of the recorded images during both day and night.

 

Very often CIF = no usable evidence.

 

Ilkie

[Sawbones 0]

TheWireGuys is exactly right.

 

You could do what you're attempting with wireless-N... since you can get about 370Mb/s out of that protocol (less in practical applications, but far better than 54G)... but I'll bet your cameras don't support wireless N. You're better off using multiple APs to group the cameras.

 

Put four cameras on a single AP, then four on another AP, etc... and see if that does it for you. Make sure you choose your channel spacing to avoid interference, and group the cameras with their APs geographically. You only have fourteen channels in 802.11 space, so space the channel assignments a few channels apart. Put one AP on channel 1, another on 14, and the other two on channels 5 and 10.

 

Wireless is also easy to attack it somebody knows you're using wireless cameras. A single laptop injecting deauth packets into your datastream could wreak havoc with your system, as the cameras all try to re-associate with the APs, and are promptly knocked back off. Such a deauth flood attack could completely disable your CCTV system.

 

It goes without saying that you need to encrypt all of that data... and using something besides WEP, since with the volume of data you're sending with a wireless video install, your WEP key will be cracked literally in a matter of minutes.

 

Wireless sucks for this... it just does... and for all sorts of reasons. Go hard-wired if at all possible.

[jjsafeware 0]

I've setup 8 cameras on 2 access points, and the quality is definitely better, but cameras are still cutting out. What kind of gear would you recommend?

 

wireless-G handles practically only 20~25Mbps.

4 IP cams generate 12~13Mbps traffic, and that's only receiving end. it doubles when channelling the traffic back to viewer, thus, you need 802.11n APs to handle the summed-up traffic of 8 or 16 IP cams.

 

Unless the IP cam supports wireless-n, set the AP in mixed mode, i.e. IP cams talk to AP in G, and AP talk to viewer in N.

 

in math, one wireless-N AP should take care of all traffic, however, the range of IP cam wireless need to be tested separated.

 

Try this AP, it's quite robust and not spec inflated.

DAP-1522 Xtreme N Duo Wireless Bridge/Access Point

http://www.dlink.ca/products/?pid=dap-1522

[JordanWireless 0]

The answer is YES wireless technologies work.

I work for a distributor of wireless communications equipment and we have equipment deployed all aorund the world for supporting wireless surveillance applications. Governments and Militaries rely on these technologies and I don't think they would be using something that does not work.

However do not use equipment on 802.11 protocol or in the 2.4 GHz spectrum. 2.4 GHz is the most congested frequency out there (with portable phones to wireless routers running on the same frequency it is not uncommon to experience interference).

 

My suggestion would be to use a point to multipoint configuration in the 5.4 or 5.8 GHz spectrum employing one base station or "AP" with subcriber units for each camera.

PLEASE DON'T USE UBIQUITI (you will not have a good wireless experience), it is a decent product at a good price but it is not very secure, not ruggedized and I have had numerous customers coming my way looking to change out there whole network of Ubiquiti due to its poor performance/security.

 

When it comes to bandwidth it all depends on the capacity needs of the cameras and the distance that each subscriber is away form the AP.

I suggest checking out Redline Communications(http://www.redlinecommunications.com/). They are a Canadian based company with alot of experience with the application of video surveillance. We have shipped thousands of their radios to Mexico City where they support the police departments city wide surveillance network. Also if you are looking for a product that is a bit cheaper and still performs well check out Airaya (http://www.airaya.com/), they are an American company with a ton of experience in surveillance.

 

PS. please don't judge wireless technologies based on bad experiences with garbage equipment. Use the good stuff.

You mentioned that you have the camera's set up in your office. Do you have a wireless router or a portable phone? If so you could be getting interference from these, turn them off and try again.

 

My company also has sales reps out in Calgary, if you would like me to hook you up with one of them let me know.

 

Regards, Jordan.

[hardwired 0]

I'd have to disagree about using Ubiquiti, I have a reasonable number of installations using it with good results. I have never suggested that it is as good or better than some of the backhaul hardware manufacturers you have listed, but even in your quote, you mention that it is a decent product at a good price,

PLEASE DON'T USE UBIQUITI (you will not have a good wireless experience), it is a decent product at a good price but it is not very secure, not ruggedized and I have had numerous customers coming my way looking to change out there whole network of Ubiquiti due to its poor performance/security.

and that is the equipment that most of us are needing in our day-to-day installs, not FCC licensed gigabit backhauls at $10K+.

 

You also mention that it is not very secure, do you know of WPA2/RADIUS being broken?

 

Ubiquiti products are being widely used in the wireless internet service industry for the reason that it is one of the best price/performance ratio products available, and that is why I use it as well.

 

BTW, here's a link from a forum group of WISP's discussing use of Ubiquiti products... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r24160793-Ubquiti-Rocket5-as-backhauls Overall, very good results.

Very few of my customers are willing to spend multiples of up to ten times or more for the wireless equipment compared to the camera cost, that's a tough sell unless it's a governmental or similar entity.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a customer base that would buy $30K BridgeWave backhaul radios from me, I'd be eating great steak a lot more often, but until that happens, I'll still be using a lot of Ubiquiti product.

[JordanWireless 0]

You shouldn't be so defensive.

 

First off, I would never recommend using a Bridgewave link for any surveillance application unless you were backhauling a large network of camera's to a remote location. I recommended two great companies for wireless surveillance solutions who have their product deployed for this application across the globe.

 

I deal with WISP's everyday in Canada and with our climate and terrain Ubiquiti just does not compete. I have heard of Ubiquiti links going down in a couple of months, we have links that have been deployed in Carrier networks (i.e. Rogers, Bell) that have been running for over 8 years.

 

I am not saying go with the most expensive equipment but suggested good quality equipment at a reasonable price.

Just remember when it comes to wireless quality is king, especially when dealing with video applications--Surveillance video at that.

 

Check out this link if you have never heard of WPA2 being cracked http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6834071428554024698#

Pretty much any security protocol can be cracked if you have the time and patience.

[thewireguys 3]

I am with Hardwired on this one. I have deployed Ubiquiti, Engenius, Routerboard setups for PTP and PTMP links without any problems.

[rory 0]

Im afraid im with nobody on this one, I would only ever use wireless as a last resort, it just isnt as good as wired

plus consider all the cancer causing stuff the wireless is putting out there

[hardwired 0]

Jordan: I didn't think I was being very defensive, just reiterating the fact that Ubiquiti (and Mikrotik, among other) products have worked very well for me in my installations.

 

Your conditions and requirements are likely not the same as mine, and everyone should know that YMMV, and buyer beware... Everyone should try, whenever possible, to personally test equipment before installing it at a customer site.

 

Having said that, one of the greatest values that a forum group provides is distributing knowledge and experience with new products.

 

The products that you recommended may very well be superior to Ubiquiti, I don't have any specific knowledge to say otherwise, BUT, they have a price point of over ten times+ the price of Ubiquiti product. Again, my customer base just doesn't support those costs. If your customers, or anyone else does have that budget capacity, then the other products might very well be the best choice for them.

 

As far as cracking WPA2, that has only been done with weak passwords, and default SSID's that are included in rainbow tables. I use long, random passwords, changed SSID's, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

 

As far as esoteric packet injections, DOS attacks by forcing forged packets, etc. that are susceptibilities of the 802.11 protocol, I do not think I have one example of those attacks being used on any of my installations, or those of anyone I know.

 

The biggest vulnerability around here is finding a .22 slug stuck in our equipment, or it just being gone when we go to check it, and I think that is the case for most installs.

 

Rory: I agree, wireless is still my last choice option, but now with IP cameras being our company's first choice in new or retrofit installations, the options for data transport have opened up considerably compared to analog.

 

I am now using Coax to IP converters, SDSL extenders over twisted pair cable, fiber, existing Ethernet connectivity, and other methods to move video around. Wireless for IP cameras also works immensely better than any previous analog wireless equipment I have ever used, and at less cost.

 

BTW, I've come a lot closer to being killed by bad AC power wiring than anything RF so far

[buellwinkle 0]

I wanted to deploy Ubiquiti because of price but couldn't find one SI in my area (So Cal) that would touch it. I said try it, and if it doesn't work, I'll pay to take them down and replace them with higher end like Proxim or Motorola and not one would do it.

 

Sooo, we are putting in Proxim 8100 series unless the terrain, trees and houses block the signal to where it's useless, then plan be is 900Mhz which is NLOS like Avalans or Motorola Canopy.

 

So what's the price difference, under $300 for Ubiquiti, under $5K for Proxim, about $1K for Avalan, $4K with Motorola.

[IRCCTV 0]

I have been talking to alot of dealers, distributors and integrators lately regarding IP Vs analog.

 

The conversation usually starts of like This, Im looking for some IP cameras.

 

I say Ok why do you want IP?

 

After they explain to me there requirements about 90% of the time I quote them an analog system ( I do an IP option as well but since analog is cheaper, lower cost and offers better performance they usually opt for analog quote)

 

IP video is more about marketing then it is about performance as larger companies like Bosch pelco Honeywell axis can change for both hardware and software and once you use there cameras you have to keep using there cameras unlike universal analog you can use any camera on any DVR and they can have other companies develop software for the allowing them to get into niche markets without having to developing new product lines.

 

Also IP sounds great, plug and play, Better image quality, use existing infrastructure, who wouldn’t want that unfortunate;y this is often not the case.

 

IP is like wireless (in theory its perfect) if that was true there would be no wired cameras or analog cameras it would all be wireless IP.

 

IP cameras are based on CMOS

Analog cameras are based on CCD (usually)

 

CCD image sensors contain hundreds

of thousands picture elements, called pixels. Each pixel contains a light sensitive element and a capacitor.

 

A CMOS sensor is constructed using a array of pixels, but unlike CCD’s CMOS do not have a capacitor to store the charge for each pixel.The rows of pixels are activated sequentially rather then individually

 

This mean CMOS has some significant disadvantages compared to CCD, this means CMOS

have inferior ability to cope with ambient lighting such as back light, bright, deep shadows contrasts, low light and IR this is also known as the real word.

 

In short unless you have perfect lighting a good CCD camera will outperform an equivalent CMOS camera.

 

CMOS unless it implements progressive scan technology does not handle motion well you get dithering and streaking similar to mpeg4 when there is high amounts of motion.

 

File Size

File size is crucial whether its for remote viewing, storage or transmissions because most DVR’s on the market record at real time performance (30FPS per channel) so on a 4CH is trying to send 120, 8CH 240, and a 16CH 480 images per second which requires way to much bandwidth even for the most extreme internet connections.

 

The smaller the files size the more images that are able to be sent and the faster they can be processed improving both FPS and speed. File size is the heart of any DVR and goes far beyond just its streaming capabilities as it also determines the recoding storage time, how much you can back up at once, how fast it renders and searches video.

 

The file size of a DVR impacts the performance of the DVR in just about every aspect from speed to longevity and is often the most import spec of any DVR.

 

IP cameras have up to a 5X larger file size then analog cameras. (at same resolution) I have seen MP cameras that on 2MP resolution are over 300X (%3000) larger then our X3 DVR on a CIF image. This is an extreme case but generally speaking IP cameras have a much larger file size.

 

This is because mot IP cameras especially economical ones or 3MP+ uses old outdated compression technology such as J-peg and Mpeg 4 rather then H.264. This means that if you want to do over 9 IP cameras most existing infrastructures simply wont do the job and can even bog down the network to point that it affects other devices such as POS, storage and other peripherals located on the network.

 

So like analog you often ether have to put in new cabling infrastructure for the IP cameras or completely overhaul there existing one which is often more expensive then doing analog cameras using baluns and cat 5 cabling (not to mention lower cost of ownership and higher reliability as a $40 router or switch cant take down 20k worth of cameras).

 

Image quality

We have all seen those flashy brochures showing how much better mega pixel cameras are then “traditional” analog technology (arecont and moboliX) But often times they are using CIF resolution on a 380TVL camera. which does not give a good representation of what analog has to offer.

 

I would like them to show a chart of file size and cost to store and stream the images.

 

(Arecont and mobolix do make good MP IP cameras but there marketing far exceeds there performance)

 

But If you compare a good D1 resolution image and compare it with a 2MP you will very little deliverance any many times I have had people who choose the D1 using out 550TVL camera due to its better color reproduction and its ability to handle changing ambient lighting conditions.

 

Don’t get me wrong there are some brutal analog cameras and DVR out there but If you see a good D1 resolution image such as Airships or ascendents Hardware compressed you will not be so quick to join the IP bandwagon.

 

IP does have applications and in some cases IP cameras are the only way to do a project but I would estimate that for 90% of applications analog is cheaper offers higher performance with a lower cost of ownership and higher reliability.

 

IP is a young and emerging technology and I have no doubt that in the future it will outperform analog cameras but its not a mature technology yet. Once we start to get standard IP platforms, get rid of license fees’ and existing networks have larger bandwidths then IP video will be a good solution, but until then analog is the way to go.

 

Unless you are using a 5MP+ and have a fiber optic backbone or just need one camera it is almost always better to go analog over IP video.

 

Ascendent is working on a 9 page white paper regarding analog and IP video but I suggest you get quality brand names for both and test them for yourself.

 

I personally suggest using Hybrid DVR’s and baluns in then you can use the Cat 5 for a network (just change the ends) and use the hybrid for the recording that way they can get a good system and have the ability to upgrade in the future using the same infrastructure.

 

another great way of gettign good performance on an IP infrastructure is the Use of IP video server I suggest using ones with internal HDD so if network goes down or a 40$ network hub fails you still have high quality high frame rate stored video.

 

 

MEGAPIXEL CAMERA SYSTEM FORSALE!!!!!

thewireguys: of course you disagree

 

I Sell both analog and MP cameras and can tell that in high end applications (Boarder defense, critical infrastructure protection, ect,) we don't use IP due the reliability, lag, latency and performance.

 

its a new and unstable technology that has a few application but fact is MP cameras represent less then 2% of the market.

 

Disadvantages of IP

IP have lag an latency

Fail more often (due to networks)

More expensive to maintain and operate

poorer remote connection (compared to analog+ DVR)

 

Advantages of IP

Where MP is needed

Large wireless applications

And 1 or 2 camera installs

Edited May 17, 2010 by Guest

[thewireguys 3]

I have been talking to alot of dealers, distributors and integrators lately regarding IP Vs analog.

 

The conversation usually starts of like This, Im looking for some IP cameras.

 

I say Ok why do you want IP?

 

After they explain to me there requirements about 90% of the time I quote them an analog system ( I do an IP option as well but since analog is cheaper, lower cost and offers better performance they usually opt for analog quote)

 

IP video is more about marketing then it is about performance as larger companies like Bosch pelco Honeywell axis can change for both hardware and software and once you use there cameras you have to keep using there cameras unlike universal analog you can use any camera on any DVR and they can have other companies develop software for the allowing them to get into niche markets without having to developing new product lines.

 

Also IP sounds great, plug and play, Better image quality, use existing infrastructure, who wouldn’t want that unfortunate;y this is often not the case.

 

IP is like wireless (in theory its perfect) if that was true there would be no wired cameras or analog cameras it would all be wireless IP.

 

IP cameras are based on CMOS

Analog cameras are based on CCD (usually)

 

CCD image sensors contain hundreds

of thousands picture elements, called pixels. Each pixel contains a light sensitive element and a capacitor.

 

A CMOS sensor is constructed using a array of pixels, but unlike CCD’s CMOS do not have a capacitor to store the charge for each pixel.The rows of pixels are activated sequentially rather then individually

 

This mean CMOS has some significant disadvantages compared to CCD, this means CMOS

have inferior ability to cope with ambient lighting such as back light, bright, deep shadows contrasts, low light and IR this is also known as the real word.

 

In short unless you have perfect lighting a good CCD camera will outperform an equivalent CMOS camera.

 

CMOS unless it implements progressive scan technology does not handle motion well you get dithering and streaking similar to mpeg4 when there is high amounts of motion.

 

File Size

File size is crucial whether its for remote viewing, storage or transmissions because most DVR’s on the market record at real time performance (30FPS per channel) so on a 4CH is trying to send 120, 8CH 240, and a 16CH 480 images per second which requires way to much bandwidth even for the most extreme internet connections.

 

The smaller the files size the more images that are able to be sent and the faster they can be processed improving both FPS and speed. File size is the heart of any DVR and goes far beyond just its streaming capabilities as it also determines the recoding storage time, how much you can back up at once, how fast it renders and searches video.

 

The file size of a DVR impacts the performance of the DVR in just about every aspect from speed to longevity and is often the most import spec of any DVR.

 

IP cameras have up to a 5X larger file size then analog cameras. (at same resolution) I have seen MP cameras that on 2MP resolution are over 300X (%3000) larger then our X3 DVR on a CIF image. This is an extreme case but generally speaking IP cameras have a much larger file size.

 

This is because mot IP cameras especially economical ones or 3MP+ uses old outdated compression technology such as J-peg and Mpeg 4 rather then H.264. This means that if you want to do over 9 IP cameras most existing infrastructures simply wont do the job and can even bog down the network to point that it affects other devices such as POS, storage and other peripherals located on the network.

 

So like analog you often ether have to put in new cabling infrastructure for the IP cameras or completely overhaul there existing one which is often more expensive then doing analog cameras using baluns and cat 5 cabling (not to mention lower cost of ownership and higher reliability as a $40 router or switch cant take down 20k worth of cameras).

 

Image quality

We have all seen those flashy brochures showing how much better mega pixel cameras are then “traditional” analog technology (arecont and moboliX) But often times they are using CIF resolution on a 380TVL camera. which does not give a good representation of what analog has to offer.

 

I would like them to show a chart of file size and cost to store and stream the images.

 

(Arecont and mobolix do make good MP IP cameras but there marketing far exceeds there performance)

 

But If you compare a good D1 resolution image and compare it with a 2MP you will very little deliverance any many times I have had people who choose the D1 using out 550TVL camera due to its better color reproduction and its ability to handle changing ambient lighting conditions.

 

Don’t get me wrong there are some brutal analog cameras and DVR out there but If you see a good D1 resolution image such as Airships or ascendents Hardware compressed you will not be so quick to join the IP bandwagon.

 

IP does have applications and in some cases IP cameras are the only way to do a project but I would estimate that for 90% of applications analog is cheaper offers higher performance with a lower cost of ownership and higher reliability.

 

IP is a young and emerging technology and I have no doubt that in the future it will outperform analog cameras but its not a mature technology yet. Once we start to get standard IP platforms, get rid of license fees’ and existing networks have larger bandwidths then IP video will be a good solution, but until then analog is the way to go.

 

Unless you are using a 5MP+ and have a fiber optic backbone or just need one camera it is almost always better to go analog over IP video.

 

Ascendent is working on a 9 page white paper regarding analog and IP video but I suggest you get quality brand names for both and test them for yourself.

 

I personally suggest using Hybrid DVR’s and baluns in then you can use the Cat 5 for a network (just change the ends) and use the hybrid for the recording that way they can get a good system and have the ability to upgrade in the future using the same infrastructure.

 

another great way of gettign good performance on an IP infrastructure is the Use of IP video server I suggest using ones with internal HDD so if network goes down or a 40$ network hub fails you still have high quality high frame rate stored video.

 

If you would like a copy of this and other white papers you can subscribe to our email list or send an email to

info@ascendentgroup.com

 

http://www.ascendentgroup.com/

 

I must disagree again

[Sawbones 0]

I went from Analog to IP... and haven't looked back.

 

And there's nothing wrong with the analog system I was using... I used good hardware (Axis encoders, and Panasonic WDR domes... which STILL have some of the best light-handling characteristics I've seen). It worked OK, but the resolution wasn't high enough to see what I wanted to see... and adding more domes to zoom in on separate areas was a no-go in my residential installation.

 

I went over almost entirely to an Acti-and-Mobotix system, and have been very happy. I can read license plates now, where I couldn't before.

 

The Mobotix B&W imagers have just as good of low-light response as the Panansonic domes, and the fine-tuning of shutter speed and such that Mobotix gives you puts those cameras head-and-shoulders above an analog system. There's no comparison between the picture quality either. Now given, Mobotix is three times the price... but you're also getting a lot more in terms of resolution, options... and their software is free.

 

I'll also grant that my case is probably not typical. I already had a large gigabit-over-copper (with PoE) network in my home, and adding cameras was as simple as pulling cable, terminating it, and mounting the cameras.

 

Not everybody NEEDS an IP-based system... but I've found that there are certain advantages.

[rory 0]

The Mobotix B&W imagers have just as good of low-light response as the Panansonic domes.

Do you have any comparisons? I havent seen a decent low light BW image from a MP camera yet, but maybe im missing something??

[Sawbones 0]

The Mobotix B&W imagers have just as good of low-light response as the Panansonic domes.

Do you have any comparisons? I havent seen a decent low light BW image from a MP camera yet, but maybe im missing something??

 

Sure.

 

Top picture is a Pano 484S dome, and bottom picture is a Mobotix D12 with the L65 B&W imager. The individual you see is me in a hockey mask (don't ask...). If you look carefully in the right-upper corner of the Mobotix image, you can see the Pano dome; they're literally mounted a few feet from one another.

 

Lighting conditions are identical, and are provided by two different IR illuminators. Pictures are taken a few minutes apart from one another. The original Mobotix picture is also MUCH larger, and has been resized to match the size of the Panasonic.

 

Panasonic:

 

 

 

Mobotix:

 

 

 

You can see the low-light performance is pretty close. The WDR capability enhances the contrast in the top picture, maybe giving a slight edge to the Pano. Low-light is one of the only areas where analog matches or edges IP in performance terms.

[rory 0]

Thanks, but i was talking about low light images .. not with IR

Additionally I might add that the Panasonic WDR domes and Box cameras are not considered very low light even though they are Day Night, their specs are not great for that. Better cameras for low light would be either straight up BW or Day Night Exview, eg. 0.01 lux where Pano is 0.06 lux.

 

PS. what kind of IR are you using that is lighting it up all over the place and way down the back like its a dusk to dawn light up there? Also, the top picture looks better

[Sawbones 0]

Thanks, but i was talking about low light images .. not with IR

Additionally I might add that the Panasonic WDR domes and Box cameras are not considered very low light even though they are Day Night, their specs are not great for that. Better cameras for low light would be either straight up BW or Day Night Exview, eg. 0.01 lux where Pano is 0.06 lux.

 

PS. what kind of IR are you using that is lighting it up all over the place and way down the back like its a dusk to dawn light up there? Also, the top picture looks better

 

For a narrow area, where you can make the greatest use of your pixels, analog remains a good choice... particularly since bang-for-your-buck low-light performance is better.

 

The IR that I'm using is coming from two illuminators. One is an Ebay illuminator that I expect to die any day... which is a shame, because it puts out a very nice, wide-angle IR beam:

 

 

 

They tend to last about 6 months, after which they do this:

 

 

 

 

The other illuminator is a supercircuits puck:

 

 

 

 

I have an ExtremeCCTV cube ready to replace that Ebay special when it dies.

[rory 0]

Thanks .. yeah thats a great amount of IR .. will check out the model you named.

 

Regarding the cameras Im on the search for low light BW MP, the ones Im looking to replace are a mix of BW standard and BW exview, the exview we use the most of (night clubs), if I can match the same low light we get now in any kind of higher res then I would get them to buy it .. basically no IR just low light BW .. thats just for one client I mean .. others can ofcourse add IR. Ill have to keep my eye on mobotix .. any ideas how they perform without the IR? thanks.

[Sawbones 0]

The mobotix camera was completely blind without the IR on that side of the structure... but so was the Pano.

 

That side is extremely shaded, and there is no ambient light to speak of at night. You can't hardly grow grass there, because it literally doesn't get enough sunlight.

 

Here is the Pano during the day:

 

 

 

 

And the Mobotix (this is only 1.3MP setting... the Mobotix goes up to 3MP)

 

[zmxtech 0]

everyone is missing the main point it called 802.11 overlapping channels nothing to do with speed or security

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11

 

you can only have so much wireless in an area before problems, I would never use it as a main link or even for one camera

its just too easy to jam

 

z