What are the best performing low light cameras?

[jhonovich 0]

Searching through the archive, the most common cited selection is CNB. I've also seen a few recommendations for Panasonic WV-CP484.

 

What other cameras would you short list?

 

No IR, just pure low light performance for analog CCTV cameras with no exposure tricks (e.g., SENS UP).

[Tailbone215 0]

Bosch VDN-498 series cams are probably the best. They are really inexpensive and once focused you can remotely configure them with your laptop. Great sensitivity for night time performance, even without separate IR emitters.

[jhonovich 0]

Thanks, Tailbone.

 

Do you have any experience with the Bosch box equivalent - LTC0498 - http://www.boschsecurity.us/en-us/ProductInformation/Cameras/LTC0498/

 

I checked the specs for the dome and box, Bosch lists the box at slightly superior low light rating

 

Additionally, I see there is a 1/2" Bosch box camera LTC630 - http://www.boschsecurity.us/en-us/ProductInformation/Cameras/LTC0630/ which has even a lower listed low light rating

[rory 0]

Do you have any experience with the Bosch box equivalent - LTC0498

According to the specs it is 0.188 lux (50ire) in BW, or 0.019 lux (50ire) with Sens Up x 10 (slow shutter?)

Either way the CNB has that model beat.

Cant speak for the other one as didnt check its specs.

[rory 0]

Check out cameras with the EM CCD if you have alot of money to burn.

Eg: SHC-750N Samsung (dont know if its still in production)

http://www.samsungtechwin.com/prd/pro_view.asp?pro_uid=1918&cat_uid=14&cat_biz=CTV&cat_lev=AA

 

These dont say if its fc or not:

0.008Lux@F1.2 (Normal color mode)

0.0005Lux@F1.2 (B/W mode)

0.00006Lux@F1.2 (Sens-up mode)

 

if its fc then its still good:

0.08Lux@F1.2 (Normal color mode)

0.005Lux@F1.2 (B/W mode)

[mike_va 0]

CNB BBM24F beats Bosch 0620 and Pan 484 on low light and IR sensitivity, at a much lower price. Quality is not as good, and you don't get as good a pic in the daytime. 484 is not that great for low light based on my experience.

 

On the other hand you can buy a B&W Bosch used for less than $5 LTC0355. It is not as sensitive as CNB but nicer pic.

 

The Bosch 0620 has a beautiful pics, and both that and the 484 have controls that are useful.

 

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=24524

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=24135

 

One thing I always get confused at looking at the data is the BBM-20F seems to have better specs than the BBM-24F? I thought I read somewhere they were the same but the 24F had dual voltage.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Guest

[rory 0]

if someone has time, if they can get all the threads with comparisons in them or even samples, useful ones so nothing from years ago (like many of mine LOL), then I can make it a sticky. My hands are tied right now with work so dont know if I have the time ... maybe though .. anyway

[Birdman Adam 0]

Hmmm... Maybe I'll take some time today to save a bunch of comparison pictures, and put text on them that shows what camera they are, who took the picture, and other details like whether they used an IR light, etc.

 

Would that be OK? I don't want to go grabbing everyones pictures if they aren't OK with it.

 

This may take a while...

[Birdman Adam 0]

How about like this?

 

 

 

EDIT: Even better!

 

 

More:

 

[rory 0]

How about like this?

Thats a great start

Though Im surprised there arent people asking for their original sizes

[thewireguys 3]

How about like this?

Thats a great start

Though Im surprised there arent people asking for their original sizes

 

Yes you should post these in full res for a true comparison. BUT I don't really care about analog anymore. I don't have customers calling and asking for analog images.

 

I just did a demo for a customer (government) that was lied to by the installer. I did a web demo for VideoIQ and Avigilon. After the demo the customer said wow I have never seen anything like that it is very impressive. He said they just had a analog system installed and the company total them this is the best image quality your gonna get. Well guess what, the customer now knows they where miss informed and lost total respect for the install company.

 

I think if we are going to compare low light cameras we "need" to have a standard test that we use for every camera. I would be very helpful if we could make this test very easy to do so we all can do the test and post the images using the same standard. We would all need the same LUX meter, lens and scene to compare. All images would be exported and posted in FULL res. Please everyone post your ideas I think this would be very helpful to all.

[rory 0]

I think if we are going to compare low light cameras we "need" to have a standard test that we use for every camera. I would be very helpful if we could make this test very easy to do so we all can do the test and post the images using the same standard. We would all need the same LUX meter, lens and scene to compare. All images would be exported and posted in FULL res. Please everyone post your ideas I think this would be very helpful to all.

[thewireguys 3]

I think if we are going to compare low light cameras we "need" to have a standard test that we use for every camera. I would be very helpful if we could make this test very easy to do so we all can do the test and post the images using the same standard. We would all need the same LUX meter, lens and scene to compare. All images would be exported and posted in FULL res. Please everyone post your ideas I think this would be very helpful to all.

 

 

Why is that funny?

[ak357 0]

 

Rory I have Idea !

why don't we create

CCTV Forum Approved Test Procedure

to test low light and general camera performance

 

I might be able to do this

what I have

 

1.Basement ( means no light or easily controlled light )

2.Lux meter (LT 300 with high resolution to 0.01 Fc/Lux)

3.Real resolution chart

4.NTSC standard signal generator (Leader)

5.Hitachi Digital Scope 60 Mhz ( for IRE measurement )

6.Tripod

Only lenses are under ?

will have to get more

 

Anybody who wants to contribute ideas, tips .... are welcome

Edited March 13, 2011 by Guest

[thewireguys 3]

Ak I think this is a great idea and would be very helpful to everyone.

 

I have many cameras I can test.

[Tailbone215 0]

How about like this?

Thats a great start

Though Im surprised there arent people asking for their original sizes

 

Yes you should post these in full res for a true comparison. BUT I don't really care about analog anymore. I don't have customers calling and asking for analog images.

 

I just did a demo for a customer (government) that was lied to by the installer. I did a web demo for VideoIQ and Avigilon. After the demo the customer said wow I have never seen anything like that it is very impressive. He said they just had a analog system installed and the company total them this is the best image quality your gonna get. Well guess what, the customer now knows they where miss informed and lost total respect for the install company.

 

I think if we are going to compare low light cameras we "need" to have a standard test that we use for every camera. I would be very helpful if we could make this test very easy to do so we all can do the test and post the images using the same standard. We would all need the same LUX meter, lens and scene to compare. All images would be exported and posted in FULL res. Please everyone post your ideas I think this would be very helpful to all.

 

I have to agree with you about analog, but there is always going to be a place for it for many applications and customers that might be more budget minded than others.

 

Your customer learned the hard way about how shady and cut-throat this business can be. Giving the customer the options and prices for each option is always the best solution. It saves on bruise feelings and reputations.

 

Setting up a standardised testing procedure is an honorable gesture, and I agree we should have had an industry wide continually evolving procedure 20-years ago, but the parameters are going to be numerous as each installation has varying challenges. Plus, the only way these tests can be taken seriously is if there is a single person or company that doesn't have a vested interest in the results performing these tests. Even simple things like test equipment calibration can play an important factor. Nothing worse than having six individuals testing the same camera with six different pieces of gear that are out of tolerance. If the industry doesn't want to do it, for obvious reasons, I don't think we can really have results that can be looked upon with any seriousness and anything other than for academic reasons or for just saying we did. Now who wants to be the sole individual that wants to take on this task? And no, I don't the individual(s) that are biased towards that CNB crap skewing results that would lead one to believe it is better than a Sanyo VCC-HD2500.

[thewireguys 3]

 

I have to agree with you about analog, but there is always going to be a place for it for many applications and customers that might be more budget minded than others.

 

Your customer learned the hard way about how shady and cut-throat this business can be. Giving the customer the options and prices for each option is always the best solution. It saves on bruise feelings and reputations.

 

Setting up a standardised testing procedure is an honorable gesture, and I agree we should have had an industry wide continually evolving procedure 20-years ago, but the parameters are going to be numerous as each installation has varying challenges. Plus, the only way these tests can be taken seriously is if there is a single person or company that doesn't have a vested interest in the results performing these tests. Even simple things like test equipment calibration can play an important factor. Nothing worse than having six individuals testing the same camera with six different pieces of gear that are out of tolerance. If the industry doesn't want to do it, for obvious reasons, I don't think we can really have results that can be looked upon with any seriousness and anything other than for academic reasons or for just saying we did. Now who wants to be the sole individual that wants to take on this task? And no, I don't the individual(s) that are biased towards that CNB crap skewing results that would lead one to believe it is better than a Sanyo VCC-HD2500.

 

Analog is a tool just like Megapixel and IP there will always be a use for it.

 

I think with a very simple standard that we could all use on this forum with little cost involved could be very useful.

 

For box cameras we would need to use the same lens.

We all would need the same Lux meter (which is a good tool to have).

Tripod

[ak357 0]

Analog is a tool just like Megapixel and IP there will always be a use for it.

I think with a very simple standard that we could all use on this forum with little cost involved could be very useful.

For box cameras we would need to use the same lens.

We all would need the same Lux meter (which is a good tool to have).

Tripod

 

Calibration is the key as was stated before

not very hard to do but important

Edited March 13, 2011 by Guest

[Tailbone215 0]

 

Analog is a tool just like Megapixel and IP there will always be a use for it.

 

I think with a very simple standard that we could all use on this forum with little cost involved could be very useful.

 

For box cameras we would need to use the same lens.

We all would need the same Lux meter (which is a good tool to have).

Tripod

 

This sounds like a plan, I'm game. I'm more interested in dynamic range, noise, contrast, and how well the camera deals with miserable back-lighting and other crappy lighting. Also, how well the cam handles ambient temperature. I know noise can increase as the sensor heats up. Just a thought.

[thewireguys 3]

 

Analog is a tool just like Megapixel and IP there will always be a use for it.

 

I think with a very simple standard that we could all use on this forum with little cost involved could be very useful.

 

For box cameras we would need to use the same lens.

We all would need the same Lux meter (which is a good tool to have).

Tripod

 

This sounds like a plan, I'm game. I'm more interested in dynamic range, noise, contrast, and how well the camera deals with miserable back-lighting and other crappy lighting. Also, how well the cam handles ambient temperature. I know noise can increase as the sensor heats up. Just a thought.

 

I think we need to keep this as simple as possible to start.

[NotoriousBRK 0]

It's going to be impossible to get repeatable results that you can use as a reference with this method. When you take a reading with a light meter in low light, you'll notice that even tilting the sensor a little bit will change the reading, which makes it hard to get a perfect reading.

 

The more typical way to test cameras is to use a 2000lux light source with a test pattern, and then introduce neutral density filters in front of the lens to cut the light reaching the sensor down.

 

This is a good writeup on what a typical camera test setup looks like:

http://www.tek.com/Measurement/App_Notes/NTSC_Video_Msmt/videotesting.html

 

If you want to build your own reference database, I'd suggest that everyone wanting to participate build their own replicable test harness. It doesn't have to be super high-end, just consistent.

 

To take it a step further, for cameras with analog outputs you can get a good handheld waveform test monitor. I use the TEK WFM 90:

http://www.testequipmentdepot.com/tektronix/video/waveformmonitors/digital/wfm90d91d.htm

 

It's been discontinued for a while, but you can find them on ebay from time to time around $200.

 

What you're really looking for, IMO, is how cameras perform relative to each other vs. finding absolute specs. That way, if you have say an ABC 12000, and the low-light is not delivering what you need you could reference cameras that others have tested and find that the XYZ 1850-G camera had low light performance that extended beyond the ABC 12000. It's $100 more street price, so you have to make the call is the extra low-light sensitivity worth the $100.

 

It would also make sense to build an IR light source test harness, which would be a little different than visible light test source. For IR, you'll probably have to setup a basic illuminator pointed at some test targets at a short distance (5 meters) in a darkened room and check the cameras performance. Sensors respond a little differently to visible and IR light, it's mostly a factor of where their sensitivity to higher wavelengths starts to roll off.

 

Real-world tests *can* be extremely helpful, but don't use them as your test reference or you'll probably find it hard to get accurate readings.

 

If you're going to get a new LUX meter, get one with a USB port (this is the one I use: http://www.metershack.com/metershack-professional-digital-40k-fc-foot-candle-meter-400k-lux-light-luxmeter-with-usb-interface.html) You can set these up to either store/log internally, or to a connected PC. Set your PC and camera/NVR to sync to an NTP time source. Set the camera and meter up outside a little before dusk and let 'em run while you do other things. Then you can go back to the recorded video and watch it, and get LUX readings for a given time point from the meter software.