Why does my video suck?

[rkolb86 0]

IDK if I'm expecting too much out of my analog system or maybe my camera is a POS.

 

 

The camera is a varifocal (4mm-9mm)...zoomed all the way to back to 4mm for a bigger picture. At the closest place in the video, the person is about 16 feet away.

 

I tried focusing, this is the best I could do. I notice a lot of picture blur as well on motion.

 

The live video looks the same. Recording and live is 640x480, 5 or 6 FPS.

 

Camera:

http://www.supercircuits.com/Security-Cameras/Infrared-Security-Cameras/PC509

 

 

or

A42YI9MgaEs

 

 

The problems is that under any type/quality of lighting, I can hardly even make out her face. I have another manufacturers camera on the system (3.6mm) which looks better, but the distance isn't that far.

[Birdman Adam 0]

What I am thinking:

 

1. That is a pretty cheap camera in terms of quality, brand ,etc. This is a part of the problem.

 

2. How wide is that driveway? It may not be feasible to cover that whole area with analog unless you just want 'overview' (which is what you are getting now).

[rkolb86 0]

I know the area is huge.

 

What I'm concerned about is the picture quality of the person's face. She is standing about 16 feet from the camera with the camera zoomed out to 4mm and I still can't see her well.

 

The funny thing is is the $60 3.6mm camera I have appears to give a much better picture (although I haven't tried it @ 16 feet).

 

Both cameras have a 1/3" Sony CCD.

 

 

 

Are my expectations too high to get a person's face with 4mm at 16 feet?

 

 

What would you suggest for a better picture?

[NotoriousBRK 0]

That's about what I'd expect of a D1 analog camera.

 

A 4mm lens at 16 feet has a FOV about 18 feet wide. For an analog camera that is 39 pixels per foot, well below what you would need to get recognition (about 50 ppf) or identification (about 80 ppf).

[rory 0]

Unless you buy a 10,000 Megapixel Camera nothing else will ever be good enough.

Everything else is just junk. Take out a mortgage and go get that bad boy.

[rory 0]

that camera is out of focus or dirty, and also likely just a crap camera.

That's not what is expected from a properly focused and cleaned good camera.

BTW if you zoom the camera into 9mm you will see her even better.

[NotoriousBRK 0]

Unless you buy a 10,000 Megapixel Camera nothing else will ever be good enough.

Everything else is just junk. Take out a mortgage and go get that bad boy.

 

Give me a break Rory.

 

He will NOT cover that much area with a D1 camera and get identification level detail. You can zoom in, decrease your field of view, and get more detail, OR you can buy a better camera (eg: megapixel). It doesn't have to be "10,000 Megapixels", but there aren't many ways around this problem.

 

If you're budget constrained, then quality D1 analog gear is certainly the most practical approach. If you're trying to cover a moderate scene AND get good detail, then there are about 1000 low-megapixel (eg: 1.3 megapixel) camera options that will yield better overall all-around results.

[SEANHAWG 1]

I think you may be expecting to much with that lens. if you are expecting specific details, I would consider getting a bigger lens like a previous poster stated. You will lose width of view when you do this but with Analog, you will need some cameras designated as wide viewing cameras and other cameras designated as zoomed in detailed cameras.

[rory 0]

I think youtube is to blame

[fa chris 0]

Its fine for an overview, add a second camera with a decent lens and narrow field of view highly focused on the walk area to get recognition.

 

Megapixel cameras are awesome, but can be pricey and I wouldn't necessarily recommend them for existing systems or residential applications. Not even sure any will work with your current DVR or what your expectations are for running new wire.

[rkolb86 0]

Im gonna focus the **** out of it when it isnt raining and get back to you. Its very touchy, but I looked at the recorded video of me playing with it and I saw a brief moment where it looked decent. Maybe ill have to suck it up and get a wrist monitor.

[shockwave199 0]

I can't see any point anywhere in that field of view that is well focused. Every single spot, front to back, side to side, looks out. Not that it'll solve your problem entirely, but good focus will help.

[shockwave199 0]

Recording and live is 640x480, 5 or 6 FPS

At what bit rate on that channel in the drv?

[rory 0]

DVR video compression may also be too blame, right before youtube compression to flv

[rkolb86 0]

Surprisingly, the added compression from youtube and such doesn't change it much...if at all. When side-by-side, it looks identical to the AVI.

 

 

I hooked up a new camera this evening facing the driveway in the other direction (http://agicctv.com/AGI_product.aspx?item=VC-CA-TIR7-742), plugged it in, and actually said "Wow!".

 

I hooked it up in the dark, but the picture quality was already 150x better. I could actually make out faces, the zoom and focus actually worked really well. I only pair $125 for the camera, but I could tell the quality was much better than that supercircuits POS. The new one has adjustable IR intensity and an OSD to adjust all kinds of settings like shutter speed, contract, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

 

 

The other camera was as clean and focused the best it could have possibly been when I recorded that video...which means I'll be replacing it with an identical AGI camera and I'll post the video here so you can compare.

 

 

The only thing I can't get from that angle is license plates at night with the new camera (I still haven't checked during the day though), but I think this is going to be a low light/IR issue. Plates just look like bright reflections.

[rkolb86 0]

Seriously...how the heck do/did people get decent pictures of a 16 ft driveway without needing 2 (or more) cameras?

 

 

I fiddled with a new camera...I look way better at night, but day it only moderately better.

 

 

If I turn of the auto gain control (picture goes really dark until a plate drives past), I can almost get a plate at night, but i'm not zoomed in all the way. I am not too concerned about this, but it would be nice.

 

 

My biggest concern is that when I get a car (at night) or even something reflective/motion I get these block on the screen.

 

The camera's OSD has a ton of settings, but my video monitor won't arrive until a few days from not, and I'm not gonna run back and forth.

 

Any idea what setting I should screw with?

And advice is welcome.

 

 

[SEANHAWG 1]

your video is still converting but if its anything like your old video, its the lens choice that is your problem. With analog cameras you are not going to get detailed closeup shots of license plates and such without dedicating a camera just for that purpose. And if you want something for that purpose, you need something stronger than a 4mm lens.

[rory 0]

you need dedicated camera for plates.

[rkolb86 0]

So i've come to a conclusion that i'm not gonna the quality I want with with analog given the the amount of space I want to view. This is solved.

 

 

I need to fix the blocking issue when there are lights and such. Check out the video with the jeep.

 

There are a bunch of setting inside the camera...I bet its one of those. Any idea what I should mess with? Is it a sensitivity or shutter issue or something? I'm a computer guy...camera's are relatively new to me, although i catch on quickly. Thanks guys

[rory 0]

what DVR is it?

[rkolb86 0]

PC running Blue Iris, software compression

[ssmith10pn 0]

The shot in the first post I would estimate to be 60 feet wide at it's widest point?

 

60/480 = 8 pixels per foot. You need about 60 per foot to get a decent tag shot. that would be an 8' shot.

[rkolb86 0]

Yeah. I decided to scrap that project and ordered some cheap 2MP/1MP cams (Vivotek IP7631, IP8332).

 

 

On that note, I'm pretty sure you use the horizontal pixels for that calculation, which would be 640/60 which is approximately equal to 10ppf

[ssmith10pn 0]

Your correct. I had a early morning no coffee brain.