IFSEC 4K camera presentations

[LittleScoobyMaster 0]

Anyone making it to IFSEC this week?

 

They are supposed to be demoing the 24-30fps 4K cameras. I think Bosch was supposed to be showing one.

 

http://www.asmag.com/rankings/article_detail.aspx?id=16994

 

Bosch Security Systems, Inc.

DINION IP ultra 8000 MP

Booth # 14051

Edited June 19, 2014 by Guest

[thewireguys 3]

You are obsessed with 4K

[ssmith10pn 0]

You are obsessed with 4K

 

And high frame rates too.

 

Funny

The Indian gaming commission only requires 20fps but he thinks he needs 24 to 30

 

Mostly curious to see how they perform. 6fps is too slow for the current crop of 10mp+ cams. 24 to 30 fps is the sweet spot.

[LittleScoobyMaster 0]

You are obsessed with 4K

 

And high frame rates too.

 

Funny

The Indian gaming commission only requires 20fps but he thinks he needs 24 to 30

 

Mostly curious to see how they perform. 6fps is too slow for the current crop of 10mp+ cams. 24 to 30 fps is the sweet spot.

 

I am a little obsessed. I like to live view all my cams and on the 4K tv, the cams at only 2035x1600x20fps don't natively fill the entire screen or look that great at only 20fps. When you have to stretch 2035 pixels to be 3840, it doesn't look that great. We can watch House of Cards in 4K but we can't even view our surveillance cameras in that resolution...until now. I think it's long overdue. It's about time that the surveillance industry starts to catch up with the hardware life-cycles of the IT industry.

 

The new cameras will fill the screen at a 1:1 ratio for live viewing, which is very nice.

 

I've always been disappointed with 1080p\1440p\1600p. I always notice the pixelation too much.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Guest

[ssmith10pn 0]

I am a little obsessed. I like to live view all my cams and on the 4K tv, the cams at only 2035x1600x20fps don't natively fill the entire screen or look that great at only 20fps. When you have to stretch 2035 pixels to be 3840, it doesn't look that great.

 

So I take it your not a professional?

Because that isn't realistic.

This is video surveillance not Hollywood.

Even at 15fps or even 10 your not going to miss a thing.

 

In the real world we work in it would not be feasible to support the storage for high frame rates just so it was smooth.

We are about collecting evidence and if an assault or robbery happens it's not going to make a hill of beans weather its 30fps or 5 in a court of law. It's still going to show the same thing.

 

I have seen hundreds of slip and falls in hospitals and it looks the same at 5fps as it does at 20. They slip and they hit the ground.

[LittleScoobyMaster 0]

I am a little obsessed. I like to live view all my cams and on the 4K tv, the cams at only 2035x1600x20fps don't natively fill the entire screen or look that great at only 20fps. When you have to stretch 2035 pixels to be 3840, it doesn't look that great.

 

So I take it your not a professional?

Because that isn't realistic.

This is video surveillance not Hollywood.

Even at 15fps or even 10 your not going to miss a thing.

 

In the real world we work in it would not be feasible to support the storage for high frame rates just so it was smooth.

We are about collecting evidence and if an assault or robbery happens it's not going to make a hill of beans weather its 30fps or 5 in a court of law. It's still going to show the same thing.

 

I have seen hundreds of slip and falls in hospitals and it looks the same at 5fps as it does at 20. They slip and they hit the ground.

 

I'm more of an enthusiast. I like pushing hardware to the limits to see what it can do. It's an addiction really.

 

But I can tell you that when you are live viewing your cameras, under 20 fps looks bad compared to 30fps, not to mention those 6 fps 10mp cams, way too slow at 6 fps. Like just 2 minutes ago, a car just drove by the front window which I was watching through the TV next to my PC in another room while typing this. That camera at only 20 fps looks much worse than my other cameras at 30 fps. It's like Skippy Peanut Butter under 20 fps.

 

Also, I can tell you that 4K tv's really do show more details than 1080p sets. Once you try it you really don't want to go back to a 1080 set. I remember the first time I saw the Winter Olympics in 1080(i), and I was very impressed with the upgrade from standard definition sets. The same thing happens again with 4K, albeit a little less pronounced, but still a huge improvement.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Guest

[ssmith10pn 0]

So I bet you hate 1080p 24fps Blu Ray movies.

[LittleScoobyMaster 0]

So I bet you hate 1080p 24fps Blu Ray movies.

 

Don't get me started with that whole debacle, and yes, 24 fps has been a horrible industry standard since forever. Finally some movies like The Hobbit (48fps) are breaking the mold and showing us what we have been missing in the movie industry for all these years. I'm not talking about the movie itself, because I hated it, but I like the idea of the greater fps push they employed for the picture.

 

I also notice the blur quite a bit on standard blurays on 60hz tv's, and yes, 30hz sucks as well on some of the new 4K sets and 4K monitors. Thankfully, the 30hz refresh issue is just a passing phase. I hope 24 fps becomes a passing phase eventually in the movie industry, but I'm not holding my breath for that one because it's been the industry standard since the dawn of time. Almost like how surveillance cameras, since forever, were limited to very low scan lines and low pixel counts. That's why these new 4K cameras are a nice change, as were the 1080 cams a few years back.

 

http://www.blurbusters.com/overclock/120hz-pc-to-tv/

Edited June 19, 2014 by Guest

[ssmith10pn 0]

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2347098/nvidias-geforce-gtx-titan-z-graphics-card-goes-on-sale-for-usd3-000

[LittleScoobyMaster 0]

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2347098/nvidias-geforce-gtx-titan-z-graphics-card-goes-on-sale-for-usd3-000

 

I'm not that much of an enthusiast. My dollar limit for graphics cards is well below that, but I did have one of the very first 3dfx 3d accelerators back when they revolutionized the graphics industry. It was awesome to pop in a 3dfx card and eventually two in SLI to play Quake back in the day, although Doom was better. Another addiction.

 

But yeah, that card (or 2) with 6 30" 4k monitors in a 3 over 3 config would be amazing for a flight sim (if a good one existed presently). drools

 

It's too bad Nvidia was late to the multi-display scene though.

 

Arrgh. Did I mention how much I hate bezels? Don't get me started on that lame industry standard. We should be at 36 to 40 inch monitor sizes nearing a standard, instead, we are at only 24 to 27 inches.

 

Much older Eyefinity setup with much smaller displays:

[MaxIcon 0]

You know, if you just watch all your movies on a cell phone, you won't notice the pixelation at all...

[alanjh1965 0]

4K?

 

Old Hat

 

I'm waiting for 8K.... then I'll need to buy enough hard drives to fill a house..... Still at least they will keep the house warm in the Winter!

[dexterash 0]

Or maybe 32k...

 

But I still wonder... Can the reflection in a one, 1x1 , black pixel be enhanced up to a level that can be transformed into a real picture, using digital zoom on recordings?

[LittleScoobyMaster 0]

Or maybe 32k...

 

But I still wonder... Can the reflection in a one, 1x1 , black pixel be enhanced up to a level that can be transformed into a real picture, using digital zoom on recordings?

 

On CSI perhaps.

 

I notice that IPVM has tested out the 4K TV I have but they charge for subscriptions.

 

http://ipvm.com/report/testing_4k_monitor

 

Anyone have a subscription to this site? Curious what the verdict was. I know that the 30hz is an issue, but I still think the set is perfect for a surveillance monitor.

[jhonovich 0]

Scooby,

 

This is John from IPVM.

 

On the 4K test, we found that the only visible improvements vs a 1080p monitor was for single display of 5MP (or higher res) cameras. Even for those cameras, it was modest, at best.

 

For 2 x 2 layouts (or greater), no meaningful visible differences at all.

 

Hope that helps.

[survtech 0]

Funny

The Indian gaming commission only requires 20fps but he thinks he needs 24 to 30

I assume you're pointing at NIGC's definition of "Sufficient Clarity". Keep in mind that regulation was specifically aimed at the use of multiplexers - devices that were basically obsolete many years ago.

 

NIGC MICS Sufficient Clarity Definition: "use of monitoring and recording at a minimum of twenty (20) frames per second. Multiplexer tape recordings are insufficient to satisfy the requirement of sufficient clarity."

 

Of note, the NIGC goes on to use that same term in totally unrelated ways, such as:

 

Card Games: dedicated camera(s) with sufficient clarity must be used to provide:

(A) An overview of the activities on each card table surface, including card faces and cash and/or cash equivalents;

(B) An overview of card game activities, including patrons and dealers; and

© An unobstructed view of all posted progressive pool amounts.

 

Cage and vault: The surveillance system must monitor and record a general overview of activities occurring in each cage and vault area with sufficient clarity to identify individuals within the cage and patrons and staff members at the counter areas and to confirm the amount of each cash transaction.

 

Etc., etc.

 

I once expressed my thoughts on the vagueness of that specific area of the NIGC MICS to the Chairman of the NIGC. My boss was not amused...

 

By the way, MICS is "Minimum Internal Control Standards". "Minimum" is just what it says. In our case, we have decided that every camera must supply both Live and Recorded video at 30fps without exception.

[msecure 0]

Scooby,

 

This is John from IPVM.

 

On the 4K test, we found that the only visible improvements vs a 1080p monitor was for single display of 5MP (or higher res) cameras. Even for those cameras, it was modest, at best.

 

For 2 x 2 layouts (or greater), no meaningful visible differences at all.

 

Hope that helps.

But if you zoom in to the details on a 5MP IPC it would looks much better right?

[jhonovich 0]

"if you zoom in to the details on a 5MP IPC it would looks much better right?"

 

If you digitally zoom in, you do not need a 4K monitor, right? You can digitally zoom in on an 1080p one and have the same outcome.

 

The other part of the question is, how much better is a 5MP camera than a 1080p one?

 

In wider FoVs with even bright lighting, that's the best case scenario for looking 'much better'. Here's an excerpt from one of our tests showing that best case scenario:

 

 

However, in narrower FoVs, the difference tends to be minimal and in low light, the 1080p can often be better than the 5MP.

[dexterash 0]

But if you zoom in to the details on a 5MP IPC it would looks much better right?

 

5MP vs 2MP(~1080p) on the same sensor size can pose some problems, meaning one pixel might get more noise(heat generated) from neighboring pixels.

 

If, instead of using 1/2.8'' sensors for 5MP, you would use 1/1.4'' or larger ones, the differences should be bigger.

[MaxIcon 0]

The lens is also critical with tiny sensor elements. A lens that gives good resolution at 1080p may not show much improvement at 10mp if it's optimized for 2MP resolution.

 

Also, going from 1080p (1920x1080, 2.1MP) to 10MP (ACTi's 3648x2736, 10MP) looks like a 5x resolution increase, but what most people care about is linear resolution, as it's pixels per foot (or whatever) that makes the difference.

 

10MP gives a 1.9x (horizontal) and 2.5x (vertical) increase in linear resolution, so going from 1080p to 10MP basically gives you a 2x better image when it comes to identifying details, assuming the lens resolution is improved enough to enable this.

[ssmith10pn 0]

But if you zoom in to the details on a 5MP IPC it would looks much better right?

 

5MP vs 2MP(~1080p) on the same sensor size can pose some problems, meaning one pixel might get more noise(heat generated) from neighboring pixels.

 

If, instead of using 1/2.8'' sensors for 5MP, you would use 1/1.4'' or larger ones, the differences should be bigger.

 

That's probably why Avigilon uses 35mm sensors on their Pro Cameras.