Hi Resolution IP Cameras

[dennisdil 0]

We have a client who wants a hi resoultion camera to display product to customers by appointment via an IP connection.

 

Sharpness and image quality are important. Showing movement is not very important, so high number of FPs is not crucial.

 

We estimate that 3 megapixels is the minimum, 5 megpix or more would be better for image quality and seemingly possible since displaying motion is not a big factor. Lens (we estimate approx 6mm) will need to focus at about 10-30 feet, will be using indoor lighting with floodlights.

 

What experience have others had with high resolution IP cameras (in sililar situations) and which higher res cameras do people recommend.

 

Thanks,

 

Dennis

Edited March 22, 2007 by Guest

[rikky 0]

Dennis,

 

Most popular Megapixel cams come from Arecont and IQinvision.

 

Although when you mention 'display over IP' beware that the bandwith available is sufficient. As most of the present Megapixel cams have got MJPEG compresion onboard they have good quality pictures, but lack efficient bandwith usage.

[phred 0]

Agree with rikky – the one area they still need to sort out is the compression technology.

 

If you want top quality images and do not need high frame rate then it may be worth looking at using a digital camera.

Many models from Nikon, Canon and Olympus can be connected to a PC and controlled by software. Images are downloaded directly to the PC and can then be uploaded to a website. Some of these cameras can do 8FPS at full res.

 

see control software here

http://www.breezesys.com/

[securitymonster 0]

Two Thumbs up for the Arecont cameras! I have recently been playing with the single sensor 1.3mp color camera and its great. But the dual sensor 3.2mp color, 1.3mp b/w is even better!

 

Crazy awesome pictures but bandwidth is going to be your biggest issue. Make sure you have over 1mb upload and your clients have at least a 3mb download.

 

The still pictures you can capture off the cameras are just as good! HDTV quality video & pictures!

[mcs 0]

Use a Samsung 730 or better still 740 (1/2"ccd and hi res) you wont be dissapointed

 

also use a video server about 150 bucks Au,

so will cost you bout a grand with lense and server,

 

The video server's I use do 2 cams also...

 

Cant beat it

[lynndiwagon 0]

IQinvision

[videobruce 0]

How many companies (other than fortune 500) would pay $1200 to $1800 for just a single camera (w/o any accessories)???

 

Recomendations for something well UNDER $500?

[WirelessEye 0]

A good IP camera for under $500? I don't think I've heard of one. You really have to spend double that to even get in the ballpark.

[videobruce 0]

That would depend on your defination of the term "good". That tells me your looking at top end as being good.

 

How about good enough?

[CollinR 0]

IP is too new for that, the ones under $500 although some are good have poor bang:buck ratios when compared with the analog counterpart.

 

IP vs Analog is a wash on VGA level cameras, there isn't much point in paying for the IP functionality. Megapixel however changes that bigtime.

[videobruce 0]

For PTZ IP cameras, how about;

 

Panasonic KX-HCM280A

Toshiba IK-WB15A or IK-WB21A

Axis 214

[phred 0]

IP is too new for that, the ones under $500 although some are good have poor bang:buck ratios when compared with the analog counterpart.

 

IP vs Analog is a wash on VGA level cameras, there isn't much point in paying for the IP functionality. Megapixel however changes that bigtime.

 

 

I entirely agree.

[phred 0]

For PTZ IP cameras, how about;

 

Panasonic KX-HCM280A

Toshiba IK-WB15A or IK-WB21A

Axis 214

 

These will all cost considerably more than $500 and none can do more than 640x480 pixels.

 

The OP is looking for high res.

[phred 0]

That would depend on your defination of the term "good". That tells me your looking at top end as being good.

 

How about good enough?

 

 

Most folks on here have nothing to gain by suggesting equipment that happens to be expensive.

 

Good quality video just happens to be expensive to do - if there was a cheap solution we would all be using it and I for one would be happy to share that knowledge with anyone as I do not make a living out of cctv.

[CollinR 0]

It's strange how much megapixel effects everything.

 

The obvious.

 

Robust network DEDICATED to CCTV.

Greater camera cost.

 

The not so obvious...

You need fewer cameras, sometimes radically fewer.

Camera positioning is radically different as well.

[videobruce 0]

Good quality video just happens to be expensive to do

I completely understand that.

I looked over the specs of the Panasonic and see it only does 15fps @640x480. The Toshiba does 30@ 640x480. It also does 1280x960, but at only 7.5fps. The Axis PTZ IP still only does 640x480 @30fps and that is $300 more than the Toshiba.

 

Sounds as you are talking in the over $2k range.

[rory 0]

Good quality video just happens to be expensive to do

I completely understand that.

I looked over the specs of the Panasonic and see it only does 15fps @640x480. The Toshiba does 30@ 640x480. It also does 1280x960, but at only 7.5fps. The Axis PTZ IP still only does 640x480 @30fps and that is $300 more than the Toshiba.

 

Sounds as you are talking in the over $2k range.

 

I havent looked at the specs, but dont be surprised if some of those are only CMOS also .. where CMOS is not good for low light apps. However CMOS can actually cost more these days .. which is even stranger ..

[cctv_down_under 0]

That is a good point mentioned before about the need for less cameras with Megapixel cameras.

 

I fairly recently saw a a demo where 1...yep 1...camera covered almost an entire 50,000 seat stadium, mind you it was more like 4 cameras in one, the stitching technolgy and each camera being mega megapixel in size meant that the file size was huge but it recorded inside itself on HDD and from memory streamed a much lessor quality and bandwidth.

 

I actually managed to make out faces from the far end of the stadium to the furtherest point away...very cool.

 

Sure the camea is probably around $40,000 each, but lest face it, to cover the whole stadium would be that much and then some!

[phred 0]

Sounds similar to the 21 megapixel SentryScope camera.

 

Some nice sample images here

 

http://www.envisagetechnology.com/SentryImages.html

 

(right click -save target as) load them in XP picture viewer and zoom in.

 

Also heard they are working on an 84 megapixel version.

[CollinR 0]

Rory, try out an Arecont 3130 before fully buying into what people have said CMOS can and can't do. I agree 99% of it is crapola but not 100%, that last 1% is pretty sick.

 

I just wish Arecont sold a BW only model a little cheaper, still I wouldn't hesistate to put it up against an extreme. Even though it isn't an LPR camera it does fine and can actually do multi lane decently. Bang : Buck it'll smoke 'em ruthlessly as it's far superior picture and cheaper to boot. It has good bang:buck against the SDIII pannys boxes even though it's twice the money.

 

Arecont also has a 360* 8 mega pixel camera thats actually attainable. No idea on how the software works though. (and a 180* too)

 

cctv_down_under,

I think I have seen the same demo, the interface acted as if it was analog 4:3 aspect but in playback you could still PT through the 360 fluidly, and rather then zoom you just get closer to a 1:1. It did look SWEET though. Kinda hard to discribe that functionality though, very cool.

[rory 0]

Yeah I realize the newer CMOS is very good, well the more expensive models, read the comparisons between them and CCD, but still CCD is "supposed" to be better for low light apps, according to the info I read. For example, the new GE line have both a CMOS (Pixem) and CCD WDR camera version, one for each type of app, eg. Cmos for Front Door WDR app, CCD For Day/Night WDR app.

 

The cameras are actually sitting at customs waiting to be cleared right now.

[phred 0]

CCD technology has been pushed so far into low light territory for things like thermal imaging, I can't see CMOS catching up for several years, if at all. Cmos does have advantages in almost every other respect now - like 250 times the contrast ratio and twice the bit depth. What I would like to see is more cameras that have both types of imager cmos for day and CCD for night.

[WirelessEye 0]

Actually, there are some people making CMOS thermal imagers. (At least 2 that I know of).

 

They sell for under $2,000 (Because they are CMOS) and can actually use standard C/CS mount lens options instead of expensive germanium lens's.

 

Want the kicker? They claim to be more sensitive than standard microbolometer based thermal imagers.

 

Hate to say it buy CMOS seems to be handled in the night vision department as well.

[rory 0]

Actually, there are some people making CMOS thermal imagers. (At least 2 that I know of).

 

They sell for under $2,000 (Because they are CMOS) and can actually use standard C/CS mount lens options instead of expensive germanium lens's.

 

Want the kicker? They claim to be more sensitive than standard microbolometer based thermal imagers.

 

Hate to say it buy CMOS seems to be handled in the night vision department as well.

 

yeah but not in the cameras we use

 

Are there any links to these, im interested

[franklin 0]

Hope no one minds me butting in here.

 

AFAIK there are more CMOS thermal imaging cameras now than CCD but CCD got there first.

CMOS tend to be more used for short wave infra red than far infra red. The ones with glass lenses are no use for far infra red, it cannot pass through ordinary glass. Would be ideal for cctv stuff though.

 

CCD and CMOS are in a two horse race but like phred suggests CCD tends to jump the hurdles first. It may not always be that way.