GV2008 vs. GV1480

[501 0]

I am getting a some requests for higher quality video with better fram rates. the systems will record in 720X480. How much better will the quality be on the 2008 be versus the 1480. I have installed many 800's and 1120's, and am just wanting to see or hear about the true difference between the hardware cards and software. At about $1k for a 2008, that's an expensive 8 camera card to "test".

[tpolus 0]

I am getting a some requests for higher quality video with better fram rates. the systems will record in 720X480. How much better will the quality be on the 2008 be versus the 1480. I have installed many 800's and 1120's, and am just wanting to see or hear about the true difference between the hardware cards and software. At about $1k for a 2008, that's an expensive 8 camera card to "test".

 

You can see a comparison of GV-800 and GV-2008 here:

http://www.polvision.com.pl/files.asp?lang=pl&id=144 (sorry for Polish version, we don't have English version right now, just click POBIERZ button below ZIP icon on the right to download AVI files package).

 

GV-1480 video quality is the same as GV-800.

GV-1480 video smoothness is somewhere between GV-800 and GV-2008 so this demo can help you a bit.

[CameraGenius 0]

You will get less framrate with the 1480 if you put the resolution at D1. With the 2008 series you will get full D1 which is 30fps and full resolution.

[501 0]

Thanks a lot for the replies guys. I am aware of all the "sepcification" differences. Thanks for the clips tpolus. I wanted to hear from people with real world experience installing both of them. I have installed 800,1120 and 1240's and have been quite happy but like everyone, i am on a quest for the best recording quality possible. Perhaps after years of installing GV800 cards I have become used to the cards and their quality so it doesn't impress me too much. tpolus, were you blown away with the 2008 or would you say it was only marginally better then say an 800 or 1480?

 

Edit

Tpolus,. I just watched all of the demo clips you provided, thanks a lot, and there is definitley a difference in color, frame rate and clarity. What resolutions and codecs were they both recorded in (720X480 or 720X480 interlaced). I have noticed on the Gv800's the the still capture of a non moving event is far superior in 720X480 then 720X480 interlaced but not as good for a lot of motion and trying to get the face of a moving person. Do you install many 2008's? Do you find it requires much bigger HDD's compared to the 800?

[tpolus 0]

Thanks a lot for the replies guys. I am aware of all the "sepcification" differences. Thanks for the clips tpolus. I wanted to hear from people with real world experience installing both of them. I have installed 800,1120 and 1240's and have been quite happy but like everyone, i am on a quest for the best recording quality possible. Perhaps after years of installing GV800 cards I have become used to the cards and their quality so it doesn't impress me too much. tpolus, were you blown away with the 2008 or would you say it was only marginally better then say an 800 or 1480?

 

Well, it depends. My observations and experiences:

 

LIVE VIEW:

- GV2008 video resolution - same as GV800 and GV1480 - D1 resolution

- GV2008 video quality - same as GV1480, which means slightly worse than GV800

- GV2008 video smoothness - much better than GV1480 and GV800, true real time video even with 16 cameras connected, just as good as DVD movie

 

RECORDING:

- GV2008 video recording resolution - same as GV800 and GV1480 - D1 resolution

- GV2008 video recording quality - slightly better than GV800 and GV-1480, smooth object edges, no visible pixels even on enlarged pictures, perfect color rendering (true colors) - the link I sent you before contains pictures with marked mentioned differences, see once again

- GV2008 video recording smoothness - much better than GV1480 and GV800, true real time video even with 16 cameras connected, just as good as DVD movie.

[tpolus 0]

Tpolus,. I just watched all of the demo clips you provided, thanks a lot, and there is definitley a difference in color, frame rate and clarity. What resolutions and codecs were they both recorded in (720X480 or 720X480 interlaced). I have noticed on the Gv800's the the still capture of a non moving event is far superior in 720X480 then 720X480 interlaced but not as good for a lot of motion and trying to get the face of a moving person. Do you install many 2008's? Do you find it requires much bigger HDD's compared to the 800?

 

No, I don't install many GV2008 - they are too expensive for most of my customers (however, today I received info from Geovision with new lower prices for GV2004 and GV2008 card - good news).

 

Unfortunately, it requires much more HDD space than GV800 and GV1480 cards. It's like DVD movie. From my statistics, such configuration:

- 1 camera

- D1 resolution

- DVD quality

takes about 20-30 MegaBytes of space per 1 minute, depending on the video complexity of course. Geovision says sometimes it's even 30-35 MB/min. For GV2008/16 camera system it could be even 500 GBytes per day (recording 16 cameras nonstop 25/30 fps).

 

As you can see, it is worth to use economical 24h recording option (25/30fps when motion detected, few fps when no motion detected).

[501 0]

EXCELLENT replies, thank you very much Tpolus! I looked carefully at the clips you sent and you are bang on. So..... more questions.

 

1) Have you tried the GV2008 with software compression? Do you still get the same frame rates and quality? If not how much worse is it?

 

2) Have you done direct comparisson between 800's and 1480's in terms of D1 frame rates? I have been told soooo many different things by suppliers, but the goal is max quality in D1.

 

I guess when you demostrated that they require such HUGE hard Drive spaces, for customers who need weeks or months of recordings, these cards are not ideal without 10's of TB's of storage!

 

Cheers.

[tpolus 0]

EXCELLENT replies, thank you very much Tpolus! I looked carefully at the clips you sent and you are bang on. So..... more questions.

 

1) Have you tried the GV2008 with software compression? Do you still get the same frame rates and quality? If not how much worse is it?

 

2) Have you done direct comparisson between 800's and 1480's in terms of D1 frame rates? I have been told soooo many different things by suppliers, but the goal is max quality in D1.

 

I guess when you demostrated that they require such HUGE hard Drive spaces, for customers who need weeks or months of recordings, these cards are not ideal without 10's of TB's of storage!

 

Cheers.

 

1 - No I didn't use GV2008 for software compression, as it seems a bit waste of money. However, to save HDD space, beside above mentioned economical 24h recording mode, it is also possible to record for example 9 cams in DVD quality (HW compr. MPEG2 or MPEG4 ASP) and other 6 cams in normal quality (SW compr. GEOH264 or GEOMPEG4..). I suppose these 6 cams quality is the same as GV1480 and other Combo cards.

 

2 - GV1480 in D1 de-interlaced performs about 95-100 fps. In D1 interlaced it performs about 200 fps. This is from official Geovision documentiation for their GV-DVR rack systems (it disappeared suddenly from their webiste).

GV-800 in D1 de-interlaced performs about 25 fps. In D1 interlaced it performs about 50 fps.

I confirm these values from my own experiences.

 

Yes, most GV2008/16 24h recording systems truly requires couple TBytes of disk space. It's not a big problem in today's SATA and SATA RAID5 world, but still... I'm waiting for Geovision's GV2016 H264 hardware compression card - this compression method will save lot of disk space while giving similar video quality to GV2008.

Until that time, I really recommend using economic 24h recording mode for GV2008 cards. For most systems, it can help reduce disk space needed to reasonable values like 1 TB per month

[501 0]

I only ever use motion recording so it's not really a problem. That new card sounds awesome, can't wait to see that. I hope it doesn't cost too much..... which it will.

 

Do you have a copy of that brochure? How about those frame rates in NTSC?

[tpolus 0]

I only ever use motion recording so it's not really a problem. That new card sounds awesome, can't wait to see that. I hope it doesn't cost too much..... which it will.

 

Do you have a copy of that brochure? How about those frame rates in NTSC?

 

It is for NTSC. I'll try to attach the JPEG file with fps rates (doing this for the first time). See attachement to this post.

[501 0]

Thanks a lot. That info is very much appreciated.

 

Looking at those results, if we are recording in 640X480 the best value will be the 1240 card (same frame rates as 1480, less cpu usage). It is really a shame Geo tries to hide this info from their customers.

 

It's kind of wierd that the 1120/1240/1480 are so structrually similar. My supplier told me the record in D1 at the same frame rates, but I'm not sure i believe him.

[tpolus 0]

Thanks a lot. That info is very much appreciated.

 

Looking at those results, if we are recording in 640X480 the best value will be the 1240 card (same frame rates as 1480, less cpu usage). It is really a shame Geo tries to hide this info from their customers.

 

It's kind of wierd that the 1120/1240/1480 are so structrually similar. My supplier told me the record in D1 at the same frame rates, but I'm not sure i believe him.

 

I'm also not sure about these values, however it's an offical info taken from Geo website some time ago and saved on my HDD.

 

It's not a shame, it's just pure marketing

Other CCTV producers go exactly the same way because of marketing reasons. Moreover, many CCTV producers don't make such performance tests at all... Fortunately Geovision made these tests and made documentation publicly available, but after some time they decided to hide it. I think you can ask for it now and they should give you direct answers about performance.

[501 0]

I thought they would too but I have made a call to them directly and started did the online support thing and they refused to give me this info. I just wish it was at least made readily available to at least installers/dealers.