Anyone familiar with these low-end IR cams?

[markb 0]

Hi,

 

I'm planning a low-budget DIY install for my house. I've been reading many of your posts and I appreciate all the advice.

 

I'll start with one or two outdoor cams and a 4-channel DVR. The main camera will be pointed at my short (~ 30 ft.) driveway, where someone recently left a threatening note in a visitor's car. The driveway has a 100 watt motion sensing lantern-style light, but I suspect that someone sneaking up on the opposite side of car could avoid tripping it. So I'd like IR in the cam.

 

Sounds like the AVTECH 760 is popular for the DVR.

 

For the cameras, I was originally looking at a Swann Bulldog, but I see many here who dislike Swann. But maybe they're okay in the under-$100 range?

 

The store I'm looking at for the 760 also sells four "DVR cams" that do not look like AVTECH models. I'm having trouble identifying the original manufacturer, but if you Google some of the odd phrasings in the description below ("waterproof metal crust"), you'll find it at several sites.

 

My question is, are these cameras known, and if so, are they known to be a good value for the money, a complete waste, or something in between?

 

Thanks for any tips,

 

Mark

 

------------------------------------

Camera #1

------------------------------------

Day & Night Outdoor CCD Camera (Waterproof)

 

• Built-in infrared LED, may work under zero degree of illumination environment

• DSP digital signal processing

• Built-in miniature ventilator

• The infrared project distance is between 60~80 meters (200 ~ 265 ft)

• Automatic backlight compensatory function

• Automatic tracking white balance

 

Model Name GS232

Pick-Up Device 1/3" Sony CCD

Number of Pixels 512(H) x 492(V)

System of Signal NTSC/PAL

Horizontal Resolution 420TV Lines

Minimum Illumination 0 Lux

Lens CS Mount, 8.0mm (45°)

Backlight Compensation On/Off

Electronic Shutter 1/50(1/60)~1/100,000sec

White Balance Auto

S/N Ratio >48db

Gamma Correction >0.45

Operation Temperature -20°C~50°C (-4°F ~ 122°F)

Sync System Internal

Video Output ≤1.2Vp-p/75Ω

Power Source Supply DC12V, ≥750mA

Weight Approx. 2 lb

Dimension 120x55x48 mm (5x2.2x1.9 in)

 

------------------------------------

Camera #2

------------------------------------

Day & Night Outdoor CCD Camera (Waterproof)

 

• Built-in infrared LED, may work under zero degree of illumination environment

• The infrared project distance is between 12~18 meters (40 ~ 60 ft)

• Using waterproof metal crust (IP67 standard)

• Automatic backlight compensatory function

• Automatic tracking white balance

 

Model Name GS306

Pick-Up Device 1/4" Sony CCD

Number of Pixels 512(H) x 492(V)

System of Signal NTSC/PAL

Horizontal Resolution 420TV Lines

Minimum Illumination 0 Lux

Lens CS Mount, 3.6mm (90°)

Backlight Compensation On/Off

Electronic Shutter 1/50(1/60)~1/100,000sec

White Balance Auto

S/N Ratio >48db

Gamma Correction >0.45

Operation Temperature -20°C~50°C (-4°F ~ 122°F)

Sync System Internal

Video Output ≤1.2Vp-p/75Ω

Power Source Supply DC12V, ≥750mA

Weight Approx. 2 lb

Dimension 102x58 mm (4x2.3 in)

[markb 0]

Attached are three captures from Camera #1 above (I think it's a Mitar MT-306) as recorded on my new AV Tech 760 and played back through the included software.

 

All three are taken indoors with at a distance of about 10 feet. One is taken with daylight illumination, one with incandescent from an overhead light, and one with the camera's built-in IR.

 

Is this considered acceptable quality? I'm concerned that especially with the IR, facial features are almost indiscernable. Is there anything I can do to enhance this? I'm already recording at "Best" quality and the maximum 30 fps in Frame mode (MJPEG). There's also a CIF mode up to 120 ips, but that seems to only record the 4-way split of the DVR, and the playback quality is not as good.

 

This camera does in fact throw good IR all the way across my back yard (~80+ feet). But if you can't identify people at 10 feet, what's the point?

 

Mark

San Diego, CA

[rory 0]

Hi, there are a couple issues here.

 

1-The camera in question is just a Color/IR Camera - a True Day Night Camera would give a much better image.

 

2-The DVR in question is a budget Entry level DVR, its client software video is always low quality, in fact the quality is one of the worse I have seen from any DVR yet. BUT, for the price it is not bad - it is probably the cheapest DVR on the market. The quality at the DVR itself normally is very good though.

 

You could use a video capture card (eg. Avermedia or other) inside a PC (or a USB Capture Cable for a laptop), run a cable from the monitor out on the DVR to the PC Capture card, then record that raw video on the PC (See thread in DVR Card forum on Generic Software, use something like AmCap, VidCap, or one that comes with the card).

 

Basically you need to ignore what you see through the software, as that does not do the DVR or the Camera justice. You need to plug the camera direct into a CCTV CRT Monitor, or a CRT TV (eg. 13" TV) and check the camera with that. The image should be very good. You could also use one of those monitors/TV on the monitor out from the DVR and use that to view the video from the DVR; live and recorded.

 

If you dont have either monitor or TV, you could use a VGA converter to a PC LCD Monitor (or use the RCA/AV in on an LCD that has it), however the image will be much lower quality - better than the quality you are seeing through the client software though.

[CollinR 0]

IR on the cam sucks, don't do that again. Get a cheap BW camera and be happy.

 

You can use that cam as an illuminator if you like.

 

 

EDIT:

Heck it looks like 3 totally different people. Thats almost funny it's so bad.

 

Can you return it?

[zmxtech 0]

swann =crap

 

Stupid With Alltogether No Nightvision "SWANN"

 

all I could come up with without coffee

 

:-\

[rory 0]

is this the camera?

http://detail.china.alibaba.com/buyer/offerdetail/77080073.html

 

cant find a manufacturer called Mitar though.

Edited October 1, 2007 by Guest

[photys 0]

Hi markb.

Sorry we didnt reply before you bought the equipment.

 

To find out whether the weakest link in the chain is the camera or the DVR, try plugging the output of a DVD player into a camera socket.

Record some DVD quality footage and play it back.

That will give you the best quality the DVR can record.

 

If your happy with the results, buy some brandname cameras. (Samsung techwin, bosh, panasonic), or even some 600 TVL Black and white cameras.

If not, then replace the DVR and the cameras.

[markb 0]

is this the camera?

[links snipped out]

cant find a manufacturer called Mitar though.

 

My bad, the MT-306 is camera #2 above, with the 1/4" CCD. I've got one of those on order.

 

The pictures are from a larger (1/3" CCD) MT232A. You can find that on the procamcctv site as well (I can't post URLs yet).

 

The description on their site seems to imply a varifocal lens but mine is fixed at 8mm, which I've found to be too long for most locations around the house. (If I were to mount it on the garage, I could only monitor the far end of my driveway.) I guessed at the "Mitar" name from the printing on the side of the cameras at those web sites.

 

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I'll play around and see how far I get.

 

The purpose here is not live observation but recording stuff while I'm away, so it has to work through the DVR.

 

I do have an inexpensive CCTV monitor (Lorex B/W). A paused frame looks a wee bit better on that than through the software.

 

The software is pretty good in terms of functionality (it's Java by the way, works fine under XP and Vista, and the remote viewer works in Firefox). Probably the video streaming server, which is in the DVR, isn't the best.

 

I'm also testing cables. Is a BNC cable supposed to be shielded? The 75-foot video/power cable I bought from the supplier is very thin. The IR image through that cable was extremely blocky (I think that's called "pixelated"?). I dug out an old Thin Ethernet computer networking cable, maybe 25 feet long, and used that for the sample pictures. Something like a Belkin F3K101-25-E.

 

More when I can get time to test some of your suggestions...

 

Mark

[rory 0]

My bad, the MT-306 is camera #2 above, with the 1/4" CCD. I've got one of those on order.

 

The pictures are from a larger (1/3" CCD) MT232A. You can find that on the procamcctv site as well (I can't post URLs yet).

 

The description on their site seems to imply a varifocal lens but mine is fixed at 8mm, which I've found to be too long for most locations around the house. (If I were to mount it on the garage, I could only monitor the far end of my driveway.) I guessed at the "Mitar" name from the printing on the side of the cameras at those web sites.

 

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I'll play around and see how far I get.

 

Yeah I see that one too, has alot more IR though otherwise seems similar in quality, Color/IR instead of Day Night .. Ive used quite a few like that in the past, testing, but I never liked them enough to sell them.

 

 

The purpose here is not live observation but recording stuff while I'm away, so it has to work through the DVR.

 

I do have an inexpensive CCTV monitor (Lorex B/W). A paused frame looks a wee bit better on that than through the software.

 

The software is pretty good in terms of functionality (it's Java by the way, works fine under XP and Vista, and the remote viewer works in Firefox). Probably the video streaming server, which is in the DVR, isn't the best.

 

The monitor/TV would just be to test the camera quality, do any focusing required also. Most fixed lens cameras are already focused but in my experience sometimes not to the best they could be. Either way, typically when an installer receives the camera, they will test them directly to a monitor before connecting them to the DVR - to make sure the camera is working up to speed.

 

Yep functionality the software has (for the price that is), Ive used it before, the client software is much better in that regard than the browser based though. But the quality is awful, always has been, I asked them about that a long time ago but seems they have not made it better yet.

 

Like you mentioned, probably an issue on the DVRs server side, especially since it also appears in the client software.

 

That monitor is probably very low quality, if it's like the cheap ones Ive seen in the past that came with the kits; I imagine a TV would be better.

 

 

I'm also testing cables. Is a BNC cable supposed to be shielded? The 75-foot video/power cable I bought from the supplier is very thin. The IR image through that cable was extremely blocky (I think that's called "pixelated"?). I dug out an old Thin Ethernet computer networking cable, maybe 25 feet long, and used that for the sample pictures. Something like a Belkin F3K101-25-E.

 

More when I can get time to test some of your suggestions...

 

Mark

 

Should be RG59 for best quality. If its thin then its probably just RCA Cable, or maybe RG56-58; the all in one DIY cables ive used in the past were just RCA video and power, 25, 50, 75, 100' lengths with RCA on one end and a BNC adapter on the other. I dont think thats your problem in this case though, but it would be good to get the right cable just incase anything else comes up, such as interference.

 

Basically the quality will get somewhat better once a decent camera is used, and perhaps the cable from the camera to the DVR. It will always be much lower over the LAN than direct at the DVR though.

 

Example from the AvTech software:

 

High Res OEM Camera

 

Extreme CCTV Ex-80 Dual True Day/Night Long Range IR Camera:

 

 

Now from a PC Based DVR over the network:

 

Cheap OEM Low Res Color Bullet

 

 

On a Stand Alone GE Kalatel DVR:

 

Box True Day/Night Camera with separate UF500 Infrared:

 

Now the EX82 Dual True Day/Night Long Range IR Camera:

http://www.bahamassecurity.com/tmp/dn_1.jpg

[markb 0]

Rory,

 

So am I getting the message that you prefer PC-based DVR for a low-end solution?

 

Here is a pic of the camera cables. The gray is a power/video cable that I was worried is too thin. The black is the old Thin Ethernet network cable, labeled RG58A/U, which for the video alone is as thick as the gray cable with both power and video. A penny for size comparison...

 

Mark

[rory 0]

Rory,

 

So am I getting the message that you prefer PC-based DVR for a low-end solution?

 

Here is a pic of the camera cables. The gray is a power/video cable that I was worried is too thin. The black is the old Thin Ethernet network cable, labeled RG58A/U, which for the video alone is as thick as the gray cable with both power and video. A penny for size comparison...

 

Mark

 

No No, just 2 different things, mostly relative to the Network Video quality from the Avtech DVR. But, like I said, for the price, cant beat that DVR. The others mentioned, including the other stand alone DVRs, cost alot more. PC based for a low end solution is actually not that great ... ends up being double to triple the cost to do it right. I mean you could build a $200 PC then slap in a budget 4 channel card for like $150 retail (eg. GeoVision GV-250), but .. to then turn around and sell that to a client is another issue.

 

For a low end solution the budget stand alones like the Avtech, and a little bit more, the Avermedia, are the best choices IMO. The Avermedia is actually better quality over the network, last time I looked at a demo, but costs more than the AvTech. I use to push the AvTechs, but not for its remote video, only as a entry level DVR (with a basic remote video option). In other words to get a DVR with better remote video quality (LAN or WAN), one has to spend more, but for local direct video at the DVR, it is great typically.

 

As to the cable, the RG58 would be better (provided it is solid copper center and copper braid) than the other one which is RCA. But, RG59 is what we use.

 

Rory

[markb 0]

Well I have an old Intel USB webcam here that allows hooking up an external video source and capturing images. Not an ideal solution, but I thought I'd see how it compares to what I posted the other day.

 

First to clarify, the snapshots posted above were captured from the DVR software, but they were captured during paused DVR playback, not after saving the file on the computer. The white time stamp is the time of the capture; the yellow timestamp is the time the image was recorded.

 

I connected the camera directly to the USB interface and captured a couple new shots, #1 and #2 below.

 

Then I went back to that same frame on the DVR and captured it directly from the DVR to the PC via the USB interface. That's #3 below.

 

So it looks to me like the camera by itself itself is decent with ambient lighting, and almost okay with IR. The DVR recording loses quality (though it actually preserves motion pretty well). Playing back the recording through the web interface makes an IR picture almost useless.

 

I can live with the understanding that web playback is poor as long as I can capture acceptable quality, should it ever be needed, directly from the DVR. At this point it's borderline whether this DVR is good enough even for that.

 

(By the way, anyone ever try a DigiMerge DGR204 DVR? I could probably still get one of those instead--see my post on the DVR forum.)

 

I'll see what I can learn (and afford) about true day/night cameras. I think there are some posts on b/w cameras too. I'd rather have good nighttime quality than daytime color.

 

Thanks for your help,

 

Mark

[rory 0]

Its better, though the USB convertor software might be holding it back also. In case that is also compressed, maybe try AmCap and view the USB image through that, see what it gives you. Use it with no Compression, any captured video will be Huge but just to test.

 

Some Info on AmCap is in this thread:

http://www.cctvforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2021

 

Link to AmCap:

http://noeld.com/programs.asp?cat=video#amcap

 

Raw video using AmCap, from a budget color camera:

(connected to a generic card in this case)

[markb 0]

That AmCap is a svelt little program. It'd be great if I could use that instead of the Intel bloatware. I'll have to see if it can access the video in port of the Intel webcam after I uninstall the Intell Create and Share software.

 

Tried to upload the same image captured through AmCap as a still capture, but I'm getting an error after I click on "Add Attachment": "Could not access ftp directory: 'attachments/thumbs'. Please check your FTP Settings." Anyway, the version from the Intel software looks just a little bit better to me. It's also 70KB instead of AmCap's 25KB.

 

Mark

[rory 0]

You will need to change the quality and compression settings in Amcap. I think it would be set on low by default, been a while.

[markb 0]

AmCap compression was set to None. I don't see a Quality setting.

[rory 0]

I dont have a card/cam in my PC right now so cant test, but perhaps later tomorrow (geez today) ill hook up my webcam ... off to sleep now, 3am.

[markb 0]

No worries; I appreciate your help. I uninstalled the Intel Create and Share, and while that leaves behind a basic driver, it doesn't seem to allow selecting the video in port on the webcam. So AmCap won't work unless I re-install all the Intel stuff.

 

Setting aside capture, just eyeballing the video playback on my cheapo b/w monitor, I can see just as much distortion in the IR images as I saw in the captured images that I already posted. Conversely, watching the _live_ monitor (even hooked up through the DVR), the IR image looks sharper than during playback, and the "color" image looks very sharp. So I think the monitor and camera are doing pretty well, and the captures are representing them accurately. It's the DVR that is sucking out the most quality.

 

What settings do you use for AV Tech recording? I have mine set to Frame mode, Best quality, 30 fps when detecting motion. I may add 7 fps for "manual" record (which basically runs all the time), but the problem doesn't seem to be the frame rate, but rather the quality of each frame. All of this is with one camera--will it bog down if I connect more?

 

I wonder if increasing the contrast setting in the DVR for this camera would help. Unfortunately, there's no way to do that for IR mode only.

 

The other camera should arrive tomorrow (today). More to play with.

 

Mark

[scorpion 0]

If you are recording in Frame, then you are recording in JPEG. CIF will give you MPEG recording. This also depends on the DVR, and I did not catch the model before I posted.

[markb 0]

If you are recording in Frame, then you are recording in JPEG. CIF will give you MPEG recording. This also depends on the DVR, and I did not catch the model before I posted.

 

It's an AV Tech 760, the one with a network port but no USB or CD/DVD.

 

The manual covers five models and refers to this as "Model 3". In the Product Description, under Video Compression Format, it says: "Frame: MJPEG; CIF: MPEG4".

 

The CIF quality seems much worse than Frame when paused. Maybe CIF does a better job of capturing motion; otherwise, I'm not sure why it's in there at all.

 

Mark