What is the highest CCTV camera resolution?

[wondcam 0]

The CCD camera resolution can be up to 420TV lines.

 

wondcam dot com

[amirm 0]

The CCD camera resolution can be up to 420TV lines.

 

wondcam dot com

The CCD sensor can have any resolution. You can even have 1000 lines of resolution and subsample down. But per my above note, your limit in non-IP cameras, is that of NTSC modulation. That is the weakest link. And that is well below 420 lines.

 

An IP camera on the other hand, is able to transmit resolution well above that since it is not bound by NTSC standard. However, in the process of compression, it adds non-linear distortion which can bring its effective resolution well below the sensor.

[ak357 0]

The CCD sensor can have any resolution. You can even have 1000 lines of resolution and subsample down. But per my above note, your limit in non-IP cameras, is that of NTSC modulation. That is the weakest link. And that is well below 420 lines.

 

An IP camera on the other hand, is able to transmit resolution well above that since it is not bound by NTSC standard. However, in the process of compression, it adds non-linear distortion which can bring its effective resolution well below the sensor.

 

Mda... all we need is Rory to join this topic

[amirm 0]

Mda... all we need is Rory to join this topic

No question Rory will make this conversation interesting.

 

 

Now, who is Rory?

 

New kid on the block....

Amir

[Steven_niel 0]

Hi Everyone . as I know , if you are using PC-based DVR or embedded DVR . the highest preview/recording resolution is D1 : NTSC(704 X 480) (704 X 576) . recording 300TVL ~500TVL already very clearly .

 

That's the reason why most manufacturers only product 420TVL , 480TVL ,520TVL Cameras . Other details will be more important , for example support wide-voltage , material , life cycle , easy-install etc.

[amirm 0]

Hi Everyone . as I know , if you are using PC-based DVR or embedded DVR . the highest preview/recording resolution is D1 : NTSC(704 X 480) (704 X 576) . recording 300TVL ~500TVL already very clearly .

That is a good point in that PC based recoding goes up to broadcast standard. Which is quite nice. Sadly, the signal arriving at the card from the camera, doesn't approach those numbers unless you use the S-video (Y/C) cable.

 

That's the reason why most manufacturers only product 420TVL , 480TVL ,520TVL Cameras .

You lost me there . As long as you are using a single coax to connect to PC DVR, you can't get those numbers (and at any rate, TV Line is not the same as the resolution numbers used above for DVR).

 

The signal is filtered (lowered in resolution) at the camera end before being put on that cable due to limitation of NTSC broadcast standard we live in. The numbers you mention per my post, are the resolution of the front-end/sensor of the camera, not what you get at your DVR -- PC or otherwise.

[Steven_niel 0]

Hi Everyone . as I know , if you are using PC-based DVR or embedded DVR . the highest preview/recording resolution is D1 : NTSC(704 X 480) (704 X 576) . recording 300TVL ~500TVL already very clearly .

That is a good point in that PC based recoding goes up to broadcast standard. Which is quite nice. Sadly, the signal arriving at the card from the camera, doesn't approach those numbers unless you use the S-video (Y/C) cable.

 

That's the reason why most manufacturers only product 420TVL , 480TVL ,520TVL Cameras .

You lost me there . As long as you are using a single coax to connect to PC DVR, you can't get those numbers (and at any rate, TV Line is not the same as the resolution numbers used above for DVR).

 

The signal is filtered (lowered in resolution) at the camera end before being put on that cable due to limitation of NTSC broadcast standard we live in. The numbers you mention per my post, are the resolution of the front-end/sensor of the camera, not what you get at your DVR -- PC or otherwise.

you are right ,recording with 480TVL and 520TVL cameras , the finally quality can't be 480TVL or 520TVL , as my experience , it will be 300TVL~400TVL range . But I'm guess , when you using a 600TVL camera , the finial result can't increase to 500TVL . Maybe max.450TVL . can't take direct proportion to cost.

[ipman 0]

I have tried plenty megapixel cameras from AXIS and ArecontVision.

 

1.3 MPixel is a great resolution. It really gives visible advantages in compare with 4CIF or 640x480.

 

IMHO camera images with 2 and 3 Megapixel resolution doesn't look more detailed in compare with 1 MP.

[kingman 0]

540 TVline for Color so far.

[Guest]

Sony do well really only offer to kind of series of CCD chips: Low resolution and High resolution (330TVL and 370TVL) the 420/480/520 etc is marketing numbers as well as a way for the camera manufacture trying to tell you how good their DSP is for instance, but Sony only have 2 sizes of CCD chips and that is 330TVl and 370TVl.

 

JD

[bcgordo9 0]

relative noobie ,have siamese cable in place, client requires ptz

 

lil help?

[tesc_cctvpro 0]

The reason for this debate is that for years, US and Japanese manufacturers pushed out 330 & 380 TVL cameras of good quality.

 

Along come the Chinese, Taiwanese, Koreans, etc and start pushing out 420, 540, etc cameras.

 

The simple explanation is that Chinese Manufacturers use "Pixel Resolution" in their specifications. "Pixel Resolution" is not a true resolution measure and only refers to the upper bounds of possible resolution based on the HxV calculation of the CCD.

 

International Convention is that "Pixel Resolution" should not be used to describe the resolution of a camera.

 

One should properly test for "Spatial Resolution" which is device specific, and a very costly test and measures pixels per area e.g. ppi. The key is the number of pixels per given area. (Page, Computer Monitor)

 

Claiming that websites are dishonest based on HxV claculations is erroneous. These sites are quoting 'Pixel resolution". On the common Super Had CCD the effective Pixels are 290K. This equates somewhere between 350TVL and 420TVL (322K pixels) Their figures are mostly correct -- Except that they are quoting maximum possible parameters based on the CCD HxV, which is not the "True Resolution" of a specific camera subsystem.

 

In addition the HxV cannot be used to fault a resolution rating, as DSP technologies such as pixel shift, or "pixel offset" do result in Resolution Boosts.

 

The problem is that we have grown accustomed to a convention -- which uses Spatial Resolution, and we have seen the common adoption of another less accurate measure which uses "Pixel Resolution"

[phoenixad 0]

Wow... have not been here for a few weeks.

 

You boys are way of the subject!

 

I really do appreciate all of the comments on resolution and why it is all whacked out. thank you Amir for your in depth explanation of TV lines and pixel ratings... but... at the end of the day, none of this means "sh$t" if you do not make it simple.

 

To simplify,

 

1. Specs on cameras and DVR are all wrong.(no matter the manufacturer)

 

2. For TVs, the highest resolution is 350 lines.

 

3. For CCTV systems, the highest resolution is 525 lines.

 

4. You need megapixel cameras to get really high resolution video (see below for disclaimer)

 

5. most important : make things easy to understand for everybody with no lies.

 

Now, back to megapixel: high cost, need special housings that can be used with mega-pixel cameras, network problems, internet problems, and lens problems...

 

you dig??

[amirm 0]

To simplify,

 

1. Specs on cameras and DVR are all wrong.(no matter the manufacturer)

True. Best to look at the size of the sensor as to *some* indication of its light gathering abilities. A larger sensor will have less noise. Less noise means a clearer image but more imporantly, one that compresses better!

 

2. For TVs, the highest resolution is 350 lines.

I assume you mean an analog TV. A digital TV goes up to 1920 now. And computer monitors even higher.

 

3. For CCTV systems, the highest resolution is 525 lines.

That is the vertical resolution and is fixed by NTSC for all cameras (the actual visible lines is 486). The more important number is the horizontal resolution we have been talking about.

 

4. You need megapixel cameras to get really high resolution video (see below for disclaimer)

Correct and progressive scan also helps.

 

Now, back to megapixel: high cost, need special housings that can be used with mega-pixel cameras, network problems, internet problems, and lens problems...

Long topic to get into . For now, here is a tidbit from the photography world. All else being equal, a telephoto lens performs better than a wide angle one. In addition to better resolution, there is also less (geometric) distortion in a telephoto lens.

 

Now, the CCTV sensors are tiny so it is not clear how much the above applies to them. But thought folks may want to keep that in mind as they evaluate different cameras. Perhaps it becomes a factor as we climb above 2 megapixels....

 

you dig??

I am trying .

[Soundy 1]

Now, back to megapixel: high cost, need special housings that can be used with mega-pixel cameras, network problems, internet problems, and lens problems...

 

Ah, the same old FUD being trotted out.

 

High cost? Cost is relative. An analog Panasonic SDIII (like a WV-CP484) has a high cost compared to your average all-plastic, generic-1/4"-board-based off-shore dome. As with anything else, you get what you pay for. Do you try to dissuade customers from an SDIII in favor of a cheap dome because of the "high cost"?

 

Special housings? Special how? I've regularly put IQ megapixel cams into the same Pelco EH-3508/3512 housings I've been using for years for analog cameras... likewise into DF-5/DF-8 ceiling dome enclosures.

 

Network problems? Sure, and analog CCTV is susceptible to all manner of wiring problems too - bad cable, bad terminations, bad connectors, bad runs, damaged wiring, electrical interference... nothing is perfect. The argument is a non-starter.

 

Internet problems? Irrelevant unless you actually need an internet connection to your system, and those problems would affect analog-camera-based systems that you're using over an internet connection too.

 

Lens problems? Like what? Cheap-ass lenses with poor optics? See above regarding cost. Despite the proliferation of "digital/megapixel" lenses, the technology is really no different. Lens optical technology is hundreds of years old. The transmission media and image/video format has no relation to it whatsoever.

 

Long topic to get into . For now, here is a tidbit from the photography world. All else being equal, a telephoto lens performs better than a wide angle one. In addition to better resolution, there is also less (geometric) distortion in a telephoto lens.

 

"Better" is relative in this case as well... "better" for what?

 

A more relevant tidbit from the photography world is that a fixed-focal-length lens tends to give better images than a comparable varifocal lens, because the optics are less complex and thus have les negative effect on the image.

[amirm 0]

Long topic to get into . For now, here is a tidbit from the photography world. All else being equal, a telephoto lens performs better than a wide angle one. In addition to better resolution, there is also less (geometric) distortion in a telephoto lens.

 

"Better" is relative in this case as well... "better" for what?

Better for fine dtail recognition. Telephotos as a rule have a much better MTF (Modulation Transfer Function: sharpness and contrast). They have much less tendency to suffer from CA (Chromatic Aberration: color bleeding). And tend to have less geometric distortion (pincushion and barrel distorion: lines bending). They also have better corner sharpness. All of this matters when you try to zoom in only to find mush instead of detail that the sensor is capable of.

 

Here is the MTF for to lenses of comparable age as far as design era and relative cost. The flatter and higher the curves, the better the lens.

 

First is the Canon 400F5.6 telephoto:

 

 

Now the 20f2.8 wide angle:

 

Huge difference, no? The corners of the wide angle (the curves on the right) have nearly no resolving power, compared to the telephoto which does not suffer hardly at all as you go from center (left of the curve) to the corner (right of the curve) of the lens. So if you have the bad guy in the corner of your camera, you better pray you are not using a wide angle like above!

 

There are better wide angle lenses of course. Here is canon 35f1.4:

 

Let's see how that contrasts with a higher end telephote, namely the 500F4.0:

 

 

If you look, you can NOT find a single none telephoto lens which has the performance of the 500.

 

CCTV world does get a free ride though. Given the tiny sensors used here, they don't push the corners of the lens as much as the above lenses do on a 35mm full-frame digital camera.

 

A more relevant tidbit from the photography world is that a fixed-focal-length lens tends to give better images than a comparable varifocal lens, because the optics are less complex and thus have les negative effect on the image.

True although one has to be aware of the design period. Once more, Canon's newer zooms tend to outperform their older prime (fixed focal) lenses in most criteria. For this reason, most pros use zooms without hesitation. Such was not the case 30 years ago when I got into photography.

[Soundy 1]

Long topic to get into . For now, here is a tidbit from the photography world. All else being equal, a telephoto lens performs better than a wide angle one. In addition to better resolution, there is also less (geometric) distortion in a telephoto lens.

 

"Better" is relative in this case as well... "better" for what?

Better for fine dtail recognition.

 

[snip]

 

First is the Canon 400F5.6 telephoto:

 

Now the 20f2.8 wide angle:

 

[snip]

 

Huge difference, no? The corners of the wide angle (the curves on the right) have nearly no resolving power, compared to the telephoto which does not suffer hardly at all as you go from center (left of the curve) to the corner (right of the curve) of the lens. So if you have the bad guy in the corner of your camera, you better pray you are not using a wide angle like above!

 

Okay, I have a background in photography as well, so I actually understand all that... however, there's a bigger concern: field of view. If the bad guy is in the corner of your 20mm lens, he's gonna be about 50 degrees outside your 400mm lens's FOV, which makes comparisons of resolving power rather moot

 

By the same token, if the bad guy is within the FOV of the 400mm lens, he'll be so tiny in the center of the 20mm lens that CA and resolving ability also become moot, because he'll be little more than a 2x5 pixel speck on most cameras' sensors, and even a 5MP camera wouldn't have enough detail to make him recognizable

 

CCTV world does get a free ride though. Given the tiny sensors used here, they don't push the corners of the lens as much as the above lenses do on a 35mm full-frame digital camera.

 

And again, given the relatively low resolution (we're not talking a 1Ds mkIII here), the camera sensor's resolving power becomes a significant limiting factor, moreso than the lens for the most part.

 

A more relevant tidbit from the photography world is that a fixed-focal-length lens tends to give better images than a comparable varifocal lens, because the optics are less complex and thus have les negative effect on the image.

True although one has to be aware of the design period. Once more, Canon's newer zooms tend to outperform their older prime (fixed focal) lenses in most criteria. For this reason, most pros use zooms without hesitation. Such was not the case 30 years ago when I got into photography.

 

The key word, though, is 'comparable'. I wouldn't use my EF-50 f/1.8 as an example of prime vs. zoom while attempting to stack it up against some of the latest L-series glass.

 

And while it's not a factor most of the time with CCTV lenses, when it comes to pro photographers, primes have another distinct advantage over zooms: less complexity and less glass means less weight (important if you have to be mobile, such as shooting sports), and the ability to put a much faster (ie. larger maximum aperture, for those not familiar with the term) lens in the same size package. And of course, less glass also generally equates to less cost.

 

The trade-off, naturally, is versatility... why carry three lenses when you can carry just one? Depends on the needs of the job at hand.

 

Either way, the question remains, "better for what"? An 80mm CCTV lens might give me better clarity than a 3.5mm lens, but that doesn't do me much good if I need to view an entire parking lot

[CCTVConsultant 0]

Since there are so many knowlegeable people writing here at this forum, I was wondering if there is a way to send in a sample camera for review by the experts. Its a new camera we are trying to develop and could use any feedback and/or comments from the experts here. Any suggestions on how to go about doing that? - Thanks.

[Guest]

Hi! You mean the camera itself? Maybe better to use a DVR that many have experience with and record day time and night time video?

 

JD

 

 

Since there are so many knowlegeable people writing here at this forum, I was wondering if there is a way to send in a sample camera for review by the experts. Its a new camera we are trying to develop and could use any feedback and/or comments from the experts here. Any suggestions on how to go about doing that? - Thanks.

[joshua@wonwoousa.com 0]

We have been selling 600tvl camera for sometime now. here is link to a manufacture wonwoousa model number is BCN or email me for a info

 

enjoy~

[cctvkey 0]

i also want to know

[cctvkey 0]

i also want to know

[joshua@wonwoousa.com 0]

[moderator edit]Please do not post adverts, contact the admin if you wish to advertise on the forum[moderator edit]

[mkpeterpan 0]

GE security makes a cam with 530 Lines of resolution thats pretty high.

[pensee 0]

I think it's 625TVL, the highest i've known!

 

Pensee specializes in manufacturing and exporting various kinds of

 

CCTV cameras! Our Current Export Markets are Northern America and

 

Europe.

 

Our Featured Products in 2009 is Synchronous Focus Cameras, Its high

 

technological content and unique in design gained lots of praises by

 

the customers at the CSF in HongKong!

 

Want to know more, pls visit our Web:

 

xxxx://pensee.manufacturer.globalsources.xxx or contact me!

My Msn: sales1@pscctv.cxx