Don't Trust Lux Ratingsby John Honovich, IPVM posted on Jan 09, 2013 About John Contact John
Do not trust lux ratings. Do not use lux ratings to specify cameras. Period.
Lux ratings are widely, and unfortunately, used to define low light performance, with the lower the lux rating, the stronger low light performance. Here's what this commonly looks like on manfacturer specifications:
For instance, a camera with 0.02 lux is supposedly 'better' in low light than a camera with 0.05 lux. (Background - See our Lux / Lux Meter Tutorial).
However, they are so riddled with fundamental problems that lux ratings must be abandoned.
In regular IPVM assessments, we find easily half of surveillance professionals believe and use lux ratings as a viable metric for assessing low light performance.
More importantly, lux ratings are overwhelmingly used in RFPs to require specific low light performance. Cameras that do not meet the RFPs lux ratings specification are rejected.
The Fundamental Problems
Here are the fundamental problems:
- Unrealistic numbers
- No standard process
- No revelation of what image looks like
- Failure to disclose camera settings
- Gradual image quality decline
Most manufacturers have lux ratings that are incredibly unrealistic, with ratings of .001 lux or lower common. However, that is incredibly dark. Almost any camera truly in such conditions in the real world would capture nothing or be so dark and noisy as to be practically useless.
No Standard Process
Each manufacturer measures on their own, by themselves and with whatever 'standards' that they like. As such, it is impossible to compare the results of two manufacturers without more knowledge or testing of one's own.
No Revelation of What Images Look Like
No manufacturer ever releases images of what their cameras look like at their claimed lux ratings. Almost certainly, the images would be terrible.
Failure to Disclose Camera Settings
Many manufacturers use tricky settings such as using super slow shutters and fostering tricks like 'sens up'. Often they will obscure this in their specification, resulting in seemingly eye popping low lux ratings like 0.000001 lux.
Gradual Image Quality Degradation
The image quality of all cameras gradually declines as light levels fall below 50 lux, with falling signal to noise ratios, and increasing gain control levels. There is no magical point where quality turns from good to bad.
The lion's share of the blame goes to consultants who regularly specify cameras based on minimum illumination specifications though they rarely if ever test to verify that the ratings are accurate.
This creates an ugly system where even the most ethical and responsible manufacturers are trapped. The first manufacturer to 'tell the truth' about their low light performance will be disqualified from many large projects. Because of this, no one can afford to do so.
Worse, it rewards the most unscrupulous vendors who realize that they are rarely, if ever, called on their specs.
What To Do?
The best way is to test cameras head to head in the same conditions with the same fundamental settings (especially shutter speed). For example, see our MP low light shootout. Take your finalists and place them for an evening in your desired deployment location. I can almost guarantee that the results will not match what the lux ratings suggest.
Short of that, a few specifications do deliver:
- F Stop: While small differences in F numbers (1.2 vs 1.4) have limited practical impact, going from F1.2 vs 2.4 typically has a major impact on low light quality.
- True Day/Night: Cameras with mechanical cut filters consistently deliver notable increases in low light performance.
- Adding IR: If a scene is quite dark and you want to ensure maximum illumination, consider adding IR either through integrated IR or add-on illuminators.
There is no magic number. Unfortunately, lux ratings are voodoo, more smoke and mirrors than reality. Let's move past them and focus on better metrics for reliably specifying high quality low light performance.
Most Recent Industry Reports
Best Manufacturer Support 2014 on Jul 28, 2014
Integrators told us who the best and worst manufacturers are at providing customer support were. The companies that stood out included Arecont Vision, Avigilon, Axis, Exacq, Genetec, Hikvision, Le...
Testing Genetec Security Center on Jul 23, 2014
This is IPVM's first in a series of all new, in-depth test reports on video management software. We start with Genetec's Security Center. Here's a 50 second video overview: Inside this report a...
Panasonic Series 6 IP Cameras Tested on Jul 21, 2014
Can Panasonic make a comeback? One of the early entrants in IP cameras, Panasonic has been slipping, dues to faster and more aggressive competitors. Now, Panasonic has released a sixth generation...
Favorite Access Control Software 2014 on Jul 16, 2014
What are the favorite access control software platforms? Is it the elder incumbents like Honeywell, Lenel and Software House? Or can newer providers like Brivo, Genetec or S2 make a dent? Just lik...
Testing Samsung vs Google/Dropcam on Jul 14, 2014
Samsung is charging hard into IP cameras. Last year, they attacked the professional market with their WiseNet III launch. Now, they are going after the consumer / residential market with their "Sm...
Summer 2014 IP Camera Course on Jul 10, 2014
Registration is CLOSED. Next course will start in October. IPVM's industry leading IP camera course provides certification and enables you to master the key concepts, drivers and factors in select...
Testing the Smallest HD Cameras on Jul 09, 2014
Miniature HD IP cameras are a growing trend. It started with cameras that had small 'heads' but large 'base' units. Increasingly, though, the bases are shrinking. Recently, we even found one withou...
IP Camera Statistics 2014 on Jul 07, 2014
All IPVM members can download our new IP Camera Statistics 2014 report. Here's what's inside the 54 page guide: This is a companion report to Favorite IP Cameras 2014, Worst IP Cameras ...
Testing Varifocal Minidome (IQeye) on Jul 02, 2014
Minidomes are increasing in popularity, as IPVM statistics show. However, the most common objection to using minidomes is the lack of varifocal lenses. In this report, we tested the IQinVision&nbs...