960H should be better than analog. However, you need new DVRs to take advantage of it.
It's supposed to be like SVGA was to VGA IP cameras - modestly higher resolution. The pitch for 960H is that it's cheaper than MP IP or HD SDI.
We are tracking it but have not seen much movement.
I could see it at the consumer / big box retailer level. I actually think I saw one kit a few weeks ago that was 960H so perhaps it will replace 'regular' analog at that level. For bigger analog users, the problem is the need to switch DVRs. Once you are doing that, you might as well seriously look at MP IP (or even HD SDI).
We have installed have one Speco DS 960H DVR with 10 Bosch analog cameras for a local retail store. Two of those cameras had the new 960H chip in. I was able to view the cameras at the DVR and remotely via the web to compare the video quality. I did notice the regular 540tvl cameras looked a lot sharper on live view through the web and on an HDMI monitor than the old non-960H DVRs did. I wasn't really to tell the difference between the 720TVL and 540TVL cameras. Since I quote both IP and analog to our prospects, I have been quoting them nothing but the 960H DVRs because of the improve video quality. I would like to see more 720TVL cameras out in the field before I make a sweeping statement though.
We tested a Vitek 960H camera with a "test sample" inMotion 960H encoder before we decided we would need 720p cameras for certain areas. The results were underwhelming, to say the least. Resolution on a table game was no better than 4SIF/D1.
Help me. The limit for D1 is 540TVL correct? For DVRs, this limitation is in the recording and live view? In live view I have the actual resolution of the camera? Ex: 600TVL, 700TVL, etc...
960h is nothing at all to get excited about. To be honest its just another marketing whopper. I did a test on it when it first came out and took a regular D1 and 960H image, and compared them side by side. This was from a Dahua DVR as they were one of the first to adopt 960H, in a matter of fact, I think they were the first. At any rate, the 960H image (sometimes referred to as Wide D1) simply looks like a D1 image that has been stretched wider. There is extremely little added prosecutable evidence at all, if any, over a D1 image.
The one advantage that I did notice was that the live image did look a little sharper on a large flat screen compared to a D1 image. Not a huge difference but it was noticeable, But big whoop, the live image isnt really what matters in surveillance most of the time.
Some marketers have claimed that this approches 720p quality. Not even close. We are still talking about interlaced analog video, the image still looks very sub-par compared to a 720p IP camera or SDI camera.
The prices though, are starting to come down to where normal D1 analog DVR's are at. I imagine it will become norm for analog. I think we still start carrying a line soon ourselves.
They keep trying to get as much performance out of analog technology as possible. I even heard that they will be coming out with a 900 TVL CMOS soon. Yeah I know this is not possible, but people are going to see 900 TVL and jump all over it. Its amazing the power of marketing in this industry.
Ethan, let me check on that, I have to quote the client add-ons and I want to double check the install anyway.
960H is supposed to be a widescreen format. Despite whatever funny misinformed/deceiving marketing is out there - 960H is about seeing more picture/wider picture the normal - NOT a sharper picture:
(in the above image - notice how the 960H image can see a bit of a parked car on the side, but the normal one can't)
From Lorex's 960H FAQ:
--> this quote from above link sums it up: "True to Life: 960H creates a wide-screen picture that does not need to be stretched to fit wide-screen TV's and monitors."
A real 960H DVR records in widescreen format and the extra horizontal pixels are at the sides of the image (960H vs normal NTSC 720H - 100 pixels extra on each side of the image).
There is not supposed to any improvement in picture quality - just that you see more picture/wider FoV.
Steve - Your Speco DS 960H is just a superior DVR then what you used - it has nothing to do with the 960H specification.
Ethan - 720TVL, 600TVL analogue cameras are all fluff. Pixim and others found using resolution charts years ago that PAL/NTSC analogue transmission standard limitations mean that 540TVL is the most you will ever resolve across the cable.
When I did my test, I did not notice any more width in my field of view at all. It showed the same exact field of view but the 960H image was just a "wider" image. What I mean by wider, is that if you set the images on top of each other, the 960H was just bigger looking in width. It did not increase the field of view at all, nor did it add any more objects in the field of view. When testing, you have to use the same exact camera, the same exact DVR with the same exact field of view to get a true test. The 960H DVR should allow you to encode at D1 as well, so what you can do is first take a snapshot with the encoded image at D1, and then switch to 960H and take a snapshot. You will notice there is no increase in field of view. Here are my findings:
Exported D1 image
Exported 960H image:
Please note that this image was taken from a 700 TVL camera with a Sony Effio-E chip in it, which is what these DVR's were designed to accommodate.
Sean - If you use a real 960H camera you will definitely get a wider FoV compared to a camera in the same product line with the same lens that is a 700tvl camera.
From your test images - I can see that the 960H image looks stretched and distorted aspect ratio wise compared to the natural D1 image. That is not a true 960H camera.
This discussion and the confusion as to what 960H actually means is one of the reasons we have not tested it yet. What everyone seems to agree on is that it's not that big an improvement.
Sure I agree with you there. Obviously the 760H camera may be slightly cropped compared to a 960H camera. But my point is just because a 700 TVL camera is 700 TVL doesnt mean its not a 960H camera. And yeah I agree with you, there are several other sensors that are rated at 960H or above as well.
My other point was to show when putting a so called "960H" camera encoded at D1 and putting the same "960H" camera and encoding it at 960H shows no significant improvement in image, not only that, but it also does not give you an increase in field of view either. So that brings me back to my point, that 960H is a big over marketed hype.
@ Andre: No I did not use the sensor you are referring to. I used the Exview HAD II, which this particular sensor paired with the Effio-E gives a rating of 976H X 508V. I do know that just because you have an Effio-E DSP, that does'nt mean you get a 960H pixel rating, I do know that it has to be paired with a particular sensor as well to achieve this rating, which my example did.
I could be wrong on all this, but again, I challenge anyone to get their best, most awesome high resolution analog camera, put it on a 960H DVR, encode at D1, and encode at 960H and take snapshots of both. Please show the images here and let us know if there is a noticeable difference in anything. My guess is that it wont be. There wont be any significant improvement in image quality nor will there be any increase in field of view.