Are You Impressed With Avigilon New 16MP H4 Low Light Performance?

An Avigilon employee has released a shot of their new H4 16MP camera at night. Take a look (click image for large size):

He says he is impressed, noting, "no disp adj. touched and looking thru glass".


You forgot to mention that shot taken trough glass without any disp adjustment

Feel free to post other night time shots.

..without any disp adjustment.

Is that true John, without ANY display adjustment?

If so, Lord help me I've made a terrible mistake! Is it too late to change my vote? ;)

It is 'WOW'!

That's an impressive picture without any display adjustment for such a high megapixel in dark. However it doesn't look like 16mp to me - but it is awesome given the lighting scenario. I wonder what it would look like if it weren't taken behind a window at an angle? Wonder what kind of usable resolution to expect at night - I bet it would look better with adjustments.

Avigilon rates this 16MP camera's minimum illumination at 0.005 lux (at F1.4).

There's no motion in this scene to judge the night time quality. It's decent, if there were vehicles moving it would have given much better sense of the quality of sensor.

The picture has it's low light quality, but the right part looks too dark to be really impressed. Is there not a WDR feature missing? And indeed, one doesn't know about shuttertime, as nothing moves on this picture...

Does seem a little sketchy that there doesn't appear to be any movement anywhere in that picture...

Matt, I am pretty positive that there is a car moving on the road running left to right on the upper center of the image. I've marked it up in the red box below.

If you look at the full size image, it looks clearly in motion (headlights on, center of the road).

Also, given how dark most of the image is, I highly doubt this is a product of a super slow shutter.

Does seem a little sketchy that there doesn't appear to be any movement...

If no one much minds, I'd like to inject a little needed knee-slappin' in this thread by extending Matt's mild paranoia into a fictictous timeline...

11:00 PM - Looks good, right boss? / No, too much movement, we wait...

02:00 AM - Do it Now Boss? / Soon, soon...

03:21 AM - There boss, perfect, everything is quiet... / It is quiet... Almost too quiet! That pesky Matt Ion will catch on

03:22 AM - You want he sleep with the fishes? / No what I want is you to get down to third street accross from the courthouse, get in the middle lane and stop the car for 10 seconds! :)

Not paranoia... merely skepticism.

It IS a very nice picture, to be sure, quite impressive for a night shot. Almost too good for most cameras, let alone a 16MP. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a manufacturer used a slow shutter or other trickery to coerce a better low-light picture than is practically usable.

Not to say there aren't cameras capable of this, simply that it's rare.

Hence, skepticism.

Don't know why everyone's picking on MY comment on this, I'm not the only one to question it, OR the first.

Why is this almost too good for most cameras? Take any modern professional MP camera and you should expect to capture that entire scene without 2/3rds of it being blacked out.

Honest biscuits, Matt, I wasn't tryin to rile you none, just thought as a fellow celluloid critic you might get a kick out the 'almost too quiet' bit. ;)

Does seem a little sketchy that there doesn't appear to be any movement...

Begging forgiveness, because I read your comment as meanin that the snap was slyly taken when there actually was no movement, which led to the joke, not that the camera settings might have been deviously 'over optimized'.

Does anyone know what city this is (the city that almost never sleeps)?

Vancouver, Dallas, Jacksonville, other? Just curious because I was wondering what the temprature might be. It looks like you can see car exhaust maybe, but maybe not....

That is downtown Indianapolis, IN.

Shame it's from an 16MP camera, but the release image is 1024x679

I think this is not impressive because if you looked into the building roof it is completely dark

I think the picture looks pretty good, but for a 16MP camera I would expect more detail, so I voted no. This seems like more of a marketing scheme than an attempt to build a better camera.

[IPVM Note: Poster is an Avigilon partner.]

[Poster Note: If it is imperative you post I am an Avigilon partner you should also post the status of all other posters here with regard to Avigilon. Are they competitors are they end users or do they sell competing products? Note sure why you would add a note to my post based on my opinion and not others? How does that help your users? Another douche move. If you want to post status do it for everyone. I am NOT the mfg and our company doesn't even sell the PRO line so this is my opinion based on the image you provided.]

The more I look the more I'm impressed. I can only imagine what the full size image would look like. With no adjustments and the crazy lighting which normally would be working against the camera this is a really good picture. I didn't realize previously when I was on my phone this was less than a 1mp image - if this is scaled from the 16mp image then I imaginge the full 16mp image would be awesome. If this is really out of the box not setup scaled down image on a 16mp camera then this is definitely impressive.

Note sure why you would add a note to my post based on my opinion and not others?

Posting as Undisclosed and posting purely positive positions possibly promoting partner.

So is posting purely negatives. Also it is not purely positive it is hesitantly positive if you read my first post and my second post it is clearly disclaimed: "If this is really out of the box not setup scaled down image on a 16mp camera then this is definitely impressive." That statement clarifies the fact that I am impressed with the image if it is "really" out of the box without any setup. Also previously I stated it didn't look like 16mp but then I was on my phone and didn't realize it is a scaled down image. Clearly if anyone has ever used a high megapixel camera out of the box without any setup and tried to put it in a similar environment they would know that if indeed this is out of the box then it is impressive. If it were Bosch, Sony, Panasonic, Axis or another camera mfg I would think the same thing - the only thing is if I were to comment on it and it was another brand that I sold IPVM WOULD NOT post that I am a partner or dealer for that company. We sell all of the above brands as well.

I guess it's too hard to recognize the double standard - trust me it exists.

I added the disclosure because you posted twice, saying essentially the same thing, endorsing your partner, and doing it undisclosed both times.

Everyone else offering an opinion on this camera has done so with their name disclosed, except you.

You had your say, including calling me a 'douche', leave it at that.

Also it is not purely positive it is hesitantly positive if you read my first post and my second post it is clearly disclaimed: "If this is really out of the box not setup scaled down image on a 16mp camera then this is definitely impressive." That statement clarifies the fact that I am impressed with the image if it is "really" out of the box without any setup.

B, yes, your "disclaimer" is clearly repeated in both your first and second posts, as are frankly most of the elements, save for the addition of an 'appeal to imagination':

I can only imagine what the full size image would look like...

although the 'imagination' theme itself is already doubly foreshadowed in the first:

I wonder what it would look like if it weren't taken behind a window at an angle.

I bet it would look better with adjustments.

By this point the full-size, non-obstructed, straight-on, setup adjusted image in your mind's eye is quite different than the original topic-at-hand.

If this substitution was simply a natural and innocent byproduct of exuberance, then I'm sure now you can see why it might come across as apologetic, and therefore invite scrutiny...

As for the "disclaimer" (and its variants):

If this is really out of the box...

It smacks of false skepticism and intentionality and appears at best to be a 'straw herring' of the type seen in late night infomercials. Why? Do you see anyone else on the whole post calling into question whether its 'out of the box'? And yet here you are saying repeatably, in essense: 'Well as long as a trusted senior executive is not lying!". Whether it is a lie or not, as you well know, is unlikely to revealed as falsehood ever, and therefore is unlikely to impeach your statement.

In any case the fact the 'out of the box' can easily be explained by Avigilon's well chosen defaults and the use of 'auto-adjusting' parameters and anything more than that is better ascribed to serendipity.

As for the double-standard accusation, you may make your point quite convincingly by simply quoting another of your posts about Axis or Panasonic that is equally effusive and with equal wanderlust.

Rukmini, enough, let's let it end. No more comments from either you or Undisclosed B about this.

Let other members comment or ask questions about the image but no more back and forth on this.

De-constructive criticism. :~)

ill wait for a video of the camera or the full res shot before going off the deep end.

Hey look, a sensible reply :)

I don't understand how anyone can evaluate the "impressiveness" of this shot without the full-res image AND having been there in person or some other reference shot. Nobody has any clue what the lighting was actually like in terms of overall illumination or dynamic range. Shooting through a window would only further complicate things.

From the tweet, I didn't get the impression this was put up as "hey, please scrutinize this image and tell me what you think", it was more like "hey look, I got my hands on a new toy".

Disclaimer: you could claim I'm biased, but it would be silly to do so...

On the other hand, 'unbiased' manufacturer D, he put it out there publicly. If he does not want it discussed / questioned / scrutinized, etc., don't put it on twitter. Twitter is Public.

And the reason we don't have any clue about details is because Avigilon likes to promote things but then won't answer questions. Maybe Avigilon thinks this is good marketing but there are many, as the voting shows, who are not impressed.

This is supposed to be 'LightCatcher' technology, with a minimum illumination rating of .005 lux and that's the image?

In fairness though to Avigilon corporate, my guess is that they are not happy that this employee released this specific shot, because Avigilon has never released a 16MP sample in such a dark scene (probably for just this reason).

I'm not saying it shouldn't be discussed publicly. But I think that promoting people to weigh in with an opinion of the 'impressiveness' of this shot is only encouraging a poor discussion. NOBODY in this thread, including you or I, are in a position to render anything other than an uninformed (read: useless) opinion because we weren’t there and don’t know the settings or scene variables. So the likely result is party line extremism on the voting. Avigilon fans will say they love it, Avigilon haters will say it's not impressive, and a faction of others will rile up unhelpful comments just for the sake of a good old fashioned troll-fest.

Because the image was posted through twitter, it’s already gone through some lossy compression (most likely) and is not a native shot off the camera. Or, maybe it is. Again, we don’t know.

This industry suffers from a real lack of personal-level interaction across the board, especially from manufacturers. Most of the tweets and things we see are from corporate accounts, or just all-out shameless party-line promotion. I’d like to see more individual employees encouraged to have a voice and share their own thoughts and perspective. To make that happen, you do (IMO) need to “go easy” in the beginning. This guy has a total of 92 tweets, I think you could say he is still finding his footing on twitter. A better response, again IMO, would have been to say “Hey, that shot does look pretty good, what’s the details of the scene? Can you post one zoomed in on the really bright area?” Or, to put it another way, assume positive intent until the person proves otherwise. You’ll either coax more good information out of the person, or you’ll teach them that unsubstantiated claims will be questioned and (hopefully) encourage them to post up with more details initially, or pull back on the shameless promotion. You kinda went directly for the hammer on this one. And yes, I realize that if you wanted to you could have used an even larger hammer, that’s not the point.

If this was posted from the Avigilon corporate account as an official statement, I’d more agree with your approach.

Newest Discussions

Posts Latest
3
about 1 hour by Undisclosed Integrator #1
3
less than a minute by Undisclosed Integrator #1
2
less than a minute by John Honovich
16
about 3 hours by John Honovich
13
4 minutes by Undisclosed #2