20MP Indigovision 5K Has Same Specifications As Ampleye Nox-20
Indigovision has 'released' a 5K / 20MP camera. What's curious / confusing is that it is the same specifications as the Ampleye's Nox-20.
They are both 5120 x 3840 20MP, 35mm sensor CMOS, global shutter cameras with the same hybrid JPEG2000 high res / H.264 low res stream combo with the same 105 / 117 / 96 dimensions.
Why is that confusing? IndigoVision is a software manufacturer who, like many, sells rebranded equipment so that they can say they're a full-line manufacturer. Darned near every other VMS company that also sells equipment does the same. Do you honestly think Honeywell, Pelco, Dallmeier, Geutebruck et al make their own cameras?
Typically when major brands OEM they do so with models that are not so publicly and obviously available from a Western manufacturer.
Maybe they just picked the best fit. IndigoVision cameras have to be capable of delivering multiple 30fps streams because their basic system cannot redistribute a single stream. They require either a proxy server or a "gateway" to take one stream and distribute it as two or more. IV recommends using a TCP/IP stream for recording and a multicast stream for live viewing. A number of cameras, including all of the Axis cameras we tested, were unable to deliver two 30fps streams simultaneously.
IndigoVision also uses most cameras' ONVIF profile or they require a "camera gateway". Camera gateways and proxy servers add cost to a system and have bandwidth limits.
Granted, the 5k camera can't deliver 30fps, but as the article states, "the IndigoVision Ultra 5K delivers ten times better low lux performance and double the frames per second than other ultra-high resolution cameras."
It's not about best or worst fit. It's, one, about OEMing vs supporting as a third party product and, two, about proper disclosure so buyers can make informed decisions.
By the way, as you allude to yourself, your comment is confusing. "IndigoVision cameras have to be capable of delivering multiple 30fps" but this camera only is specified at 6fps at full resolution with JPEG2000 only.
Well then, it's obvious that they are not one and the same. I talked to the IV rep yesterday and he told me that Ampleye is not the manufacturer of their Ultra 5K camera. Since you yourself claim that their specs are the same, how would you jibe the differences you just pointed out?
As far as my 30fps comment, I didn't mean to say that would apply to all cameras, just <= 1080p that we require. I understand 30fps x 2 would be difficult to achieve at 20MP. That begs the question: Ampleye claims their camera can deliver 30fps @ 20MP. I'm skeptical about that claim since many manufacturers have trouble delivering 30fps at 1080p. In one area of their data sheet, they claim "20 MP at 30 fps" while in another area, they claim "up to 30 fps". I've seen many manufacturers fudge their camera specs with that "up to" phrase without providing a frame rate vs. resolution chart, which typically reveals that 30fps is only acheivable at lower than maximum resolutions.
So one spec out of 100+ varies and you think it is not the same? Did Indigovision just randomly develop a super high res, super low light camera with 99 out of 100 elements the same???
Oh, and I asked IndigoVision specifically about Ampleye. Their response was, "Technology joint ventures are covered by NDAs, which I’m sure you can understand.”
If this was not the Ampleye camera, they would have obviously denied any involvement from Ampleye and simply said that they developed it themself.
By ther way, the logic of your statement eludes me. Why would IV saying " "Technology joint ventures are covered by NDAs..." equate to IV buying the camera from Ampleye? Did you consider that Ampleye could be buying the camera from another OEM, which may or may not be the same OEM that IV buys from?
And why would that statement lead you to believe they did or did not develop the camera themselves? Do Honeywell, Pelco and many other "manucturers" reveal their OEMs to you?
Where did you find full specs on the IV camera? I've tried clicking on the link to its data sheet and wound up back on their products home page. I've brought that to their attention but I can't discuss this in depth without having both spec sheets side-by-side.
All I can say is that your argument that they are one-and-the same flies in the face of at least the one spec you admit is different.
IndigoVision 'version' spec sheet. This is an incredibly rare product category with specs and form factor that close.
Odd, I clicked your link and it just took me to IV's product home page. That also happens every time I click the spec sheet link from the camera's product page, even when I log onto my account. I can, however, negotiate to the link to the VSM-4000 spec sheet right below that and view its spec sheet. That's from both my home computer running Firefox and my Blackberry.
One more comment and I think I will have filled my quota for the day in this discussion ;-) :
I believe that you and I agree manufacturer spec sheets often, shall we say, stretch the truth. This could very well be another case of that.
The only way to tell for sure is to test them side-by-side. Perhaps IPVM could accept that task since I will not likely do so - that high a resolution is not in our wish list plus IV's apparent requirement to use a VSM-4000 Video Stream Manager (which I take is their proxy server or camera gateway that I've discussed before) makes it that much more difficult to justify. Not to mention our regs call for 30fps on all cameras.
This is not an issue of who is stretching the 'truth'. When spec sheets and marketing claims are that rare and that close, it is no coincidence.
Plus, when a company marketing manager, from their headquarters, issues that type of non denial / denial, it is also clear what is going on.
I have to wonder who's stretching the truth. I did finally get a copy of IV's spec sheet and had the chance to compare the two.
IndigoVision:
Video Multi-Encoder
- Stream 1: 5120 x 3840 @ 6fps(JPEG2000)
- Stream 2: 1280 x 960 @ 6fps (JPEG2000)
- Stream 3: 1280 x 960 @ 30fps H.264 (ONVIF)
- Minimum Sensitivity 0.01 lux (colour)
Fixed Lenses
- Canon EF 14mm, F2.8 Auto-Iris lens
- Canon EF 24mm, F1.4 Auto-Iris lens
- Canon EF 35mm, F1.4 Auto-Iris lens
- Canon EF 35mm, F2.0 Auto-Iris lens
- Canon EF 50mm, F1.2 Auto-Iris lens
- Canon EF 50mm, F1.8 Auto-Iris lens
- Canon EF 85mm, F1.2 Auto-Iris lens
- Canon EF 85mm, F1.8 Auto-Iris lens
- Canon EF 100mm, F2.0 Auto-Iris lens
- Canon EF 200mm, F2.8 Auto-Iris lens
Vari-focal Lenses
- Canon EF 16-35mm, F2.8 Auto-Iris, Vari Focal lens
- Canon EF 24-70mm, F2.8 Auto-Iris, Vari Focal lens
- Canon EF 70-200mm, F2.8 Auto-Iris, Vari Focal lens
Ampleye:
- Image rate: 30 fps (20Mp)
- Minimum lux level
- 0.001 Lux (B/W, reduced color mode) at F1.4
- 0.002 Lux (Full color) at F1.4
- Lens
- • EF (SLR-style bayonet)
Carl, most importantly, they are both 5120 x 3840 20MP, 35mm sensor CMOS, global shutter cameras with the same hybrid JPEG2000 high res / H.264 low res stream combo with the same 105 / 117 / 96 dimensions. If that's a coincidence, it's a pretty amazing one.
I don't think anyone is 'stretching the truth', well, except for your rep.... IV is simply doing its best to downplay the source of this technology.
What's your threshold for claiming OEM status of a product?
- assembly
- board selection
- board design
- chip design
- fab design
Again, I don't understand why that is such an issue. I would bet that many manufacturers don't or won't release OEM info. How does that make IndigoVision unique?
Or perhaps they are both "guilty" of sourcing this sensor...
Carl, you're continued debating of this is making it a far more visible issue than my original post.
This is an issue because customers should know the source of their products to determine if they can get a lower cost or if they have long term support risks or if rivals could offer the same thing, etc.
We have a long history of exposing these relationships (go back to 2009 and our report on OnSSI / Milestone)
"customers should know the source of their products to determine if they can get a lower cost or if they have long term support risks or if rivals could offer the same thing, etc.".
So you're saying Ampleye is IV's OEM? If not, why haven't you dug some more to discern who their OEM is? Will Ampleye even disclose that to you?
Ampleye is a joint venture of a couple of companies in the Netherlands, Gatso (which does traffic camera systems) and ProDrive (an electronics manufacturer). The camera was adapted from a ProDrive design, if I remember correctly, and I think Gatso was using it for traffic as well. As far as other components, that CMOSIS sensor Chris linked to looks like it very well could be what they use.
The most bizarre decision in all of this is the outdoor housing they're selling for this thing. It's 30" long. The camera and lens might be 8" total. It seems like they could have found a more compact package for this thing.
I don't know. I would think that a camera with the processing power to manage 20MP would generate a lot of heat. Perhaps they're just giving it "room to breathe"? :-o
I also find the JPEG2000 spec interesting. IV has supposedly sworn off all compression types other than their version of h.264. In fact, darned near every manufacturer abandoned JPEG2000 with the sole primary holdeout being Avigilon, and even they have been downplaying it of late.
A related source of puzzlement is that Avigilon is "stepping" on many VMS manufacturers' sales due to their lower cost per channel. Since Avigilon is one of the few companies that support JPEG2000, you would think a competitor would avoid any perception of adopting their near-proprietary technology at all costs. IV requires what appears to be a form of codec convertor / stream redistributor in the VSM-4000. Why bother?
You have mentioned numerous times that JPEG2000 is a dying codec. What brings this dinosaur back out of hibernation?
It's because IndigoVision got this from Ampleye, who uses JPEG2000 ;)
The technical driver is that it takes more computing resources to encode H.264 than JPEG2000 and with 20MP, that's a heavy load.
Alternatively, they could use MJPEG but with a stream this large, there's an issue with remote viewing as MJPEG is not scalable but JPEG2000 is.
Newest Discussions
| Discussion | Posts | Latest |
|---|---|---|
|
Started by
John Honovich
|
8
|
less than a minute by Clint Hays |
|
Started by
Undisclosed Distributor #1
|
4
|
less than a minute by Sean Patton |
|
Started by
Undisclosed #1
|
8
|
less than a minute by Undisclosed #4 |
|
Started by
Cary Menage
|
3
|
less than a minute by Shannon Davis |
|
Started by
Brian Gilbert
|
5
|
31 minutes by Undisclosed Integrator #1 |