32 ppf at 50 ft, and 100 ft etc. Spread out the density using software.
The only real way to do this is to throw away some data at the closer distances. Why would you want to do that?
I am not sure why the data has to be thrown away, but if I could have a uniform pixels density over a given distance, I could live with it. The upside would be the ability to ID someone at 30, 50, 100, 150 feet. I think I would.
"why are imagers in 180 or 360 degree cameras always fixed? Why can't I move them? Mount them on a ring and let me set the position the customer needs?"
If you do that, you will no longer have a 180 or 360, you will have a 150 or 130. Its just a fundamental principle, you 'move them' out, the lens is longer and the FoV / angle is narrower.
Practically speaking, I would assume it is hard, if not infeasible to build a lens that can varifocal from fisheye to telephoto.
In practice, varifocal surveillance lenses generally do not go wider than 120° or so (see Camera Finder varifocal wide angle results).
IPVMU Certified | 03/24/15 03:04pm
"While we are at it, why are imagers in 180 or 360 degree cameras always fixed? Why can't I move them? Mount them on a ring and let me set the position the customer needs?"
I dont understand the need. If a 180* is mounted on a wall it sees everything wall to wall. A 360* sees all the way around. What purpose is there to move? If you need less viewing area you dont need these types of cameras. *confused*