You are correct B.
The question started out almost rhetorically. I was blowing off some steam after hours of fruitless research. I understand that the futher way you move from a camera imager the fewer pixels you will have to work with, given that the field of view is larger on one end than on the other. The answer I was wishing for requires out of the box thinking.
I won't speak for everyone here, but lots, and I mean lots of customers watch too much NCIS or CSI. They want to "zoom" in on a recorded image and NOT have pixelation. You can have it, but it requires a lot of pixels.
My other issue with the current approach is that the field of view is conical in shape. Typically not nearly wide enough at the beginning and too wide at the other end. The multi-imager does "appear" to elliminate that problem. It can cover an entire parking lot by itself, back to front, side to side, offering more than adequate pixel density for ID over the entire image, all without trenching a foot, or tearing up any asphalt. If the customer doesn't have the cash, that is his problem. I have met his expectation. He has to make some decisions.
As for part 2 of my diatribe, I saw an add just last week for a new Axis camera that has imagers mounted on a ring. It was a PTZ and I really don't recall the model right now. However, if they can be positioned on a ring, why can't they be moved along that ring? maybe I don't want or need 360 degrees.
Having said that, I do like the Dallemier camera. I will be giving them a call tomorrow.
My apologies for spelling.