The client seems upset about this video. The camera is a 4MP bullet with an IR rating of around 165'. Distance from the camera to the middle of the road is 90'
We originally suggested a narrower field of view but they wanted to see as much as possible.
Opinions on quality?
It looks quite good to me. What exactly are they looking to capture? License plate capture with that field of view is a pipe dream.
We had a tag camera there with a 35mm lens but it was out of focus, not sure what happened.
They are upset they can't make out the driver. I tried explaining exposure/shutter/camera performance at night but not sure that had any effect
Kind of sounds like the sort of customer that has watched too much NCIS or CSI...
I don't think that angle could ever get the driver, coming from that way. Maybe if they were coming straight at the camera, and you dialed it in to right where the windshield would be more or less. But then I bet they would complain they can't make out the car model, because they can't see the rest of it.
If you really want to show them, and have the time/money to try it, do just that. Big long lense dialed right into the area the drives would pass by.
As for the camera, the quality is fine, for what it's seeing. Obviously the client seems to have some unrealistic ideas as to what the camera can do.
Honestly getting the driver is hard even when you put the camera on a stanchion right next to where they drive through in the day. Reflections from rolled up windows, not even tinted, drivers not looking at the camera, etc. We have 1080p domes that sit 3'-4' from the drivers window on campus and its rare to see the face unless the stop, roll down the window, or look directly at the camera while driving slowly forward. Definitely seems like a case of unrealistic expectations.
If I'm being nitpicky (I am), I think it's a little motion blurry. Because there's plenty of light there by the look of it, from street lights and the camera's IR, I'd try speeding exposure to 1/60 or even 1/120 if it doesn't darken the image too much. It would also cut some (not all) of the reflection off of the street sign and license plate. Not saying you'd definitely get the driver, by any means, but it looks more blurred than low res.
Impossible to say as the YouTube video is scaled to 1080p and re-compressed with their own settings.
Can you post an mp4 to Dropbox and post the link?
Unless Ethan can recommend a different way of directly playing higher res video.
Ethan, I thought the same thing, it was a little blurry due to a slower shutter speed.
This is on an NVR based system, so our remote access to cameras is limited to whats available in the software. We do not have a server or any remote device on site so we can not access the Web GUI.
Here is the folder with the videos in AVI, MP4, and original format. Channel 10 is the from the camera in question here. Channel 12 is from the actual incident. They seemed disappointed with this as well. The incident is 200' from the camera.
Yes, I know trees are in the view. That's another story.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bzwzqoV0p5imrvkoa54wXV1Sd3Gh3yIs
Link to folder with no permissions required
The previous link seemed to require permissions, this shouldn't
This is why I will not work on residential video.
The image could be a little blurry as often times we forget that the focus can be a little different at night. We used to take the set of tinted disks to simulate a focus at night. I know some cameras can be set to do an autofocus at night to help with this. Otherwise it is a good image. You are right with the wide field could be harder to see the image. Personally I would zoom in a bit and then make sure and focus the camera when it is dark outside.
This is not residential, this is an apartment community.
"We originally suggested a narrower field of view but they wanted to see as much as possible."
Sounds to me like the client needs a basic tutorial on how this whole thing works. One of the main things I ask clients when I'm laying out camera locations is "what do you want to see -- an overview of what's happening, or a detailed shot of something specific?" Barring a $6,000+ camera and lens combination, the answer can almost never be "both".
I would try to show them the tradeoffs that they get between a narrow FOV and a wide one, and if necessary, give them a cost to add a camera at that location that covers something very specific.
Clearly, on the footage of CH12 it's not a good idea to have some trees in the foreground. The smart ir function clearly lowers IR power to have a proper brightness, so the background is totally underexposed.
You should either add IR flood lights with wide coverage on the parking area, or find a better angle for the camera.
The CH10 camera is fine by me, with at least proper lighting, but not a good angle for licence plate reading, nor face recognition, but at this distance it's normal.
You live and learn how to handle clients and expectations.
There are tons of ways to improve the video but at what cost? We were asked what could we do for $15k for this whole community. We came in slightly higher.
The area in black is the area in the videos. Camera 8, the red camera pointing towards the parking lot was put there very carefully to look at the dumpster at the back of the lot. With a 35mm lens, we were zoomed in well past the trees and had a good shot of the parking lot but the client wanted the wider field of view.
If it were my choice, I would have put a pole up at the corner, and one by the parking lot. I also would have added poles in other locations, to get better angles and shots but that would have doubled the cost of this project.
When 75% of your bids for a specific client are countered by, do it for this price, you focus on getting the most bang for the buck.
I believe at this point, we have lost the client as multiple people were in the email, and I can not get our main POC on the phone. They also put the brakes on another project.
I guess it is a learning lesson when building a project strictly based on cost, we need to be more clear on expectations.
So the consensus seems to be, maybe some shutter adjustments, but overall the video is good for where it is located and the view.
The funny thing is, nobody has asked what kind of camera it was.
What's the cost to put up high output LED lights on poles/buildings? Cam images 10X to 100X better, and any potential perp also knows he can be clearly seen from a good distance away.
I would say that is a great picture. I have a 2 meg and a 3 meg Pelco camera with ir viewing the alley in back of my house and no matter what settings I try I get a crappy blurring image when a car goes by and cannot make out the driver at all and have a hard time even determining the type of car from 10' away The only light source is the ir as it is very dark back there.
I thought the quality of the shot was pretty good. The expectations by the customer are way out of wack. Thats seems more of an issue with setting the customers expectations properly.
Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.
