Member Discussion

VGA Vs 1080p - Using The Calculator To Demonstrate

Well as the title would suggest this really is not a fair match up " VGA vs 1080P ". However this is a real world problem. While the picture is not an acurate description of the scene due to the work enviroment. The real world scenerio is a casino with a camera looking at a bank of slot machines. I'm constantly faced with the task of telling the slot manager how much money was inserted in the machine by a guest. Most of the slot machine cameras are analog and aging. Some have served for over 8 years. Coming in at 73 ppf. While the ppf is not that bad. The scene selcted does not truly represent the actual lighting conditions that exist in a casino enviroment.

VGA Capture

I've never been able to present my case for upgrading the camera system as easily as showing these two photo representations. With the same camera setup. The distance to target is 20' and the width of the target is 10'. A 1080p camera makes the ppf go up to 200.

1080 Capture

While is some instances a ppf of 73 (VGA) would be enough ppf to be able to do the review requested, A ppf of 200 (1080P) would significantly ensure that the lighting conditions that exsist within the casino should no longer cause a problem. Now the trick will be getting the GM to part with the money for some real cameras!

Belvie, if you are interested in identifying money and other small objects, you may find this test to be useful: Camera Test: PPF Needed For IDs, Text, Money

Here's our key findings:

And here is an example shot of a dollar bill:

Notice, one thing to be careful about is the tendency for super high resolution cameras to have lighting / coloration problems.

That said, going from VGA to a high end 1080p camera could make a huge difference in such a scenario. Thanks for sharing! Let us know if you have feedback or questions.

Belvie, I think there may be a slight problem with both these numbers, though they are both pretty close.

I may be wrong, but right or wrong before presenting them, I would want to have a ready explanation for why they are not 64ppf and 192ppf, in case someone asks, because:

640 pixels width / 10 feet width at target = 64 pixels per foot

1920 pixels width / 10 feet width at target = 192 pixels per foot

I wouldn't mention it except that the math in this case is too easy and there is always some smart-ass in every meeting. It doesn't change your argument much either way, so just a heads up.