Can anyone recommend a fixed/ptz camera that can cover a distance of up to 3000 m ,to recognize a person's face at this distance. I don't think any of the available gigapixel cameras will fit this budget. It is for installation at an airfield.
John, on the graphic for the Tamron CCTV & FA lens calculator, I don't understand why the focal length for the 1/1.8"(.55) sensor size is not somewhere in between the 1/2"(.5) and the 2/3" inch(.6_) size.
Is this a Tamron lens-only specific calculator?
I get the sense that the order of the foci in the list is indicating something I'm not quite getting...
I'd also think anything having to look that far out would make for a pretty unstable picture as any little vibration would cause shake. You'd probably have to have a floating platform for mounting. We're humans, we can probably do it, but won't be cheap.
I'm not saying this is an unsolvable problem, but it IS going to be one with a very expensive solution. Can you clarify if this is for a fixed location, or if some kind of PTZ control is required? Do you need 24/7 coverage of the location, or only daytime coverage? What is the area like in terms of lighting/contrast/etc.? What kind of weather or atmospheric interference is common in the area? What are the end-user expectations (eg: it will work 100% of the time, it will work in ideal conditions, etc.).
The lens math on this is fairly easy. The solution is more complex.
I suggest you step back and redefine your project. Do you really need to see the face at 3000m? Would the presence of an individual in an unauthorized area be sufficient? You could dispatch security to determine who the person really is. Putting cameras at main entrance points could provide facial images.
Wow, Aaron, that's quite a leap. The tightest shot you'd get would be a 4.6 degree lens, resulting in an HFOV of about 750 feet wide. FAR beyond anything that Sightlogix (or any analytics system for that matter) is going to have the slightest shot at detecting.
You've gone from "face recognition" to about .4 ppf in your recommendation there. You're correct in that they might not *really* need to see a full face, but they do still probably at least need to know it's an actual person...
Recall that the Avigilon Pro cameras use the Canon EOS lens system - being designed primarily for use on a DSLR, the lens would not have power zoom, but it would have autofocus (I don't know if the Avigilon camera takes advantage of this - the lens has the AF motors, but the AF sensing and control itself is normally sourced in the camera).
The lens is f/5.6, according to the spec; the 2x converter makes it f/11.
You'll recall our thread about f-stops being simple math: the max aperture stays the same, but when you increase the focal length, the f-stop changes accordingly - two stops for a 2x, one stop with a 1.4x.
To wit: at 800mm and f/5.6, the aperature will have a diameter of 800/5.6, or about 142.86mm, or inversely, 800/142.86 = 5.6 (plus a bit for rounding errors). Double the focal length, but the aperture stays the same, and you get 1600/142.86 = 11(ish).
While that won't allow a lot of light, keep in mind that these cameras also have a full-frame 35mm sensor, which can collect a lot more light than your average 1/3" or 1/2" CCTV sensor, so what light you DO get, will provide a far cleaner signal off the chip, and allow for more amplification.
Well John, you'd have to ask the guy who made that setup... as I recall it was part of a system design to monitor a strip-mine site.
In any case, it's silly to compare it to a "short range surveillance lens" because when you want to see something 6km away, the short-range lens won't do you any good regardless of how much light it allows. That's like saying a Kia gets better gas mileage than a dump truck, to someone who's trying to figure out how to move a few tons of dirt.
Bosch has a long range imaging systems called the GVS1000. It claims to "deliver detailed images up to 1 kilometer / 3200 feet away, so you can see faces, read markings, and determine the intent of potential intruders." That's about 1/3rd of the requested distance but fairly long range for an actual surveillance product.
Matt, thanks for sharing those lens - very interesting to see the physical difference.
As for comparing to short range surveillance lenses, my point wasn't about distance but about expectations of light needed. If someone has experience with F1.2 or F2.0 lenses, if they go to an F/11 they will understimate how much radically more light they need, even if it's a better camera with a bigger lens.
Regarding the LinkedIn thread, that's why I barely look at any of the other CCTV groups/discussions on LI.
Any basic question gets pummeled with useless replies "Dear sir I suggest you check out our product Bob Camera.". And then the suggested product fits between 0 and -4 of the key criteria that the poster was aksing about, or even better has all but non-existant online info.
Rogier: nice toy... and that too, demonstrates the trade-off between distance and aperture. f/6.8 at 200mm, that's barely a stop-and-a-half better than f/11.
It's always a trade-off between length and light; there's no way around it without resorting to a HUGE physical structure (as the difference between the two Canon lenses illustrates). "Yabbut, it's so much less light than this short lens" doesn't really mean much if you need the long view.
Well, not without DSS or some really high-tech processing.
Or, yes, better sensors. We've seen it with DSLRs: my 10MP Canon 40D has way cleaner low-light/high-ISO performance than my old 300D, despite the higher pixel density. This is due in part to the processing engine, and in part to the sensor design. Naturally, lower pixel density helps as well. I don't think it's fair to say that f/11 will *always* be unable to deliver a "usable image" in low light, as technology advances... and of course, it depends on what you're looking for in your image.
In the "can it even be done" category with money no object, how about an L3com WESCAM MX-20?
At 10,000 ft (a little over 3,000 m) it's marginal on faces -- absolutely not recognition quality. By 2,500 ft, you might be able to recognize a person. At over $1M/copy for airborne variants with dual visible and infrared HD imagers, it might be one extreme to bound the problem.
Here's our review of Sony XIS. There's some pretty amazing elements of the system but it's not designed to capture faces thousands of feet away. Indeed, it's more of the opposite, monitoring very wide areas vs super far away locations.
I think the correct H Sensor size is actually 5.37mm. I noticed a month ago that the number was too large, but didn't say anything then because you were at the 'bottom range' and I didn't want to make it worse. But then I realized the smaller the sensor (assuming the # of pixels is constant), the greater the PPF, so now ~60 PPF
Required Distance: 3000m Focal length: 1680mm
H Sensor Size: 5.37mm (actual 1/2.7" sensor format width)
This is why airports install the FLIR HRC-X. Can't release the specs on a public forum due to ITAR restrictions. Little things like Image Stabilization, x,000m optical and thermal capability and such. This is not your normal security installer camera and it ain't cheap. Since this is a blatant company pitch I am disclosing that I work for FLIR.
HRC-X: Equipped with a 88 x 1100 mm lens. It zooms between a 6.3° field of view and a 0.5° field of view.
Continuous optical and digital zoom on the thermal image The HRC-Series thermal imaging cameras are equipped with powerful continuous optical zoom capability on the thermal image. It offers excellent situational awareness but also the possibility to zoom-in, and see more detail, once a target has been detected. This way operators can see farther recognize more detail and react more quickly to security threats. The advantage of continuously zooming compared to other systems that are using a rotating lens system is that there is no switch or swapping between the different images. You can gradually zoom in while keeping your focus all the time.
Rukmini, I wish I had seen this was a year old post! We don't post capabilities in any forum. Direct and controlled inquiries are answered based on the ITAR guidelines. The purpose of answering at all was just to mention there are solutions that are not readily known. To John's credit the readership of IPVM is global. Greg