Avigilon Pro 4K Camera Tested

Sony is much better. The use of a full frame sensor is noticeable.

I think it would be nice to compare the Sony to the 16MP or 24MP cameras of Avigilon where the price matches better and the sensor too.

Reactions:

(3)

Michael Miller

In reply to Itamar Kerbel

8MP, 12MP and 16MP are crop frame sensors. 24MP and 30MP are full frame sensors.

Reactions:

(2)

(3)

Undisclosed #1

How could you not go for the Sony in high end applications. It is awesome. I cant beleive the difference in quality.

If they made their price more competitive they would corner the market with cameras like this

Reactions:

Undisclosed Integrator #3

In reply to Undisclosed #1

I agree the Sony is much better. At 4K I have not used the pro cameras but have used some of their domes w/IR. I have however used the 7K cameras. I cannot say the light sensitivity is any more fantastic, but no one produces a camera of this resolution. I know Axis has their 20MP coming out which partially bridges this gap. Basically, at above 4K Avigilon has free reign... for a while.

I look forward to the HDSM test. HDSM currently has no effect from the camera to the server, which is disappointing in an age of smart codecs. However, from the server to the client it has been a lifesaver with no appreciable load on either end.

Reactions:

(2)

(1)

Undisclosed Integrator #2

IPVMU Certified

Any comments on the full analytic offering that is embedded with the avigilon pro camera? And how those analytics compare in the other cameras tested in functionality and ease-of-use, and what that does to the price point when that analytic offering has to be added third party with the other cameras tested?

Reactions:

(1)

Undisclosed #1

In reply to Undisclosed Integrator #2

From what i have seen, in camera analytics never work as well as promised and are used as more of a marketing strategy than anything else.

Even if a camera had great analytics but could not give usable footage in the required scenes it would be rendered useless.

Dont get me wrong, i like Avigilon but in this case the Sony is giving great low light images which the Avigilon camera simply can not match.

Sony 1, Aviglon 0

Reactions:

(4)

Itamar Kerbel

In reply to Undisclosed Integrator #2

I have tested the camera analytics on the 16MP model and it works just fine.
Just to be clear AFAIK all cameras above 2MP perform the analytics on a 2MP image.

So while you don't get more coverage from a 2MP camera in terms of analytics but you do get a better picture then the 2MP camera.

Sony does a better job for the 4K camera.
I never compared the Avigilon 4K and the Avigilon 24MP though it would be nice to see a shootout of the 2.

Reactions:

(1)

John Honovich

IPVM

I am a little surprised by the negativity toward the Avigilon 4K's image quality. I thought it was quite good, especially considering the Sony's expense and how good Sony was to all others.

The bigger question / issue to me is the Avigilon Pro series being proprietary. The Sony 35mm 4K is strong, it would not be a surprise if the Axis 20MP is going to be good. At that point, for the 95% of users who do not use Avigilon, should Avigilon consider opening up Pro to 3rd party VMSes?

Reactions:

(3)

(1)

Undisclosed Integrator #3

I think it is the low light performance that is receiving the most criticism.

Reactions:

John Honovich

In reply to Undisclosed Integrator #3

IPVM

I think it is the low light performance that is receiving the most criticism.

The Avigilon 4K Pro low light performance is great. Keep in mind we are testing it against 3 of the top performing low light IP cameras available today and it is similar to top 1080p ones at night while obviously much better during the day.

Reactions:

Undisclosed Integrator #3

True, I suppose we are not really comparing apples to apples when we look at the images. The Sony is quite an expensive beast so of course it should perform better.

Reactions:

(1)

Jordi Ibero

Imago IP Solutions

John, did you set the EV value to ensure the maximum aperture? Avigilon pro cameras tends to play with the aperture to improve the DoF raising the gain. Do you have an snapshot of the f-stop, gain and exposure? It would be nice to see if they are performing in the same conditions.

It's sure the Full Frame sensor can manage the noise better than any cropped one, but to me it's really impressive the performance of the sony model (WOW).

The one thing here, is how many cameras could you manage in any "premium" VMS. Try to put 30 of this cameras in a footbal stadium, or any other situation and try to put in a layout. Is not only about the image quality. It's the need to manage this amount of data. At this point is where I think Avigilon shine bright. HDSM is the way to manage these video streams, and the reason that any VMS can handle this cameras. An avigilon Pro camera don't send a unique stream of the total resolution, as you said in the article. It's not possible to see the full resolution stream, so it's not possible to connect the camera in any 3rd party VMS.

So, great article!!

"power without control is useless" Pirelli said

Reactions:

(1)

Undisclosed #4

IPVMU Certified

In reply to Jordi Ibero

Try to put 30 of this cameras in a footbal stadium, or any other situation and try to put in a layout. Is not only about the image quality. It's the need to manage this amount of data. At this point is where I think Avigilon shine bright. HDSM is the way to manage these video streams.

The article says the camera generated drastically more data than other 4k cameras, up to 30mb/s. So maybe ACC can handle these streams better than others but other cameras don't generate these size streams.

And correct me if I'm wrong but HDSM is primarily of use when viewing live streams and especially when view portions of a cameras FOV from multiple clients.

Many types of installs have limited need for live viewing, so I'm not sure HDSM comes in to play then

Reactions:

(2)

Jordi Ibero

Imago IP Solutions

As you said, HDSM works in server to client connection (also used in mobile client). The problem is not to handle the server throughput, this is just server throughput and storage. The problem is to display many of these cameras in the client. There's no GPU enough to handle streams up to 7K. The use of 1 or 2MP streams for complete view and "blocks" to zoom in, gives you the possibility to display many of them using the GPU (it's easy for a GPU to decode up to 2MP streams).

To reduce the bandwith during the night you should limit the gain (by default I think is too high) and use the Idle Scene mode. During the day, look at the chart, the bandwith is better than Sony.

In resume, the big issue is to display many cameras and zoom in.

Also, normally the installations with this configuration usually have a control center with more than 1 or 2 clients. In this situation, HDSM rules. And if you want to monitor this installation in a WAN environment (ie monitor the Berlin Facility from Texas...) HDSM is the only way. This is my humble opinion :)

Reactions:

(3)

(1)

Eddie Perry

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125908

In reply to Jordi Ibero

There's no GPU enough to handle streams up to 7K. The use of 1 or 2MP streams for complete view and "blocks" to zoom in, gives you the possibility to display many of them using the GPU (it's easy for a GPU to decode up to 2MP streams).

Sadly you are mistaken there are several GPU's out there that can handle up to 8K

that is for a desktop model. the Tesla server card series are just as capable if not far more so.

Also servers have come a long way I pretty sure I could build a server that could handle 30 Sony cameras for about $5K-$8K depending on storage requirements( how long and Raid preference) and I wouldnt be locked in to a proprietary system (Avigilon). I like my ONVIF/RTSP compatibility far more and feel it gives me a better value in the long run.

they have 8K monitors too.

Reactions:

(1)

Jordi Ibero

Imago IP Solutions

In reply to Eddie Perry

Hi Eddie,

I'n not trying to start a war. Just trying to give an approach of the HDSM benefits. As you said, some GPU, can handle 8K video. Again, it's not about to decode 1 stream. As I said, what if you have 10 units of a 7K model? Any card can do the job. An also any VMS is prepared to handle these streams. And if you could, you will need a monster to monitor your installation. Impossible to monitor from your office far away. This is the HDSM advantage.

About the 8K monitors... What? Mpx are not "quality". Mpx in surveillance means zoom in capability without loosing resolution. So, why do you need 8K monitors? Is more affordable a FullHD monitor (2Mpx) and when you want to zoom in, just roll the mouse wheel ;)

Reactions:

Undisclosed #4

IPVMU Certified

In reply to Jordi Ibero

Impossible to monitor from your office far away. This is the HDSM advantage.

Yes, maybe impossible to monitor 10 7K Avigilon cameras from far away without HDSM.

Considering the bitrate can get to over 30 Mb/s on the 8MP 4kPro, I would imagine the 30MP model could be a good deal larger, even though its max frame rate is 6.

In any event we are talking about a 4k/8MP camera here.

And the Hik 4k, for comparison, provides a full resolution stream at 2 Mbps without HDSM, far less than the 8mb/s and the 3.5mb/s of the Avigilon, even when zoomed in.

So HDSM can certainly reduce bitrates, but Smart CODECs do as well, and in this case even better.

Reactions:

(2)

Michael Miller

Interesting as I have 2 Hikvision 4K cameras and I have seen nothing but issues trying to stream them over a WAN connection. You have only 2 streams 4K to 720P or D1 to 352x240. You have 4k (main) or D1 (sub) resolutions as options so as you would guess the sub-stream works fine. The 4K has much higher CPU usage and lots of images smearing compared to Avigilon PRO cameras.

Also, there really is no comparison with low light quality and overall image quality between c-mount 4K cameras and DSLR lens 4K cameras.

Your reference to Hikvision 2Mbps stream is also a little misleading as in real world installs where these cameras are covering large complex scenes like stadium seating the bit rate will be much higher.

Reactions:

(1)

Undisclosed #4

IPVMU Certified

Your reference to Hikvision 2Mbps stream is also a little misleading as in real world installs where these cameras are covering large complex scenes like stadium seating the bit rate will be much higher.

But maybe not so misleading in the common case of "parking lots", right?

Reactions:

(1)

Michael Miller

Not really as have one looking at the low use parking lot and the bit rate is higher than 2Mbps. Where did you get that 2Mbps number? You find it on the internet or have you installed them?

Reactions:

Undisclosed #4

•Jan 06, 2017

IPVMU Certified

Reactions:

(1)

Michael Miller

•Jan 06, 2017

Ok, you answered my question you found it on the internet. Once you have some experience with these cameras in the real world with complex scenes you will quickly find out the bandwidth is higher.

I would show you but I can't get the Hik 4k to stream properly over my 5Mbps WAN connection through the Avigilon PRO camera works very well.

Reactions:

(1)

Undisclosed #4

•Jan 06, 2017

IPVMU Certified

Ok, you answered my question you found it on the internet.

Correction: I found it on the Ethan-net.

Are you using Exacq by any chance? If so, Ethan reports a problem with smearing, similar to what you describe.

The web interface apparently didn't have the same problem, so maybe you want to try that or a Hikvision client, if you haven't already.

I'm ordering the dome 4k to test in the "real world".

...these cameras in real world with complex scenes...

I'm confused, do you consider a parking lot complex or not?

Reactions:

Undisclosed #6

•Feb 18, 2017

In reply to Undisclosed #6

Avigilon should open up, I just chose the VB770 for this reason alone. In our application there will be multiple VMS recording the multiple Sony streams.

Reactions:

Michael Miller

•Feb 18, 2017

Cool...which VMS are you using?

Reactions:

Eddie Perry

Now if only Sony and Bosch can preform a miracle product line for mid and high end it would improve their chances of them being a surviving western manufacturer

Reactions:

Undisclosed Integrator #3

In reply to Eddie Perry

I don't know, I highly doubt this pricey Sony box camera slightly outperforming another fairly pricey Avigilon box camera will do much to improve their fortunes.

Reactions:

(1)

Undisclosed #4

IPVMU Certified

Can't remove the cut filter, on an expensive camera?

Why?

Reactions:

Michael Miller

There is no cut filter in this camera.

Reactions:

(2)

Undisclosed #4

IPVMU Certified

What makes it not IR sensitive?

Reactions:

(1)

Ethan Ace

You can't remove it on the Sony, either. I'm guessing (don't quote me) that:

From a hardware standpoint, making room for a cut filter for a 1.07" or 35mm sensor is a logistical challenge. The imager is not much smaller than the body of the camera, so moving a cut filter would require additional space. to the side of the imager.
Removable cut filters for sensors this large are not common, unlike the commodity parts for smaller sensors. So they'd have to go through design just for a few models of relatively low volume camera.

So add those two up along with low light performance already much better than smaller sensor counterparts and adding a cut filter for slight gains in most instances seems like a mediocre business decision.

That being said, if they were IR sensitive, adding even a little bit of external IR illumination would likely have a significant impact, but that's a moot hypothetical.

Reactions:

(2)

(1)

Undisclosed #4

IPVMU Certified

In reply to Ethan Ace

That being said, if they were IR sensitive, adding even a little bit of external IR illumination would likely have a significant impact, but that's a moot hypothetical.

Usually, even with a cut filter they are still a little IR sensitive. You can test this by firing a TV remote control at a camera in the daytime...

Reactions:

Michael Miller

I tried before I left my office and no it doesn't work.

Reactions:

Undisclosed #4

IPVMU Certified

...I tried before I left my office and no it doesn't work.

You'll need to use a compatible remote ;)

Reactions:

(1)

(2)

Michael Miller

In reply to Ethan Ace

In my experience with the Avigilon PRO cameras having IR capability would never be used. 1) the cameras are in color mode 24/7 so IR is not needed 2) The FOV is so large it would cost a fortune to blanket the FOV with IR.

Reactions:

(2)

Undisclosed #4

IPVMU Certified

The FOV is so large it would cost a fortune to blanket the FOV with IR.

Exactly how big is the FOV of that camera?

Reactions:

Michael Miller

Well, one of the many PRO cameras we have installed is mounted on a roof 6 stories up and is watching multiple parking lots with the farthest 1000ft away with a very wide FOV. The camera stays in full-color mode 24/7.

Reactions:

(4)

Undisclosed #4

IPVMU Certified

Ethan, in the article it states

No IR Cut Filter

Note that the Avigilon Pro camera is marketed as a day/night camera, but is not IR sensitive. Instead, the camera uses electronic day night to remove color from the scene in night mode, which slightly reduces bandwidth

Yet, in the link given it says

Electrical D/N

One confusing option is the 'electrical' Day / Night version. This is fake Day/Night as the IR cut filter remains fixed but the camera tries to compensate with image enhancement. It generally does not come close to the low light performance of a true day/night camera with a mechanical cut filter.

So does it have a non-removable IR cut (lens/sensor coating?) or no IR cut filter at all?

Reactions:

Ethan Ace

I'm assuming it's non-removable, but Avigilon does not specify. There's no obvious cut filter anywhere. Could be in the lens, could be on the sensor. Any way it's not IR sensitive.

Reactions:

(1)

Undisclosed #4

IPVMU Certified

In reply to Ethan Ace

In the DSLRs I've seen, the IR cut filter is a seperate component, physically removable, but not electrically so. It looks like the size of a Kodachrome slide (circa 2000 b.c.).

Maybe BK knows something?

Reactions:

Michael Miller

Nice report Ethan.

1)I would like to add I understand why these cameras were tested the way they are but most people are not mounting large high res box cameras in housings 8-10ft off the ground. These are mostly used to cover large areas with cameras mounted up high looking at parking lots or stadium seating areas. Both the Avigilon and Sony will look more impressive covering a real world setting like this.

2)The Sony camera has an image based off the Sony A7SII which is arguably the best low light digital camera on the market. Kudos to Sony for the low light performance.

3) Analytic wise the Avigilon PRO camera work very well at tracking people and vehicles over very large areas. We have often seen much greater analytic detection range then what Avigilon states. I guess is the better sensor and great glass on the front. Most customers use the analytic search feature when the cameras are covering parking lots and they only want to search for people. It works well and saves the customer a lot of time searching video.

4) While the Sony does have the impressive low light performance I want to see 10, 20 or 30 of these running on a 3rd party VMS. Most VMS platforms have some very powerful client computer requirements not to mention the time that is required to setup all the lower res streams. Having multiple customers running 15+ or 30+ Avigilon PRO cameras and being able to view these cameras on my Surface PRO over a WAN connection without any system configuration is very helpful.

5)I would be interesting to see the Avigilon and Sony PRO 4K cameras vs Axis, Bosch, Hikivision, Dahua and the rest of the gang.

Reactions:

(4)

Undisclosed #1

There are alot of comments about HDSM as a rational about why the Avigilon camera is better than the Sony. I dont believe this is in any way relevant as it relates to VMS features and not the camera.

No matter what other features there are in the Aviglon cameras or VMS, they can not make the image quality better. It is obvious that the Sony camera is performing exponentially better than the Avigilon camera when it comes to image quality in low light.

In regards to comments about having more than 30 of these Sony cameras on a VMS I can not see any reason why they would not work if the system was planned correctly.

Avigilon makes a good camera and VMS but in this case Sony is just better and all the Avigilon lovers will just need to accept it.

Reactions:

(1)

(4)

(1)

Brian Karas

In reply to Undisclosed #1

IPVM

There are alot of comments about HDSM as a rational about why the Avigilon camera is better than the Sony. I dont believe this is in any way relevant as it relates to VMS features and not the camera.

HDSM actually starts in the camera. For the PRO cameras specifically, the "stream" is actually multiple streams, the FOV is broken into multiple tiles, each one an independent RTSP stream. I think the upcoming report on HDSM will go into more detail on this, but just to clarify, HDSM is not a VMS-only function.

Reactions:

(2)

John Honovich

IPVM

In reply to Brian Karas

HDSM is not a VMS-only function.

I think what #1 is trying to say there is that the benefits of HDSM are 'VMS-only' meaning only between VMS and client. There are no bandwidth savings or benefits for HDSM from the camera to the Avigilon VMS.

Reactions:

Undisclosed Manufacturer #5