Arecont's Fully Motorized Multi-Imager Examined

Yeah, but this is just for positioning, not for repositioning. Typically, with panoramic cameras, you're just going to aim the imagers, close it up, and walk away. The motors are just to make it easier, and to help you avoid seams in the image.

I disagree with your statement. PTZ's have 2 major flaws when used as a means to cover an area larger than the standard FOV:

1) You get less than 100% coverage, because you are trying to cover an area wider/larger than what the camera can see in a fixed position. This results in a high probability of missing events, or getting less than ideal images from a constantly panning or stop-and-stare tour.

2) You get premature wear on the motors from having the camera in continuous/near-continuous motion.

This Arecont unit is a "traditional" multi-sensor, with additions to make setup theoretically easier. It is no different than a motorized lens, which I think people generally prefer/desire, it has just added motors to position the sensors as well.

The motors on this will likely be used for less than 1 hour total over the camera's lifespan, similar to the motors on a fixed camera with motorized zoom/focus.

I think the primary make or break factor for this camera will be the price, if the premium for it is less than ~2 hours of labor it should be easy for customers and integrators to justify. If the price premium exceeds potential labor savings and convenience benefits, it will be much harder to sell.

With multi-sensor cameras, our goal as manufacturers is to help integrators understand the merits of "virtual PTZ" vs. mechanical PTZ cameras.

When each sensor is 2.1MP, then the application determines how well this can be achieved. However, with the availability of ultra-high-resolution multi-sensor cameras (i.e. multiple 4K sensors in one housing), the ability to both conduct tours and zoom in for details digitally becomes possible without the wear on motors. PTZs are still very cool to me -- like real-life video games -- and we sell some fast ones. But we hope that with more manufacturers making multi-sensor cameras available, the advantages of moving around the scene digitally becomes more accepted.

You are all pointing out the risks whenever motors are involved in a camera. I agree that the key here is that the motors should rarely be used (i.e. remote focus vs. auto focus).

That said, this camera is trying to make it easier for the installer -- always the goal. But the cost to keep someone off a ladder could be difficult to justify as some of you are pointing out.

And on we go...

This is not intended for real-time control, so I think the VMS integration concern is not an issue.

One thing to keep in mind on the installation component is the relative skill-level (and pay) of the installer you can use. Theoretically you could have a junior guy mount all the cameras without having to worry about setting FOVs and dialing things in as you go, and then have a more skilled/higher-paid tech spend time doing the FOV adjustments once everything is up and running.

There would be some benefit in cases where the customer decides after seeing the setup that they want to tweak things, but I think most of the savings (if any) will come from the initial setup stage.

I agree that the premium that can be justified for this is going to be somewhat small relative to the manual setup version, with $300 likely being the very top end.

Lets say the value is real-time control. Now we're looking at the need for building specific PTZ like controls into a VMS.

Little value there, as the "pan" speed is slow as molasses.

Not from what I saw.