Panoramic: Fisheye vs Multi-Imager Usage

I will never (nor should anyone else) suggest a fisheye camera because Genetec (and other VMS's from what I have been told?) still scale down the decoding/dewarped image resolution when zooming into a warped image, it is silly.  

The concept, in my opinion, is suppose to be that the full resolution image is recorded and then the customer can zoom into the area of interest during review of a recorded stream or live stream review. They can do this multiple times and create and muti view that makes them happy, again even with recorded video.  This is an awesome concept and works except for...

But again what's the point of a high resolution (some up to 12MP) image resolution when no matter what the area/size one selects dynamically gets automatically scaled to a crappy fixed resolution.  That is exactly what the Genetec client does.  I have been told that they fixed the resolution to a low resolution because of a concern related to the workstation processing power etc.  But shouldn't that be the integrators concern...

Every one we have installed has turned out to be a disappointment to the customer and us.  

We've had similar results. We installed about half a dozen in a jail at certain hallway intersections and near process windows, and they later requested we replace them all with wide angle fixed lenses.

Are both bad experiences with Genetec as the VMS?  

I have found that when we show customers fisheye cameras for the first time they either love them or hate them.  Once I spend the time to show them how the de-warping works and for live, recorded and exported video the haters go away.  I have yet to have a complaint from any customers after we install them and in fact, after we get a couple installed they typically call us and order more. Schools, Hospitals, Arenas, and Hotels/Resorts have been very interested in fisheye cameras. 

just so everyone is clear regarding my attempt at a point earlier, when you use a browser and interface to a fisheye camera directly and/or have the fisheye camera perform the dewarping, this is a completely different experience than using one of the major VMSs to dewarp said stream(s) through either their client/server (if that is possible from the server).

It's all about purpose and objective. What is the objective of the camera?

For movements and behaviors, the fish-eye lenses work wonders. You are able to monitor where an individual or object goes, across a broad field of view. 

For more specific surveillance like recognition or identification of individuals, or where your pixels on target requirement is far out from your installation location (i.e. exterior, parapet, large parking lot, etc.), the multi-sensor panoramics get the job done. Especially so when you can individually select focal length in the field.

I've designed a number of projects where I make use of both types. 

- Undisclosed Consultant!

All things being equal, a multi sensor solution is better in my opinion. But, it's hard to make the comparison because of all the variables. 

First, most VMS platforms will charge you 1 license for a fisheye while you will pay a license cost for each sensor with multi sensor. This is changing now with competition.

Second, unless the camera manufacturer supports dewarping you'll be stuck looking at a bubble looking camera. Some manufacturers like IndigoVision also offer different views. If you have a 12 megapixel fisheye you can digital zoom into different areas and create saved views. Now your image is clearer and your one 12 megapixel camera now looks like 3 or 4 different cameras. They also support dewarping.

Last, if we are doing a all things are equal comparison outside of the lack of reliability from specific manufacturers the multi sensor camera has better performance and more options. Of course you are going to pay more for a multi sensor than you are for a single sensor option.

Dallmeier Panomera® W8 Topline

** Disclaimer - I work for the distributor that sells Dallmeier in Aus **

Editorial gripe: When posting direct quotes that contain obvious spelling and grammatical errors, could you please include "[sic]" so we know the editorial staff is reviewing closely and not inserting errors by mistake?

-Not quite a Grammar Nazi

As consultant /end user - I personally prefer the multi-imagers.  They are easier for operators to use, standard viewing - easier to pull forensic data.  Fisheyes have their use too, but we tend not to use them as often even though they are like the article stated - lower cost, lower profile, etc.  Fisheyes do seem to be a fav by integrators - we see them offering them for the reasons mentioned.  Thanks for the article. 

We encourage integrators to design systems with products that are best for the application. The merits of hemispheric and multi-sensor cameras revealed in IPVM's research are right on with what we hear, but the only reason to choose one over the other would be the specific application for the camera.

When a hemispheric camera is best for the application, please take the time to compare the clarity at the edges and the amount of sensor resolution loss for the price.

With the increasing competition among multi-sensor cameras, please remember that frame-rate matters.

Oh, I can't ignore the comments about video management software and these versatile cameras. If you were all using DW Spectrum IPVMS, you would make your lives and your customers' lives easier and your hangups about managing either fisheye or multi-sensor cameras would be non-existent. 

Thanks for acknowledging DW Spectrum! That is something!

It is all anecdotal, but it is very rare that when someone is exposed to DW Spectrum that they are not surprised by its ease of use and the powerful way it handles video.

Your comment is well taken. If Digital Watchdog had government backing, we could flood the world with DW Spectrum messaging. As it is, we sell solely through distribution, supported by some devoted rep groups and stellar regional sales managers. Conversion comes one intergrator at a time.

Despite your shot at it, DW Spectrum is coming along. Our biggest barrier is that for integrators like yourself, odds are that you continue to think of Digital Watchdog as an analog company. Yes, years later, our success in analog can still sometimes be a barrier to our efforts in IP.

From our point of view, not only have we entered IP, we have industry-leading products:

• DW Spectrum IPVMS will continue to add features and improve what is already disruptive performance and usability. Simply put, no other VMS handles video the way DW Spectrum IPVMS handles video. And the pricing structure is beyond compare.
• IPVM recently reviewed our MEGApix 48 megapixel multi-sensor camera. For general surveillance, it is without peer (regarding total resolution and frame-rate).
• Digital Watchdog introduced the first multi-sensor camera with IR.
• Digital Watchdog indoor and outdoor hemispheric cameras have incredible edge to edge clarity. DW Spectrum dewarps with a mouse click.
• Blackjack E-Rack Servers are serious iron and come with DW Spectrum recording licenses.
• Digital Watchdog continues our commitment to analog with Universal HD over Coax DVRs and HD over Coax cameras, including the world's first multi-sensor HD-Analog cameras.

DW Spectrum does not solve every hangup (does that product exist?), but it handles a lot of them in very user-friendly ways. Anyone is welcome to try that themselves for free.

And by the way, you did not say that your personal experience with DW Spectrum was not positive. We understand that while integrators are usually impressed by DW Spectrum IPVMS, other factors go into the final buying decisions. Our goal is to be included in more and more of the conversations.

Every bit of input we can get from the people who support IPVM is extremely valuable. Thank you, Michael Miller and Valery Dubovets.

1. We and the people at Nx take comments about stability very seriously. While we at Digital Watchdog would like every product to be bulletproof, it should not be a surprise (it should be assuring) that DW Spectrum is in constant development as an ongoing, living, breathing software. The Nx programmers and our product management people do not release updates until everyone is in agreement regarding the stability. I am sorry that you have had issues. I really encourage you to try 3.0 when it is released. It is a major development in this process.
2. That was a cheap shot. I apologize to all governments here and abroad. However, have you ever dewarped a hemispheric camera in DW Spectrum? Have you compared handling the bandwidth of high resolution multi-sensor cameras in DW Spectrum? "One integrator at a time." I think usability is exactly the issue of this thread -- how do you use fisheyes and multi-sensor cameras, or more specifically, why don't you?
3. It is encouraging that you don't think this is accurate, but our success in analog video surveillance does still create challenges for us in being accepted in IP video surveillance.
4. I am a marketing guy. "Non-existent" is the type of hyperbole you expect from me. I should have said, "almost non-existent."
5. I again thank you for responding to DW Spectrum and especially for being so knowledgeable. We hope to one day win you over and earn your esteem as worthy of comparison to the big boys you mentioned.

I can take a hint. I am now out of this thread. Another manufacturer's representative with the courage to identify himself has been driven from the conversation!

I love IPVM. Seriously. I do.