Hanwha ExtraLux Camera Tested

By: IPVM Team, Published on Jan 11, 2018

Hanwha has released the latest in their Wisenet X line, the "extraLUX" series, claiming to "capture crystal clear, true-color images in low-light conditions without IR LEDs, regardless of the environment or time of day", equipped with a 1/2" sensor and integrated F0.94 lens.

But can this new series really live up to these bold claims? We bought and tested Hanwha's XNV-6085R against competitive 1/2" cameras from Axis and Hikvision as well as Axis' larger imager Q1659 to find out, examining:

  • Color low light performance
  • Integrated IR performance
  • IR range and pattern
  • Full light imaging
  • Physical features
  • Bandwidth consumption

See our full results inside.

****** *** ******** *** latest ** ************ *****, *** "********" ******, claiming ** "******* ******* clear, ****-***** ****** ** low-light ********** ******* ** LEDs, ********** ** *** environment ** **** ** day", ******** **** * 1/2" ****** *** ********** F0.94 ****.

*** *** **** *** series ****** **** ** to these **** ******? ** bought *** ****** ******'* XNV-6085R ******* *********** */*" cameras ********************** **** ** ****' larger *********** ** **** ***, *********:

  • ***** *** ***** ***********
  • ********** ** ***********
  • ** ***** *** *******
  • **** ***** *******
  • ******** ********
  • ********* ***********

*** *** **** ******* inside.

[***************]

*******

***** ** *** *****, the ***-***** ****** **** of *** **** *** light *********** ** **** seen ** ** *******, standing *** ** *** *** areas:

  • *********** *** ***** *********** with **** *****: ****** ** **** "****" a */*" ***** ******, the ***-***** *** *********** with ****' ****** ***-* equipped *****, ********* ********/******* images (** ***** ** well ** **********/** **) when ***** ****' *********** varifocal **** *** **** slightly ***** **** ***** Axis' **** *** ***** lens (**.*).
  • ****** ***** *** ***** than *********** */*"+ ******:******** ** ~*/*" ******* from **** *** *********, the ***** ******** **** brighter ***** ****** ** dark ******, ********** ***** information and ********** ******* **** as ******** *** ****** features ***** *** ********* to ******* ** ***** models ** ********** ***********.

*******, *** *****'* ********** IR *********** *** *****, but *** ***********, ******** similar ******* ** ***** models ****** ** **** scenes. ************, **** ***** performance *** *******, **** subject ************ ******* ** other ******* ****** (***** from *** **** *****).

******* ** ***** *******, its ****** ***** ******** to ********* *********'* *** *************** ** ** ***** to **** ***** *** do *** ******* **** end ***** *** ***** performance.

*******

*** ***-***** *** * street ***** ** ~$*,*** USD. **** ******* ** notably **** ********* **** other ***** ***** *** light *******, **** ** Hikvision's **-**********-* (~$*** ******) or ******'* *** ******** Wisenet * ****** (***-*****, ~$600 ******). 

Physical ********

*** ***-***** ** ***** for * **** ***** bullet ******, **** * larger **** *** ****** bullet **** **** *********'* 4A26, ***** *****.

*** **** ****** ** larger ** **** ** it ** ******** ** mount ** * ******* of ********* (******/****** ****, 4" ******, ***.) *** is ***** ** *********** the ******** ******** ***** required *** ***** ******* screw ********.

*** ********* ***** (*** many ******) ******** * separate ******* ***** *** backbox ********, ***** ********* ordering *** ************ ********** and **** ~$** ** ******** cost.

*** ****** ******** *** typical **** ** ***********, such ** ***, *****, I/O, ** **** ** two ******* *****. ** review ***** ******** ** this *****:

Low ***** *********** *********** **** **** *****

** *** *****, *** XNO-6080R ******* *** ***** performance *********** **** ****' large ****** ***** *** light *****, **** *********** varying ********* ** **** lens ****** ****. ** tested **** *** **** models ************ ******* ***** options:

  • ***** **** **.* ***** lens, *** **** ********** low ***** **** *********** by ****, **** * very ****** **° ***** of ****.
  • ***** **-**** **.*-*.* ****, more ******* ** "******" varifocal ***********, **** * 96.6°-54° ***** ** ****.

**** ***** **.* ****: Advantage *****, *** ****** AOV

********* *** *** **** using ****' *********** **** F1.2 ****, *** **** Q1659 ******** ******** ****** in *** ***** **** the ****** *****, **** or ******* ** *******, with ******** **** ******* detail ** *** ******* and ******* **** **********. Note **** *** ***-***** was ****** *** *** way ** (**.***/**°) ** this **** ** **** closely ***** *** **** camera's ******* **° ***** of ****, ***** ********* the *****'* *-**** ** ~2.4.

**** ********* ****: ********* Hanwha

*******, **** ***** ****' recommended ********* **** **** the ***** (**.*-*.*), *** XNO-6085R ******* ******** ******, with ******* ****** ** the ******* *** **** chart, **** ** ***** are ********* ** ********* in *** **** *****. The ***** *** ****** further *** ** **** example, ******** *-**** ****** to *** **.** *******.

** ****** *********, ************ details *** *** ******* in *** ****, *** detection ******* ****** **** the **** *****.

Better ***** *** ***** *********** **** ***** ~*/*" *******

** *** ***** ***** mode *** ***-**** ******** brighter, ******* ****** **** other */*" ** ****** imager ****** ****** **** Axis *** *********, ***** below.

** **** *****, *** 6085R ******** **** ************ details ** *** ******* and ******* ********** ** the **** *****. 

***** ** ******* ***** (~60'), ********* ** **** easier ** *** ***-***** due ** **** ******** between *** ******* *** background, ***** ** ** not ******** ** ***** cameras ******.

Above ******* ********** ** ***********

** ******** ** *** color **** *******, *** XNO-6080R's ********** ** *********** was *******, ********** ********* to *** ********* **** at **** *****, ****** with **** ************ **** the ***-*****.

** ~**' *****, *********** is ***** ******* ** subject *** ***** *******.

Even ** ************

*** ***-*****'* ** ************ was **** ****** *** field ** ****, ***** below ** *** ****** angle (~***°). *** ***** of *** ***** ** view **** ****** ******* compared ** *** ******, but *** ******* ** still ****** ****. 

**** **** ** **** not ******** **** ******** to ***** ******* ****** as ****** ** ****, IR *****, *** ** coverage ******* **** *** cannot ** ************, *** we discuss *** ***-****'* ** performance ** *** ****** ******* * ****, *** **** ***** the ********* **** ** a ****** ******.

Long ** *****

*** ***-***** ******* *** maximum ********* ** ***** of ***/~***', ***** *****. However, ** **** ********, PPF ** **** ~** even ** *** ******'* max **** ***** (**°), and **** ***** **** set ** *** ****** AoV (***°), **** ***** 4 ***. ******* ** this, ** ******* ** the ******* *** *******, but ** ** ****** spotted, ***** *****.

Full ***** *********** *******

** **** ***/******* ******, all ******* *** *** Axis ***** ********* *********, providing ******* ** *** subject *** ******* **** legibility ** **** *****, but **** ******** ************ of *** *******'* ****. Overexposure *** ******** ** the *****.

** ******* *****, **** PPF ** ~**, *** Axis ***** ******** ******** better **** **********, *** **** of *** ******* ******* recognizable ******* ** *** subject.

Bitrate **********

*** ***-*****'* *.*** ******** were ***** **** ***** cameras ****** ** *** light *** **** ****** (color *** **********, ************), shown *****. *** ******* were ****** **** ***** codecs **, ***** *** following ********:

  • ******: ******* *** **, Wisestream ****
  • ****: ********* ****, ******* GOP ****
  • *********: *.***+ **

***-***** *.*** ******** **** about **% ***** **** H.264 ** *** ***** using ******* ********:

Test **********

*** ********* *********** **** made ** ******* ** this ****:

  • ******* **** *** *** to */*** ******* ** faster. **** **** ******* to *** **** *******. Note **** ****** **** to ******* ** */** shutter (***** ** ***** manually ******), *** ** this ****, *** ***-***** defaulted ** */**.
  • ***-***** ******* ***** ********* was ******** ******** (**** level ** ******* ** about ***** *) ***** did *** **** **** visible ********** *** ******* some ****** ****.
  • *********** ** ************ ** quantization ** **-** (***** to ********** ***** ***** dynamic ***********).

 

Firmware ******** ****

*** ********* ******** ******** were **** *** **** test:

  • ****** ***-*****: *.*********
  • ****** ***-*****: *.*********
  • **** *****: *.**.*
  • ********* **-**********-*: **.*.******* ******  

 

 

Comments (28)

Another great article. Just a suggestion but whenever you test low light cameras with the test subject specifically being low light, I would like to see video of moving objects. I mentioned in another article that I was also recently blown away by the low light image of a particular camera, then I was let down when objects started moving. The camera manufacturer had the default shutter speed set so low that motion blur was a major factor. When speco intensifiers were popular a few years ago, this was the same deal, looked great on a still image but big time blur when objects moved. 

I go back and forth on this issue. Generally, video is not worth the time/upload space because only a very small percentage of users actually look at it.

If we upload it to a streaming service we can cut down some of the storage requirements, but it is compressed and transcoded and not the original video.

We will pull a clip from this test and zip it, but this is why we generally don't do so.

As far as motion blur, I'll update the report momentarily with the following info:

  • Cameras were all set to 1/30s shutter or faster. None were allowed to use slow shutter. Note that Hanwha used to default to 1/5s shutter (which we would manually adjust), but in this test, the XNO-6085R defaulted to 1/30.
  • XNO-6085R digital noise reduction was adjusted slightly (from level 12 default to about level 8) which did not make much visible difference but removed some slight blur.
  • Compression is standardized to quantization of 28-30.

By the way, slow shutter is an issue for sure, but much less of one than it was a couple of years ago. Most manufacturers gave up on defaulting to slow shutter speeds because users became savvier on the topic. However, now you'll see high levels of digital noise reduction applied at times, which looks quite similar. Blurry and smeared. We talk about that in the Camera DNR (Digital Noise Reduction) Guide in depth.

How about finding some kind of standariced moving object, and use snapshots from that to compare cameras like you do now on still scenes?

Then maybe you could upload 1 video of that object in good lighting from a random camera just for reference on the movement. 

Stian,

Thanks for the feedback. We could try incorporating that into the scene / shot. Ethan, take a look at what instruments could be used.

Hanwha Wisenet X series have a feature under Noise Reduction called WiseNR, which I found to be pretty amazing.  It analyzes the image and performs 2D & 3D noise reduction depending on if there is motion or not.  When there is motion, it changes methods, and you get great motion performance with more noise.  As soon as the movement clears, is changes back again, and then noise is gone.

It is discussed in the whitepaper below:

https://www.hanwhasecurity.com/resources/white-papers.html

Low Light Level Image Processing Technology


(Hanwha employee)

In my tests 1/30s is still much too slow for a walking subject.  Maybe my expectations of clear and sharp are too high.  1/60s is better but still not there.  1/120s seems to do quite well for normal walking pace.

Chris, thanks. Please share a few pics from your tests. We've tried various shutter speeds and for LPR with a moving car, for example, we regularly recommend much faster shutter speeds but for walking, we have not seen the benefit.

When we are testing cameras in low light, we always test them with moving object.

We walk towards camera and crosswise camera. We are making comparison from snapshots. Usually we test camera on default setting because we use sub installers and sadly they don't chance camera setups (maybe don't know how or just lazy)

So we try to find cameras which are decent/good in low light, without chancing camera settings.

Rene, thanks for your first comment!

Usually we test camera on default setting because we use sub installers and sadly they don't chance camera setups

I can sympathize there. At least for something as basic and straightforward as shutter speed, I really think it would be useful to require it. It does not take a lot of talent to be able to change that setting and not doing so, especially if a camera defaults to a slow shutter can be a big problem.

I totally agree. As I always says in my trainings, most of the very low light 'magical features' some camera manufacturers offer are only good to monitor sloths in a zoo.

Resultado de imagem para sloth

Faster than that you'll get only blurred images. 

That's why it's always important to check low light performance with a moving target. 

I suggest to use the Rotakin test.

Resultado de imagem para rotakin

It seems 6080 and 6085 is mixed up quite a few times. Would be nice if that was corrected to remove any doubts of what's what. 

Thanks, we're in the process of fixing that.

Hi! A friend of mine, that is very specialized in Hikvision products, suggested you to redo this test with camera model ds-2cd4026.

He told me that this one would be better for this type of situation.

 

The 4026 is the indoor box Darkfighter 1080p camera. It has the same specs as the bullet, but lacks IR and an outdoor housing, which is why we used the 4A26.

Does Bosch have anything to throw in the ring?

Bosch has a newer 1080p starlight line (tested here) which performs pretty well in color mode, but not on the level of the ExtraLux. They also have a larger imager 5MP starlight, which is also good, but overtaken by new models.

 Does Bosch have anything to throw in the ring?

 

 

To be clear: we always test with moving objects. If there is blur, we call it out, as we have in past tests. We will start adding a standardized moving object to future low light tests with clips.

Likely not the Rotakin, because it's prohibitively expensive and sort of strange. I think we can figure out something improved and more analogous to real world use.

Yes, you made it clear before that you also test with moving objects, but it will be good to have some video to register that some camera is really good (or not) with moving objects under low light conditions.

Regarding Rotakin, I didn't realize it was so expensive... 

To clarify, the Rotakin is not 'prohibitively' expensive, at least for us. In the last year, we have bought numerous multi-thousand dollar cameras (e.g., PTZs, mulit-imager, etc.). We could easily afford it.

It does seem to be overpriced for what it effectively is, a cardboard cut. It also has negligible recognition in North America.

As Stian suggested, we will look at including an object that demonstrates movement in the test image but it's unlikely to be the Rotakin.

That said, we'd be happy to talk to anyone involved directly in the management or sale of the Rotakin to hear their pitch.

Thank you for showing the dark scene results with the IR off and cams in color mode.

Your dark scene is pretty darn dark, so I bet this would be a great camera to leave in color mode around the clock for minimally illuminated exterior areas of campuses and parking lots.  

Looking at Hanwha's website, the dome versions of this camera are remotely adjustable! That is a real labor saver during install and for when someone later on wants a high-up camera turned "just a little more to the right." 

Would be very interested to see it compared against a Sony Camera, say a SNC-VB642D...  

 interesting test.

So the Hanwa is performing better at a much lower price than the Axis Q1659

In some scenes that was true, especially when using higher F-stop lenses on the Q1659. The main drawback to the Q1659 vs. the Hanwha is lens selection, because there are not a lot of low F-stop lenses available with wider angles of view. So unless you're looking at narrow areas, the Hanwha is likely to be better in low light.

However, details are much betterduring the day in the Q1659 due to its much higher resolution. For example, at 60' during the day, this is how the two compared, a clear difference.

 

F1.2 is very fast to be sure, but 85mm seems an odd choice for most cam applications, due to the very narrow field of view you noted.  The very cheap and wider but not as fast option is the 50mm F1.8 STM.   Again compared to the 85mm, the much wider, almost as fast, and just a bit lower priced is the 35mm F1.4L II.  Then there is also the 50mm F1.2 L USM, which again is wider and just as fast, and is about $500 less than the 85mm.  Widest fast Canon option might be the 24mm F1.4L II.   There's also a Sigma 20mm F1.4 to go even wider, and hundreds less than the 85mm.  Any of these will give better wider comparisons than the 10 to 22mm F3.5, although not nearly as wide.

I suggest avoiding the 85mm when using the Q1659, except when comparing zoom levels that match and time allows also showing a wider fast lens in the same review.  I don't understand why Axis would only recommend the 85mm as a fast option.

I would have thought that at F0.94 (maximum aperture F-stop, not minimum) the depth of field would be really limited.

FYI - correction:

You’re showing a bullet-style camera when doing a size coparison to Hikvision and Hanwha.  The Part number of XNV-6085R is actually a dome camera.  The camera you’re showing is a XNO-6085R.

Ah thanks for pointing that out. We'll fix that typo.

Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 6,441 reports, 866 tests and is only available to members. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

Already a member? Login here | Join now

Related Reports

Seek Scan Thermal Temperature Screening System Tested on May 28, 2020
Now that IPVM has tested Dahua, Hikvision, and Sunell, we are returning to...
Tiandy Super Starlight Cameras Tested on Apr 30, 2020
Tiandy is taking aim at China competitors Dahua and Hikvision, with a new...
New Axis M30 Cameras Tested on Mar 26, 2020
Axis has released a new generation of, for them, relatively low cost M30...
Vivotek LPR Camera Tested on Apr 15, 2020
Vivotek has historically sold license plate capture cameras but not LPR. Now,...
TVT / InVid White Light Camera Tested Vs Hikvision ColorVu on Mar 18, 2020
With mega China manufacturers Dahua and Hikvision facing both bans and human...
Leica Launches LIDAR / Thermal / IP Camera on Mar 04, 2020
Swiss manufacturer Leica is launching what it calls a "real-time reality...
K3 Wall Mounted IR Temperature Gun Tested on Jun 12, 2020
Is this the solution to not spending thousands of dollars on fever...
TVT Temperature Measurement Terminal Tested on Jul 23, 2020
While Dahua and Hikvision get the most attention for China temp products,...
Hikvision and Uniview Entry Level Thermal Handheld Cameras Tested on Jun 05, 2020
While most screening systems cost $10,000 or more, manufacturers such as...
ZKTeco Body Temperature and Mask Detection Reader Tested on May 26, 2020
While dedicated fever cameras emerged first, now tablet/kiosk fever detectors...
Hikvision MinMoe Temperature Screening Terminal Tested on Jun 23, 2020
Hikvision has expanded its temperature screening options. We tested...
USA's Seek Scan Thermal Temperature System Examined on Apr 01, 2020
This US company, Seek, located down the road from FLIR and founded by former...
Huawei Releases a 'Fever' Smartphone on Jun 16, 2020
Fever cameras, fever tablets, fever helmets, fever sunglasses, fever guns,...
FLIR A Series Temperature Screening Cameras Tested on Jun 04, 2020
FLIR is one of the biggest names in thermal and one of the most conservative....
Kentix SmartXcan Fever Screening Device Tested on Jun 22, 2020
German manufacturer Kentix has declared "FEVER-SCREENING REINVENTED" with its...

Recent Reports

Dangerous Hikvision Fever Camera Showcased by Chilean City on Aug 07, 2020
Deploying a fever camera outdoors, in the rain, with no black body, is...
"Grand Slam" For Pelco's PE Firm, A Risk For Motorola on Aug 07, 2020
The word "Pelco" and "grand slam" have not been said together for many years....
FLIR Stock Falls, Admits 'Decelerating' Demand For Temperature Screening on Aug 07, 2020
Is the boom going to bust for temperature screening? FLIR disappointed...
VSaaS Will Hurt Integrators on Aug 06, 2020
VSaaS will hurt integrators, there is no question about that. How much...
Dogs For Coronavirus Screening Examined on Aug 06, 2020
While thermal temperature screening is the surveillance industry's most...
ADT Slides Back, Disappointing Results, Poor Commercial Performance on Aug 06, 2020
While ADT had an incredible start to the week, driven by the Google...
AHJ / Authority Having Jurisdiction Tutorial on Aug 06, 2020
One of the most powerful yet often underappreciated characters in all of the...
SIA Coaches Sellers on NDAA 889B Blacklist Workarounds on Aug 05, 2020
Last month SIA demanded that NDAA 899B "must be delayed". Now that they have...
ADI Returns To Growth, Back To 'Pre-COVID Levels' on Aug 05, 2020
While ADI was hit hard in April, with revenue declining 21%, the company's...
Exposing Fever Tablet Suppliers and 40+ Relabelers on Aug 05, 2020
IPVM has found 40+ USA and EU companies relabeling fever tablets designed,...
Indian Government Restricts PRC Manufacturers From Public Projects on Aug 04, 2020
In a move that mirrors the U.S. government’s ban on Dahua and Hikvision...
Directory of 201 "Fever" Camera Suppliers on Aug 04, 2020
This directory provides a list of "Fever" scanning thermal camera providers...
Face Masks Increase Face Recognition Errors Says NIST on Aug 04, 2020
COVID-19 has led to widespread facemask use, which as IPVM testing has shown...
Dahua Loses Australian Medical Device Approval on Aug 04, 2020
Dahua has cancelled its medical device registration after "discussions" with...
Google Invests in ADT, ADT Stock Soars on Aug 03, 2020
Google has announced a $450 million investment in the Florida-based security...