Raytec Standard for Video Surveillance Lighting

By: John Honovich, Published on Dec 10, 2015

Illumination specialist Raytec has released what it describes as the "industry’s first ever Lighting Standard for Video Surveillance Applications – POWERS."

In this note, we examine the tech details of Raytec's specification and its potential impact.

Problem

************ ********** ****** *** released **** ** ********* as *** "********’* ***** ever ******** ******** *** Video ************ ************ – POWERS."

** **** ****, ** examine *** **** ******* of ******'* ************* *** its ********* ******.

*******

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

*****, *** '********' *** manufacturers **** **, ********** with ********** **, ** to **** **** *** max ******** *********. *** biggest ****** **** **** are:

  • ************* *** *** ******** distance **** ****, ** like ******* ************ *** WDR ***, ** ** open ** ******. ** practice, **** *** *******, usually ** ****** *** relatively *****, ******, ** what *** ************ ******.
  • ***** **** ************* ** not **** **** *** width ***** (*********** *** illuminators '***' *****), ***** is * **** **** the *********** **** *** match *** *** ** the ******, ********** ** the ****** ** ********* (e.g., ** *** ****** AoV, *** *********** ***** produce * *** **** and ***** *** ***** dark).

Measuring *****

** ** ******** ** measure ** ************ ***** and ** **** * report ********* ** ****: *** ** ******* ** Illumination. **** ** ** excerpt ** *** ****** of ***** **:

****** ** ** ********, having **** **** ** this ** ***** *** is **** ********* ***, therefore, ****** ****.

Raytec's ********

**** ** ** ******* of *** ****** / report **** ***** ****** Raytec's ******** / *************. Note **** ** ***** a ****** ** *** performance ******* **** ***** allow ***** ************ **********:

*** *** **** **** about ** ** ******'* ********** ** ***** ***** ***** below:

****** **** **** **** shared **** **** * number ** ***** ************* but ** *** **** has ****** **** ***.

Outlook / ******

**** ********* ******* ********* is ******* *** **** advanced / ************* *****. For ************, ******* **** power *** ***** ***** performance ** ********** ******.

*** **** ********* ** the ********'* ******* ********* / ************ / ********** to ********* (*** **'* ****** ******* ** creating * ****** / video ********). ******* ** ****, we *** *** ********** that **** ************* **** join *** ** ******* a **** ******** *** other ************* *** **** to ******* **** ******* to ***** ******.

Comments (9)

It's good to see a standard being proposed. Having watched their webinar recently, I did ask what wavelength their IR power measurement is taken, as this is not specified in their document. Seems like a fundamental omission when the difference in a camera's output can vary by ~50% when 850nm and 940nm are compared. They did confirm that 850nm is what their spec intends so, hopefully, this will state this clearly in a revised document.

It's specified in their output report which they shared. I've highlighted that part:

Thanks for your reply, Jon. Yes, I did pick up on that. Forgive me, my OP did not mention their general IR-on-target minimum of 35uW/sq.cm alongside which they do not cite a wavelength.

The spec sheet that you kindly showed is for one of their 850nm products. If it was for a 940nm version would their general requirement for 35uW/sq.cm give a sufficiently bright video? I suspect it would not because of the sensor's fall-off ~50% at longer wavelengths. So, 35uW/sq.cm is fine at 850nm. My point is that they include a statement requiring more power on target at 940nm, e.g. 70uW/sq.cm

Best regards,
Simon

I am pretty sure, even for Raytec, ~90% of their business is 850nm.

So I agree the difference is material and they should note it, it is an edge case.

From listening to the Lambert vs. Lambert portion of the webinar [29:40] it sounds as if Raytec is a bit reluctant to make a categorical recalculation on the basis of the reduced sensitivity of silicon in the longer wavelengths.

The reason they do not intend to do it?

"It would dramatically reduce the distances."

The unspoken implication is that it might conflict with their stated distances.

Inverse power law can be a pain in the ...

Shout-out to IPVM @ 5:55.

Hmm. The laws of physics might not suit their marketing campaigns, but anyone who ignores them is going to disappoint their customers in reality. Is that what they want? Surely believable claims, integrity and reputation are more valuable than glossing over inconveniences (to which every competitor is also subject).

Seems like a fundamental omission when the difference in a camera's output can vary by ~50% when 850nm and 940nm are compared.

...So, 35uW/sq.cm is fine at 850nm. My point is that they include a statement requiring more power on target at 940nm, e.g. 70uW/sq.cm

Although I agree with you in principal, I have to say that the 35uW figure is probably the weakest part of the specification in any event. Because it still just a stab in the dark, so to speak, at the power required to produce a decent image.

As they point out camera models, subjective preferences etc, are huge factors to begin with, then add in the rate at which low-light technology is improving and the number is obsolete before it even gets started.

To actually be able to connect the dots between an illuminator spec and a camera image would require the camera manufacturers to provide compatible min IR power information, like IRE used to be for visible light.

To be clear, I think that the standard is great for comparing relative performance of illuminators, not so great when extrapolating to expected image quality.

Agreed.

Whatever the acceptable brightness of effective images, whatever the forthcoming improvements in camera sensitivity, the relative difference between 850nm and 940nm in sensor output will likely remain, so a percentage uplift for the longer wavelength remains a valid request.

Hi Guys,

I'm the Lambert from Raytec..

Just to come back on the two outstanding points:

1) Power on scene

Undisclosed, you are right the 0.35uW/cm2 is a debatable figure. But we base it on that figure on lots of practical testing to produce a high quality picture for most cameras. You could probably get away with a lower figure (which means many cameras will see further than the quoted distances or you could use a lower power illuminator - but you would need to test first). Historically, olny Raytec and Bosch (0.3) have historically published distance measurement criteria.

Actually, as we want this to be a standard, both for evaluating different illuminators from Raytec and for evaulating illuminators from different manufacturers the precise number isn't so important. The important point is to draw a line in the sand so that the illuminators can be compared effectively.

2) Power reading for 940nm

This is a bit of a minefield even though John is right about the minor role of 940nm (less than 5% of sales).

The "general" performance of cameras at 850nm is much more closely correlated than the performance of cameras at 940nm. You ALWAYS need a good camera to see 940nm, never mind get any distances so setting a standard power on scene level is open to big performance variances.

We do currently quote that 940nm illuminators produce a 40-50% drop on distance compared to 850nm products - although that is a guide because camera performance is so variable. Let's call it 50% for some maths. Effectively at half the distance there is 4x the power on scene so you could say 940nm distances are currently based on 1.4uW/cm2.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports

Directory of 68 Video Surveillance Startups on Sep 18, 2019
This directory provides a list of video surveillance startups to help you see and research what companies are new or not yet broadly known. 2019...
Uniview Prime Series 4K Camera Tested on Sep 18, 2019
Is the new Uniview 'Prime' better than the more expensive existing Uniview 'Pro'? In August, IPVM tested Uniview 4K 'Pro' but members advocated...
Panasonic 4K Camera Tested (WV-S2570L) on Sep 13, 2019
Panasonic has released their latest generation 4K dome, the WV-S2570L, claiming "Extreme image quality allows evidence to be captured even under...
Yi Home Camera 3 AI Analytics Tested on Sep 10, 2019
Yi Technology is claiming "new AI features" in its $50 Home Camera 3 "eliminates 'false positives' caused by flying insects, small pets, or light...
Assa Acquires LifeSafety Power on Sep 04, 2019
Assa Abloy is acquiring LifeSafety Power, adding to their growing collection of access control brands like Mercury, August, Pioneer Doors, and...
WDR Camera Mega Shootout 2019 - Avigilon, Axis, Bosch, Dahua, Hanwha, Hikvision, Panasonic, Vivotek on Sep 04, 2019
This is the biggest WDR Shootout ever, with 23 cameras from 8 manufacturers: We included true multi-exposure WDR and non-WDR models, ranging...
Uniview Pro 4K Camera Tested (IPC3238ER3-DVZ) on Aug 29, 2019
In our 8MP / 4K Fixed Lens Camera Shootout, Uniview's low end 8MP was firmly in the middle of the pack. Does their higher end Pro Series 4K camera...
Mobile Access Control Guide on Aug 28, 2019
One of the biggest trends in access for the last few years has been the marriage of mobile phones and access cards. But how does this...
Wyze Image Quality Tested vs Axis, Hikvision And Nest on Aug 27, 2019
With Wyze's new AI feature, it is strong at analytics, but how good is the camera's image quality? Is it just as good as incumbents like Axis,...
Anyvision Facial Recognition Tested on Aug 21, 2019
Anyvision is aiming for $1 billion in revenue by 2022, backed by $74 million in funding. But does their performance live up to the hype they have...

Most Recent Industry Reports

ONVIF Suspends Huawei on Sep 20, 2019
Huawei has been 'suspended', and effectively expelled, from ONVIF so long as US sanctions remain on the mega Chinese manufacturer. Inside this...
Open Access Controller Guide (Axis, HID, Isonas, Mercury) on Sep 19, 2019
In the access control market, there are many software platforms, but only a few companies that make non-proprietary door controllers. Recently,...
Axis Perimeter Defender Improves, Yet Worse Than Dahua and Wyze on Sep 19, 2019
While Axis Perimeter Defender analytics improved from our 2018 testing, the market has improved much faster, with much less expensive offerings...
Directory of 68 Video Surveillance Startups on Sep 18, 2019
This directory provides a list of video surveillance startups to help you see and research what companies are new or not yet broadly known. 2019...
Uniview Prime Series 4K Camera Tested on Sep 18, 2019
Is the new Uniview 'Prime' better than the more expensive existing Uniview 'Pro'? In August, IPVM tested Uniview 4K 'Pro' but members advocated...
US Army Base To Buy Banned Honeywell Surveillance on Sep 17, 2019
The U.S. Army's Fort Gordon, home to their Cyber Center of Excellence, has issued a solicitation to purchase Honeywell products that are US...
Vivotek "Neural Network-Powered Detection Engine" Analytics Tested on Sep 17, 2019
Vivotek has released "a neural network-powered detection engine", named Smart Motion Detection, claiming that "swaying vegetation, vehicles passing...
Schmode is Back, Aims To Turn Boulder AI Into Giant on Sep 16, 2019
One of the most influential and controversial executives in the past decade is back. Bryan Schmode ascended and drove the hypergrowth of Avigilon...
Manufacturers Unhappy With Weak ASIS GSX 2019 And 2020 Shift on Sep 16, 2019
Manufacturers were generally unhappy with ASIS GSX, both for weak 2019 booth traffic and a scheduling shift for the 2020 show, according to a new...