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

Facial Recognition Systems Fail Simple Liveness Detection Test on May 17, 2019
Facial recognition is being widely promoted as a solution to physical access control but we were able to simply spoof 3 systems because they had no...
Maglock Selection Guide on May 16, 2019
One of the most misunderstood yet valuable pieces of electrified hardware is the maglock. Few locks are stronger, but myths and confusion surround...
Panasonic 32MP Multi Imager Camera Tested (WV-X8570N) on May 16, 2019
Panasonic has released their first multi imager models including the 32MP (4x4K) WV-X8570N, claiming "Extreme image quality for evidence capturing...
Access Control Request to Exit (RTE) Tutorial on May 13, 2019
For access controlled doors, especially those with maglocks, 'Request to Exit', or 'RTE' devices are required to override electrified locks to...
Hikvision DeepinView Camera Analytics Tested on May 08, 2019
Hikvision is expanding its 'deep learning' offerings with a new camera series called 'DeepinView' claiming false alarm reduction and improved...
Dahua ePoE Long Distance UTP / Coax Tested on May 03, 2019
Dahua's Enhanced PoE (ePoE) line is claiming extended video and power transmission over 600m without repeaters, with devices interchangeable via...
Verkada Cloud VMS/Cameras Tested on May 02, 2019
Verkada is arguably the most ambitious video surveillance startup in many years. The company is developing their own cameras, their own VMS, their...
The HIVIDEO $31 Face Detection DVR Tested on Apr 25, 2019
Face detection in a $31 DVR? That is what "HIVIDEO" (not to be confused with Hikvision, even if the company intends to do that) was promoting at...
Speco Ultra Intensifier Tested on Apr 22, 2019
While ISC West 2019 named Speco's Ultra Intensifier the best new "Video Surveillance Cameras IP", IPVM testing shows the camera suffers from...
Dahua Repositionable IR Multi-Imager Camera Tested on Apr 16, 2019
Dahua has released their first repositionable multi-imager camera, the Multi-Flex 4x2MP, claiming integrated IR, true WDR, and flexible...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Facial Recognition Systems Fail Simple Liveness Detection Test on May 17, 2019
Facial recognition is being widely promoted as a solution to physical access control but we were able to simply spoof 3 systems because they had no...
Inside Look Into Scam Market Research on May 17, 2019
Scam market research has exploded over the last few years becoming the most commonly cited 'statistics' for most industries, despite there clearly...
Maglock Selection Guide on May 16, 2019
One of the most misunderstood yet valuable pieces of electrified hardware is the maglock. Few locks are stronger, but myths and confusion surround...
Panasonic 32MP Multi Imager Camera Tested (WV-X8570N) on May 16, 2019
Panasonic has released their first multi imager models including the 32MP (4x4K) WV-X8570N, claiming "Extreme image quality for evidence capturing...
Trump Signs 'Huawei Ban' - Executive Order Targeting Foreign Adversary Technology on May 16, 2019
US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order targeting technology provided by 'foreign adversaries', in what is widely being called a...
Bank Security Manager Interview on May 15, 2019
Bank security contends with many significant threats - from fraudsters to robbers and more. In this interview, IPVM spoke with bank security...
Milestone XProtect 2019 R1 Tested on May 15, 2019
For the past few years, Milestone has released quarterly software updates XProtect VMS platform. What is new and how much impact do the updates...
San Francisco Face Recognition Ban And Surveillance Regulation Details Examined on May 14, 2019
San Francisco passed the legislation 8-1 today. While the face recognition 'ban' has already received significant attention over the past few...
Security Fail: ASISNYC Auto Emails Passwords In Plain Text on May 14, 2019
ASIS NYC automatically emails a user with the password the user just entered, in plain text, when one registers for the site / event, as the...
Hikvision VP On Muslim Oppression on May 14, 2019
Hikvision has won tens of millions of dollars, at least, in direct contracts with the Chinese government that oppresses Muslims, including a forced...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact