3MP and 5MP Cameras Going Widescreen

By Ethan Ace, Published Jan 04, 2018, 10:15am EST

For years, 3MP and 5MP cameras used the traditional 4:3 aspect ratio.

Now, in an emerging trend, newer generation 3MP and 5MP cameras use 16:9 wide aspect ratios.

In this note, we examine the change, review manufacturers like Axis and Hikvision supporting this and the tradeoffs of this shift.

New *** **:* ***********

** ******* **** ****** releases, ******** ************* **** as****,*****, *** ********* *** use **:* *** ********** (3072x1728) ******* ** *:* 2592x1944, ** ***** ** the ********* ** ******* **********:

************, ***** ** * second, ********* *** **:* resolution, *********, **** ** Hikvision ** **** ******:

** ** ***** ****** here **** **** ** Hikvision's ****** ***** **** "5MP" ********, ****** ** using ********* (*:*) ** their *****, **** ******** increased ********* ********** ** 6MP (*:* ****** *****) in ****** ******** *.*.*:

New *** **:*: *********

************, ****** **** ******, several *** ****** *** have * *** ********** of ********* (**:*) ******* of *** ************ ****** 2048x1536 (*:*). *** *******, *** Honeywell *** ***** (***** ***) *****, ** **** as *********** ********* *** **** **** ********* **********. However, **** **** ******* Hikvision *** ***** **** any ******* ***** **** resolution ** ***** ******** currently.

Resolution *********

***** ****** ** ***** these ********** *********** ** they ****** *** ** well ** ******** ******** of ***** *******.

*** *******, *** ** this **:* ****** ***** produces *** ********** ********** pixels **** *:*, ** increase ** ****** **%. Across * **' ***** of ****, **** ********* PPF ** *.*, ***** may ** * ********** difference ** ******.

*******, *********** *** **** even ** *** *******, closer ** ***** ****/****** in **** ********* ********* on ***** ****** ***** is ****.

Impact ** ****** ********

***** ****** ** ***** of **** **** ********* cameras, ** *:* ***** provides ******** ** ********** parts ** * ***** which **:* ****** ****** do ***. 

*** *******, ** **** building *****, *** ****** of *** ***** ** cut *** **** ***** 16:9, ********* ********** ******** beneath *** ****** *** potentially ******* ********* ** travel ** **** ********.

** ** ******* ******* lot, **** ***** **:* parking ****** **** *** camera *** **** ******* or ******* ******, ***** may ******* ********** ****** coverage ** ******* ** angle.

*** **** ******** *** detail, *** *** ****: ****** ***** **:* ** 4:3 ********.

IPVM ********** ********

**** *** ***** **:* 3MP *** *** ****** at ***** ****** *********** to *** **********, ******** users ** ****** *** these *********** *** *** them ** ***** ******** ***** our******** ****** *******.

** ** **** ****** any **:* ******, *** us **** ** *** comments ***** ****** ** ** *****.

Comments (10)

Finally!  I have hated not being able to do 16:9 ever since every single monitor available was that format.

Is this move driven by parts availability, or marketing hype?  I'm willing to trade a smidge of horizontal resolution for additional vertical coverage in almost every situation. With few exceptions, the only time I opt for 16:9 is cameras in corridor mode. It's rare that I don't care to see what's happening below the camera

With few exceptions, the only time I opt for 16:9 is cameras in corridor mode.

which is 9:16 and the narrowest of them all :)

How high do you typically mount them?

Corridor mode? On the ceiling of the corridor. Typically 8' to 10', but sometimes higher.

I too like the 4:3 option for many scene types as it lessens blind spot below the camera. For large spaces like fields and parking lots I prefer 16:9. RIP 4:3 

Btw, a counter to the 16:9 wide trend is multi-imager 9:16 trend, which is giving ultra-tall vertical FoV with the tradeoff of reduced PPF horizontally, e.g., Hikvision PanoVu Multi Imager Tested

Could not agree more.  While it certainly looks odd when placed on a camera view with other 16:9 cameras, 4:3 fulfilled a niche that I feel was needed.  This is at least true for the 3 MP model since the only real difference between a 1080p and 3 MP models was usually the 4:3 pickup of extra pixels along the top and bottom.  5 MP could always have used a 16:9 format.

Potential RIP for 4:3 imminent?

Related, I've queued up an integrator survey to get feedback on preferences between 4:3 and 16:9.

Across a 50' field of view, this increases PPF by 9.6, which may be a noticeable difference in detail.

Is the PPF really any different here though?

In non-cropped cases, assuming the same HAOV, wouldn’t the PPF actually stay the same unless the pixel size (in nm) decreased?

Since we are comparing two different imagers, (in non-cropped cases), I’m not sure that such an assumption is valid.

Only in cases where a hypothetical imager had the same width (in mm) but with more total horizontal pixels (making smaller pixels) would that be the case, IMHO.

 

I'm doing a lot of retail installations and to make a proper view I need to see what happens on the store shelves right beneath the cam and the upper view to make a generel view of the store. I was very glad to use the Axis M3006 with the 90degree vertikal view and 136degree Horisontal coverage, it was great. But 90degree vertical view is very importen to me, dont care if it is labeled 3,4 or 5MP

/Lasse

Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 6,728 reports, 907 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
Loading Related Reports