Faces Washed Out

[kuchars22]

Hi, using a dome camera purchased from an auction site for evaluation, I've put one of these up above my front door. It's got IR, which I can see upto 10-15m. Now whenever someone walks up the drive in darkness, I can see their face with some satisfactory detail but obviously not close enough (4.6mm), but as they get closer, about 1.5m, to the camera the face of the subject is all white washed. As an experiment, I masked off the LEDs, which is better, but as soon as the hallway light is on, shining through the glass door, again it white washes the face and no detail can be seen. Is this the cause of the IRs being too strong or the CCD being too sensitive if there is such thing as this, or should this type of camera be mounted higher to avoid such effects? I know it's a cheap camera and it should be "in the bin", but I bought it out of curiosity and to measure up with my other cameras like my Baxall and Vista cameras. As these pro cameras don't have IR, I was wondering if such a pro camera would be better for the purpose with some light, or will I experience the same thing (my pro cameras aren't vandal proof/12v which is why I haven't wired them up at the porch)

Thanks

[arfur mo]

Hi, using a dome camera purchased from an auction site for evaluation, I've put one of these up above my front door. It's got IR, which I can see upto 10-15m. Now whenever someone walks up the drive in darkness, I can see their face with some satisfactory detail but obviously not close enough (4.6mm), but as they get closer, about 1.5m, to the camera the face of the subject is all white washed. As an experiment, I masked off the LEDs, which is better, but as soon as the hallway light is on, shining through the glass door, again it white washes the face and no detail can be seen. Is this the cause of the IRs being too strong or the CCD being too sensitive if there is such thing as this, or should this type of camera be mounted higher to avoid such effects? I know it's a cheap camera and it should be "in the bin", but I bought it out of curiosity and to measure up with my other cameras like my Baxall and Vista cameras. As these pro cameras don't have IR, I was wondering if such a pro camera would be better for the purpose with some light, or will I experience the same thing (my pro cameras aren't vandal proof/12v which is why I haven't wired them up at the porch)

Thanks

you don't say what you monitoring the image on?

the camera's need to be 'terminated' with a resistor (75 ohm), if not done, the pictures will look very bleached and contrased as the monitor is overdriven.

if you do not have an impedance link (or switch) you should turn off the power and measure the input of the monitor to see if it has approximately 75 ohms resistance, if not you need to fit a resistor.

led illumination can also cause some overexposure at close range, but should not be too bad if further than say a couple of meters away.

regs

alan

[Guest anguscanplay]

its a cheap camera, as you`ve seen it can`t cope with balancing light and dark areas - this is what they do and thats why it`s such a bargain, bin it, get one with as big a chip as you can - you shouldnt need so much additional lighting with a 1/2 inch CCD

[kuchars22]

its a cheap camera, as you`ve seen it can`t cope with balancing light and dark areas - this is what they do and thats why it`s such a bargain, bin it, get one with as big a chip as you can - you shouldnt need so much additional lighting with a 1/2 inch CCD

I could get a screenshot for you if I get the chance, but I'm hoping that positioning it further up the house will make it better. I already have a Baxall that is 1/2" and has every manual control that you can have, so I know what these are capable of. So you think it's to do with white light (or white light inversion I think)?

[kuchars22]

you don't say what you monitoring the image on?

the camera's need to be 'terminated' with a resistor (75 ohm), if not done, the pictures will look very bleached and contrased as the monitor is overdriven.

if you do not have an impedance link (or switch) you should turn off the power and measure the input of the monitor to see if it has approximately 75 ohms resistance, if not you need to fit a resistor.

led illumination can also cause some overexposure at close range, but should not be too bad if further than say a couple of meters away.

regs

alan

It's connected to a COP VP15 DVR via RG59. The DVR is also outputted to each TV via a distribution amp over RF, but I mainly view everything via the ethernet network at home. I've got enough power from the porch light so I don't really need to have IR. I'm thinking that I'd like to disconnect the LEDs if that is at all possible

[Guest anguscanplay]

I could get a screenshot for you if I get the chance, but I'm hoping that positioning it further up the house will make it better. I already have a Baxall that is 1/2" and has every manual control that you can have, so I know what these are capable of. So you think it's to do with white light (or white light inversion I think)?

it`s because it`s using electronical witch craft to fool the laws of science into letting it see in the dark, problem is (as you now discovered) if it suddenly goes light everything fails - bin the infrareds and go with a 60w incandescant

[arfur mo]

It's connected to a COP VP15 DVR via RG59. The DVR is also outputted to each TV via a distribution amp over RF, but I mainly view everything via the ethernet network at home. I've got enough power from the porch light so I don't really need to have IR. I'm thinking that I'd like to disconnect the LEDs if that is at all possible

i don't know this DVR, but many have a setting for the type of camera (colour/monochrome) as well as impedance settings.

if you want to eliminate the dvr from the equasion (and so it's settings) simply connect your camera direct to the av socket on your telly or via a scart slocket that has the RCA sockets on it to prove the picture is any good.

DVR's are more sensative to low signals than older multiplexers, make sure you aerial configuration is not dragging down the signal, easiest way is to measure towards the kit from the (disconnected) camera end, to see if you have around 75 ohms

some times cheap camera's do not perform so well, but i don't subscribe to outright condemning equipment solely on price. i'm someone who has been totally disappointed with many bits of bespoke and very pricey kit, as well as being amazed the the performance from some so called very 'cheapy' kit, so i'll judge kit on what it performs like when it's properly set up, and not ridiculous ultra-snobbery solely based on price.

regs

alan.

[Guest anguscanplay]

some times cheap camera's do not perform so well, but i don't subscribe to outright condemning equipment solely on price. i'm someone who has been totally disappointed with many bits of bespoke and very pricey kit, as well as being amazed the the performance from some so called very 'cheapy' kit, so i'll judge kit on what it performs like when it's properly set up, and not ridiculous ultra-snobbery solely based on price.

regs

alan.

twenty quid or ten grand it still can`t see in the dark - its how it deals with the issue that seperates the men from the boy cameras, comman sense says a cheap camera cannot perform as well as an expensive one (there again 100 quid isnt expensive either)

[kuchars22]

i don't know this DVR, but many have a setting for the type of camera (colour/monochrome) as well as impedance settings.

if you want to eliminate the dvr from the equasion (and so it's settings) simply connect your camera direct to the av socket on your telly or via a scart slocket that has the RCA sockets on it to prove the picture is any good.

DVR's are more sensative to low signals than older multiplexers, make sure you aerial configuration is not dragging down the signal, easiest way is to measure towards the kit from the (disconnected) camera end, to see if you have around 75 ohms

some times cheap camera's do not perform so well, but i don't subscribe to outright condemning equipment solely on price. i'm someone who has been totally disappointed with many bits of bespoke and very pricey kit, as well as being amazed the the performance from some so called very 'cheapy' kit, so i'll judge kit on what it performs like when it's properly set up, and not ridiculous ultra-snobbery solely based on price.

regs

alan.

Come to think of it, when I first tested it out by connecting to a tv directly, the picture quality was brilliant, a bit like a camcorder type quality. In the dark it was very good as well, but all grainy when it came to putting it outside and connected to the DVR. "No" it doesn't have a setting for impedence, only colour settings like brightness, contrast and hues. Oh, well, it didn't cost that much anyway and I've learnt yet another important factor in cameras, but I don't regret buying it - you sometimes have to see for yourself the dis-benefits to help you along in the future.

[arfur mo]

........comman sense says a cheap camera cannot perform as well as an expensive one (there again 100 quid isnt expensive either)

and common sense (as well as my vast experience) also says cheap camera's can be surprisingly good value.

i would not use a cheap camera on a high end job but a bread and butter domestic as long as i was satisfied with it then no problem.

this guy i'd say is budgeting in the