This would be legally problematic. Given video is going to be at least 10fps, it's going to require a strobe effect to properly illuminate every frame. As many people are prone to fits and seizures induced by flashing lights, it would be legally impossible to put a flash unit up in public many jurisdictions. In the UK, and presumably the EU, flash protection is so extensive that a news report has to carry a warning before video footage is shown if it contains flash photography as does any tv program containing flashing images. There have even been calls to ban flashing lights in nightclubs. You can see this reflected on Youtube:
warning this programme contains flashing images uk - YouTube
I agree proper lighting is essential but it's probably best achieved by the use of sensor activated floodlighting. One way of improving this might be if
Blue Iris or NVR's had a remote light relay module that could be triggered when a zone is tripped to activate a flood light. This might provide a more reliable trigger than an PIR especially as an outer zone could be drawn to trigger the light before a suspect reached a recording zone. A PIR is just an IR heat sensor plus a mains supply relay. So why not a relay box that can be mounted next to the light that accepts an Ethernet signal from a splitter on the camera to trigger the light? All that would be require is to mount the relay by the light with mains input / output and use an Ethernet patch from camera to light (or POE to light if you chose to separate them by a long way) for the trigger signal replacing the PIR.
Quicker adaption of cameras to a change in lighting condition would lead to less lost footage as the camera adapts to the change. We have seen this in DSLR's but not CCTV so much.
I see externally triggered lighting as something that 3rd parties such as BI could implement and sell the relay the box independently. Quicker adaption is something manufacturers could implement, it's be done with "proper" cameras. Metering, probably could be done, but far more complex to achieve as it may need hardware + firmware changes. Also, evaluative / zone metering algorithms for major "proper" camera manufactures are a closely guarded secret which could pose another problem unless CCVTV manufacturers have the right people and are prepared to invest serious time and money in developing such software.
You make some excellent points!
And I apologize for being confusing. But you've completely misunderstood my reason for using the example of how remote flash controls common to DSLRs for the past 20 years work, and how amazing that technology is compared to what exists in our current security cameras.
My point was this:
Simply moving the existing IR LEDs from INSIDE of a security camera to OUTSIDE of the main body is trivial. You just use a longer pair of wires. Nothing else is needed.
Sure, you need to use a waterproof cable, and you must seal it where it exits the camera enclosure and again seal it where it goes into the little remote IR LED box. But how hard is that?
So you end up with a camera that has two (or three, if you'd like to have two remote IR LED units) enclosures, all connected by waterproof cables. Let's say you want to be fancy, and have two remote IR illuminators for your camera. The camera enclosure has two cables coming out of it, perhaps five feet long or so, and at the ends of these cables, you have small IR illuminators with nice adjustable mounts so you can mount them and aim them as you see fit.
These LED illuminators are more or less exactly the same as the IR illuminators that would ordinarily be built into the security camera itself. And because they're exactly the same, and driven the same way, we can have the "smart IR" drive to them just the same as they'd have if they were inside of the main camera. No change to the technology or the way they operate at all.
This would cost nothing to design, really, because it's exactly the same circuitry as the cameras already use. It's only the physical configuration that's changed.
There's no flashing involved. That was simply an example of the amazingly well-thought-out photographic equipment that is commonplace these days, and shows how the demands of ordinary photographers has been met by astoundingly complex electronic design to fill these needs. Yet our security camera systems, as amazing as they are, seem to completely ignore proper control and placement of illuminators despite this being a critical requirement for any photo or video system.
The way the security cameras all work right now is that they have IR LEDs mounted inside of the main camera enclosure. That means that these LEDs are necessarily very near to the camera's lens. That sucks.
The IR LEDs need to be away from the camera lens. And it would be trivial to accomplish this. Just mount them in separate enclosures with two conductor cables feeding them. Problem solved.
The flash exposure control used for even old film SLRs was light years ahead of what we find on security cameras because SLRs were and are made for photographers who appreciate the importance of proper lighting. It's essential! Yet here we are, in 2019, with amazingly complex security cameras that have incredible data processing, artificial intelligence, etc. Yet they ignore the most rudimentary and trivial (yet incredibly important) aspects of providing lighting.
I used the remote flash example to illustrate two things:
First, most photographers understand and appreciate the importance of getting the light source away from the camera, and also the importance of having multiple light sources if possible, to even out the light and control shadows and highlights, etc. It's basic lighting design for photography.
Second, to give photographers this capability, amazingly sophisticated systems have been around to provide this remote lighting and control of it, for many years.
So you'd think that as incredibly sophisticated as these security camera are in other ways, the designers would also take the small amount of time to ask a photographer or videographer what they'd like to see implemented in a good security camera. It's far from rocket science, yet lighting and exposure control are shockingly primitive and crummy in these security cameras.
It just doesn't make much sense.
It's like a friend of mine and I always talk about with regard to Sony's digital cameras. They make fantastic sensors, get great Zeiss lenses, have amazing processors, etc. Yet their touch screens always suck! They're primitive. Yet Sony makes cell phones! Why don't the camera people talk to the phone people and put a decent touch screen on their DSLRs and mirrorless cameras? It boggles the mind!
And I see the same thing with these security cameras. It's like you've got a bunch of security camera nerds who do amazing work. But they apparently don't know anything about photography! How can that be? How can they be so talented and thoughtful in so many areas, but so ignorant when it comes to the basics of photography itself? Night time and low-light use is a very important aspect of security camera use. Yet they just slap in some IR LEDs and maybe, just maybe they adjust their brightness with "smart IR", but they even blow that off when coming out with a new camera! Wow. Just WOW!
I would think that providing IR illumination that really works well would be a HUGE selling point for any security camera manufacturer.
And the same goes for thoughtful, configurable auto exposure.
The first manufacturer to really get all of this right will kick the other manufacturers to the curb. It's shocking that none of the manufacturers seem to think this is important. But wouldn't you buy a security cam system that really truly worked well at night over one that behaves the way the current ones all do?
Maybe they're afraid that people will not want to take the time to position and mount separate illuminators, and won't want to spend extra to have this. And I get that. But at some point, the pros and the advanced amateurs will see the folly of having the IR illuminators inside the cameras, and should see the advantages of remote illuminators to be worth the extra cost and work to mount it all.
I may get one of these new cameras, chop off the overhanging shade, drill a hole in it, build a little enclosure for them, and relocate the camera's internal IR LEDs to that separate enclosure. That would not be a very difficult project, and it'd demonstrate the concept and probably be worthwhile. But the manufacturers could provide this themselves in a cheap, clean, attractive factory product so easily.