2048x1536 vs 1920 × 1080

[born2ride]

Is there advantage or disadvantage using 2048x1536? I an just playing around, I did notice the viewing angle changed but that's about it.

 

[aster1x]

The higher the resolution of an image, the better digital zooming can be achieved later with say Photoshop of an image. The disadvantage is that the higher the resolution the more space is required to store the video captured OR if you define a specific video bitrate and you increase the video resolution then you increase the compression and therefore you decrease the video quality.

The change of viewing angle is due to the different image ratios 2048/1536=1.33 and 1920/1080=1.11. Therefore there is no change of optical viewing angle due to the lens which of course is fixed, it is only a digital change of view. The image sensor in the camera is the same and its native resolution is 2048x1536.

In general video resolution, frame rate (fps), bitrate (Kbps or Mbps), video quality (i.e. compression factor), video size (Mbytes per hour) are all interelated between them.

 

[LittleBrother]

I set mine at the full 3 MP. Comparing some images taken at 3 MP vs 1080P I could see a definite clarity difference. Further to aster1x's post, if you don't want to use too much bandwidth, just lower the frame rate. I'd rather have 3MP @ 15 FPS than 2 MP @ 24FPS. In fact, I'd rather have 9 MP @ 5 FPS than either of those

 

[bp2008]

The change of viewing angle is due to the different image ratios 2048/1536=1.33 and 1920/1080=1.11. Therefore there is no change of optical viewing angle due to the lens which of course is fixed, it is only a digital change of view. The image sensor in the camera is the same and its native resolution is 2048x1536.

The field of view is significantly different both horizontally and vertically with 1920x1080 video compared to 2048x1536, and careful analysis reveals that the sensor is not even 2048x1536 native resolution, but instead the camera is most likely upscaling from about 1700x1275 to produce 2048x1536 video.

See: http://www.cam-it.org/index.php?topic=4248.msg22644#msg22644 (Reply #10 by MaxIcon)

The Hik sensor appears to be about 2.5MP, with sensor resolution of 1275x1920, for an aspect ratio of 3:2. Assuming the 1080p image is true 1080p, the 3MP image is actually a 2.2MP image, scaled up 120% to give an apparent 3.2MP image (note that MP scales with the square of the horizontal and vertical resolution).

 

[aster1x]

MaxIcon's post is about calculations and deductions. The fact is that there is no explicit reference from HIK if the resolution mentioned in the specs is the sensor native resolution or an upscaled resolution. Additionally I still have not found any post in any forum to mention the manufacturer, or any other specific characteristic, of the CMOS sensor used in any camera. The only hard fact is the processor used in the 2332 type of HIK cameras is an Ambarella A5s.

 

[born2ride]

I set mine at the full 3 MP. Comparing some images taken at 3 MP vs 1080P I could see a definite clarity difference. Further to aster1x's post, if you don't want to use too much bandwidth, just lower the frame rate. I'd rather have 3MP @ 15 FPS than 2 MP @ 24FPS. In fact, I'd rather have 9 MP @ 5 FPS than either of those

I dont see see where to change the setting for MP . I see frame rate in blue iris .

 

[fenderman]

You need to change it in the camera interface...blue iris will adjust automatically.

 

[born2ride]

Ahh ok I did not think about that. I am off tomorrow so I am going to play around !

 

[bp2008]

Remember, Blue Iris does not control any aspect of the video the camera sends!

Also, lowering the frame rate does not reduce bandwidth usage. Reducing bit rate reduces bandwidth usage. Reducing frame rate is good for reducing CPU usage and, to a much lesser extent, for improving image quality.

 

[born2ride]

I was hoping to play with it today .I had surgery on both knees yesterday and did not get up much!! I wanted to get a clearer image from my 2032.