2CD2342WD-I vs 2CD2332-I resolution

@Kroegtijgertje Your pics are scaled down in resolution. Can you please post them in their original resolution?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Schmark cameras have 2.8mm lenses
What lenses do @Kroegtijgertje cameras have? Your images are very clear.

In the past I have noticed optical quality differences between different focal length lenses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kroegtijgertje, I see your bitrate is set quite high and your iframe is set to half of your fps setting...can you give some insight into these settings for me? I was under the impression that the iframe should match the fps setting. Thanks

Kroegtijgertje said:
Resolution: 2688x1520 (main stream)
Bitrate type: constant
Video quality: highest
frame rate: 20 fps
Max bitrate: 16384
Video encoding: H.264 (only option)
H.264+: OFF
Profile: Main Profile (only option)
I Frame Interval: 10
Smoothing: 10


Brightness: 50
Contrast: 45
Saturation: 50
Sharpness: 40

Smart IR: On
Mode: Auto

Shutterspeed: 1/25
Gain: 75
White Balance: Natural
Digital Noise Reduction: ON
Noise Reduction Level: 20
BLC Area: OFF
WDR: OFF

View attachment 10244 View attachment 10245
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bitrate is set to the maximum value because higher bitrate is better image quality.
You can finetune the image quality with the 'Smoothing' option, low smoothing makes clearer image, high smoothing makes smoother image. (I can read number plates with the low smooth setting)

I Frame is a little more difficult to understand, but I'll try to explane:

I record 20 frames per second, so 20 images that can be different in 1 second.
The I Frame Interval sets a keyframe, a new fresh rendered frame.

If you set the I Frame Interval to 20, like the fps setting, you'll record a new image every second.
In the frames between those seconds you'll only record the changes to the keyframe image.

So, in my case, I don't record a keyframe every second. I record a new keyframe every half second.

Now you may ask yourself, 'Why not set the I Frame Interval to 1 then?'
Well, that would result in a very restless image.
You can, if you look close, see the I Frame in the live view. It's like a pulse in the image. If you have I Frame set equally to your fps, you'll see the image slightly pulsing every second.
If you would set the I Frame to 1 you'd see very fast pulsing in the image.

But there's no exact rule on how you should set a setting.
It all depends on your personal situation, or in fact, the cam's situation. (how much light, environment, etc.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: beepsilver
Mr K, thank you for that explanation!
 
Last edited:
Now 5.4.0 firmware is available: ftp://ftp.hikvisioneurope.com/Product Firmware/Front-ends/01--IPC/

After reading this thread I am not sure, whether to buy 2342 or 2332. WDR the reason why I want 2342, as it will be above entry to my house and there could be shadow, but on the rest of the scene will be full sunlight....

Also, if 2342 will work in full resolution with my Hik NVR DS-7616NI-E2/A ? I read somewhere, that it will record only in 1920x1080 (2mpix).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pedrokv said:
Now 5.4.0 firmware is available: ftp://ftp.hikvisioneurope.com/Product Firmware/Front-ends/01--IPC/

After reading this thread I am not sure, whether to buy 2342 or 2332. WDR the reason why I want 2342, as it will be above entry to my house and there could be shadow, but on the rest of the scene will be full sunlight....

Also, if 2342 will work in full resolution with my Hik NVR DS-7616NI-E2/A ? I read somewhere, that it will record only in 1920x1080 (2mpix).
Click to expand...

Don't update to v5.4.0 unless you really have to - it seems there are reports of it being buggy.

Ignore any idiots who say DS-7616NI-E2 can only record 2MP, it can record 6MP. What they are referring to is the monitor output will be 1920x1080. 2 reasons for this, 1) Limitation of NVR, 2) Limitation of their monitors (idiots). When you download the video it will be 4MP.
 
I have the 4mm 2342 and installed the first one last week, 2nd one yesterday. I've noticed that the 1st I have at my front door isn't as good quality as the second. Anyone have any experience with the 4mm version?
 
PSPCommOp said:
I have the 4mm 2342 and installed the first one last week, 2nd one yesterday. I've noticed that the 1st I have at my front door isn't as good quality as the second. Anyone have any experience with the 4mm version?
Click to expand...
Post some screenshots. I have both and both are identical quality. In fact 4mm is better quality because it's a more suitable lens length. 2.8mm I've moved to a less essential area.
 
Del Boy said:
Post some screenshots. I have both and both are identical quality. In fact 4mm is better quality because it's a more suitable lens length. 2.8mm I've moved to a less essential area.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm on a 16 hour shift today i'll try and post some when I get home later tonight. I did tinker with the settings on the 1st one at the front door, I think that might be what happened. Its not as sharp. Either way i'll let ya know.
 
The resolution of the 1st picture posted is 2688x1520 ad the resolution of the second image is 1920x1080. It is not fair to compare different resolution pictures and from different views in order to compare cameras. How are these snapshots were captured?

To my opinion the 1st picture (porch entrance) has compression artefacts due to the compression (video) settings. Watch carefully at the patio grey wall. I can see coloured patches light pink and grey macroblocks.
Also the number plate of the white car is not readable at all and the grass above the white car also has macroblock compression artefacts.
The second picture does not have similar areas apart from the grey cover of the armchair which does not exhibit the same macroblock compression artefacts.
 
Yeah sorry I was dog tired when I posted these and forgot to change the 2nd one back to the 2688 settings from the 1920. I'll post new ones later tonight when I get a chance.

As far as the first picture and the artifacts, would changing the bitrate help?
 
Of course it would help. The lower the bitrate. the higher the compression, the more information is thrown away, the less disk space is occupied. That's how it goes.
When you compare two cameras, all video and image settings must be the same, in order to evaluate the quality of the sensor-lens combination and intermediate electronic and processing algorithms.
 
Post the exact settings for both cameras (bitrate etc).

That 4mm one looks wrong, mine isn't like that, mine's like your 2.8mm one. This looks more like a Foscam!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom