Dahua have varifocal 20-80mm 8MPx with 1/1.2" sensor!!!

12 VDC, 4 A only, the camera will come with the adapter,price is bit high, around 1250usd for all, have to use with PFA162-SG and PFB716W-SG.:eek:


1724506269561.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: JDreaming
Parley said:
Wow! That is bigger than I thought it was. Also, the price is higher than I had thought. Thank You Andy for getting back to us and all the support you have given us.
Click to expand...
So, basically it's the size of a cinder block. Probably a little heavier than one, too.
Thinking about it the price isn't that bad considering sensor size and that it's basically 3 cameras in one.
I'm sure it's a good deal if you have the need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JDreaming, Parley and bigredfish
Seems like one of those eye candy cameras that we wanted but does not fit for installation on private houses in residential area because of the size alone. But still love to see some videos of this camera though.:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: StevenFromTexas and Parley
steve1225 said:
That's problem of larger sensors. They cost more - of course.
But they create problem with shallow depth of field - which is nice for photography but not for CCTV.
You can close iris in DSLR to minimize Bukeh effect - but this negates the point of a large sensor.
For now 1/1.8" is ideal size for cctv cams.. everything bigger - You start to have problems..
Click to expand...

Yes I know you can see that in the 4kt/x. But it's the sensor rather than the lens that's the issue. With a more sensitive sensor you could go to a narrower aperture lens and still get good dof. eg pairing a 1/1.2 with say a 1.6 aperture instead of 1.2 but as you point out, with the current sensors, you lose a lot of the advantage of the larger sensor by getting a very shallow dof.

However, Sony's A7 camera line of sensors have been out for years and these can shoot video even in total darkness - search Yotuube for some videos by Philip Bloom and you'll find one for the A7 S unsure which mark off the top, on a Beach where you literally can't see your hand in front of your own face, yet the camera when gained up, sees everything with remarkeable quality, low noise and dof. These sensors don't seem to be available to the CCTV market which is fair enough for Dahua / Hik etc they can only use what they have access to at a reasonable price. What I can't understand though is why a company such as eg Sony who I understand makes the sensors mentioned here, doesn't make the older version sensors available at a cheap price to the cctv market. When the newest camera is on mk iv, surely the Mkii sensor for example isn't in use anymore as I doubt Sony are selling them to anyone else to keep their advantage in the DSLR market, so why not sell them to the CCTV market for a low markup? Surely there's money to be made here when you've probably already covered your development costs through existing sales and the sensors are now redundent in your own line of cameras by manufacturing these, and if they cost say $20 a sensor to manufacture, vending them for $30 or $35 a sensor to cctv manufacuters in volume? Surely it's free money from an otherwise defunct manufacturing line with very little effort as you're not making the full camera. Same with the image processor which will also have moved on. Just sell it as a camera ready unit ie processor & sensor on a drop in board for a small markup and at a price that makes economical inclusion into CCTV possible. Volume sales should equal good profits from an otherwise defunct production line. Or am I missing something?

There was once a camera, maybe Sony, I don't remember, that a member on here bought that had remarkeable night vision, but I seem to remember it was about $5K + DSLR lens. However, I rather suspect it was using one of the latest sensors at the time and was probably deliberately aimed at the high end anyway on pricing as a niche product as it was long before night colour was really a reality at all for consumer level cameras.

Sorry for the off topic rant, but if no-one ever mentions it, manufacturers will never question whether or not it's something they should look at. Maybe the CCTV manufacturers need to start putting the question to the chip manufacturers of why can't we access to a cheap line of very low light capable chips.

EDIT: I found the video - shallow dof in some shots but good dof in others (he obviously must have played with aperture) - ps 1st mintue 10 sec or so are just filmic scene setting shots, rtahe than the proper low light stuff:




Anyway back to the original topic....
 
  • Like
Reactions: alekk, JDreaming and Parley
CCTVCam said:
Yes I know you can see that in the 4kt/x. But it's the sensor rather than the lens that's the issue. With a more sensitive sensor you could go to a narrower aperture lens and still get good dof. eg pairing a 1/1.2 with say a 1.6 aperture instead of 1.2 but as you point out, with the current sensors, you lose a lot of the advantage of the larger sensor by getting a very shallow dof.
Click to expand...

This route is taken by some latest premium sport cameras / drones (mostly by DJI).
1" sensor with 1.6 - 1.8 constant aperture and highly optimized fixed lens for almost infinity dof.
But they needed that 1" to pack 48Mpx in Sony Quad Bayer configuration.

CCTVCam said:
However, Sony's A7 camera line of sensors have been out for years and these can shoot video even in total darkness - search Yotuube for some videos by Philip Bloom and you'll find one for the A7 S unsure which mark off the top, on a Beach where you literally can't see your hand in front of
your own face, yet the camera when gained up, sees everything with remarkeable quality, low noise and dof. These sensors don't seem to be
Click to expand...

CCTVCam said:
EDIT: I found the video - shallow dof in some shots but good dof in others (he obviously must have played with aperture) - ps 1st mintue 10 sec or so are just filmic scene setting shots, rtahe than the proper low light stuff:

Click to expand...


I rewatched this video three times...
And I must say - very disappointed..

All night scenes were with very very limited dof..
Almost all was taken with background with strong city or pier lights, which were blurred to give very artistic look.
Which looks very good. But this is no use as CCTV footage at all...

Noise level were low, there was no blur..
but dynamic range and colors not so good..
And we are talking about very post processed & post colored footage using advanced apps.
Source footage from camera without any processing is no use..

CCTVCam said:
available to the CCTV market which is fair enough for Dahua / Hik etc they can only use what they have access to at a reasonable price. What I can't understand though is why a company such as eg Sony who I understand makes the sensors mentioned here, doesn't make the older version sensors available at a cheap price to the cctv market. When the newest camera is on mk iv, surely the Mkii sensor for example isn't in use anymore as I doubt Sony are selling them to anyone else to keep their advantage in the DSLR market, so why not sell them to the CCTV market for a low markup? Surely there's money to be made here when you've probably already covered your development costs through existing sales and the sensors are now redundent in your own line of cameras by manufacturing these, and if they cost say $20 a sensor to manufacture, vending them for $30 or $35 a sensor to cctv manufacuters in volume? Surely it's free money from an otherwise defunct manufacturing line with very little effort as you're not making the full camera. Same with the image processor which will also have moved on. Just sell it as a camera ready unit ie processor & sensor on a drop in board for a small markup and at a price that makes economical inclusion into CCTV possible. Volume sales should equal good profits from an otherwise defunct production line. Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

OMG... Many things...
1. You compare 2-5K USD DSLR to 150-200 USD cctv camera.. totally unfair...
we should compare Sony cam to top end Axis cam model with 4/3" sensor from Sony with 2-2.5K USD price tag.

www.axis.com

AXIS Q1808-LE Bullet Camera | Axis Communications

This powerful camera delivers outstanding 4K and ultra-high light sensitivity. It’s available with a wide lens or a tele lens. Plus, with PoE out you can connect and power an additional device.
www.axis.com www.axis.com



2. cctv sensor requirements are different from other sensors - they are optimized to see IR.
SO You can't simply put sensor for mobile / sport / DSLR usage inside cam with IR...

We see that problem with Sony MX485 used in Hik/Dahua 8Mpx 1/1.2". They are no IR cam models with this sensor. Only white light.

3. Sony sells DSLR sensors - not the latest ones - but older models. All DSLR manufactures except Canon & Fuji (which both produce one ones), buys sensors from Sony. But I don't think that DSLR sensors cost 20-30$ - rather a few hundred USD.. And this is prohibited prices for cctv usage.

4. Western cctv companies (Axis, Avigilon, Bosch, Ubiquity) are using mostly Sony sensors. Chinese one (Hik, Dahua, Uniview) 5 years ago were very depended on Sony sensors - but USA technology restrictions and availability / price differences moved Chinese companies to Chinese image sensor manufactures.

Watching actual technological war between USA and China - I don't think any big Chinese manufacturer will go back to use Western technology. They are very good at reverse engineering western tech. And copying & pasting (yes stealing) this tech for own use..

For example there are big rumors that China have working 4nm chip producing node tech. Which will allow them to produce comparable chips to TMSC (used by Apple, nVidia, AMD or Qualcomm) in next 1-2 years...



CCTVCam said:
Sorry for the off topic rant, but if no-one ever mentions it, manufacturers will never question whether or not it's something they should look at. Maybe the CCTV manufacturers need to start putting the question to the chip manufacturers of why can't we access to a cheap line of very low light capable chips.
Click to expand...

No problem, I'm very happy to discuss some more original / not typical posts on this forum :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: alekk, JDreaming, bigredfish and 1 other person
steve1225 said:
All night scenes were with very very limited dof..
Almost all was taken with background with strong city or pier lights, which were blurred to give very artistic look.
Which looks very good. But this is no use as CCTV footage at all...

Noise level were low, there was no blur..
but dynamic range and colors not so good..
And we are talking about very post processed & post colored footage using advanced apps.
Source footage from camera without any processing is no use..
Click to expand...

Some pier shots had quite high depths of field comapred to say a 5442 which is very good. Yes the images look processed but remember this guy is a pro who will be trying to achieve a filmic look. There's also the lighting conditions. You mention the pier lights, but I can assure you at that distance away they're dim. The lighting in this shot is probably equivalent to a countryside house away from anywhere which in light terms is usually way beyond anything that's visible. The non gained up shots show just how dark it is. I doubt any cctv camera used by members on here in an urban environment would be anywhere near such dark conditions. In fact probably hundreds of lumens more light available.

If you have some time to spare, there's a very long video review here which mentions the above video in it - PB explains a lot about the cameras through out. At 16.04 he explains the beach video and says the "idea was to show what it looked like to the eye and then push up the iso to show how the camera gains up". So the pitch black can't see your hand in front of your face shots you see, were a true reflection of how dark it was. The pier lights weren't putting out huge amounts of light as you appear to believe they may have done. The video is here, warts and all, but over an 1hr long. Lots of differing scenarios though.

As I said above, don't misinterpret my post. I'm not moaning at Dahua, Hik etc. They can only use what they have. Just questioning why more ranges of sensors aren't made available to them. If you visit sensor mafacturers web pages, you'll fidn many categorise sensors by intended usage. However, I find it hard to believe that many couldn't be used outside of their intended use and commercial profits don't have a role to play in which sensor goes to which market. I may be wrong though. I don't claim to be an expert.

I#ll try and make this the last diversion.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom