Ok, fist let me state I am not a security camera guy by any means. I do the IT. But what I’m wondering, is for example with my DSLR, if I took a picture from that same spot with say my 18mm lens, and set it to a higher f-stop, like f22. I would have essentially the same I would have the same wide angle fov over the whole lot, but I could digitally zoom into the photo in post processing, and see that far plate clear as day. Since it’s using a higher megapixel count you don’t lose much detail even at 100+ feet
Why is it a vast difference when applied to a security camera?
Ok, some of it is, and all of those I understand. Yet with all of that, it doesn’t answer the question of the dslr comparison. Your telling me that compression(h264) takes that much quality(60+ %) from the dslr.
The lens portion doesn’t make sense, because the dslr lens is giving about the same fov.
The sensor doesn’t make sense, because that would effect the resolution much more than the quality.
So, for those following this and wondering "why can't a security camera be like my 14megapixel Nikon DSLR and take amazing photos.. "
You can easily start with some simple math, which the original poster seemed to be challenged with despite his claims to be an amazing business person who can do business math to make piles of money making promises and not looking at business requirements.
1) Determine the image size you desire.
The only data we have is an example "full image" from the camera which is provided in post #16 ( ref:
Expecting to much )
note, do ignore the other photos showing digital zoom x3 and x5 as they are not generated from the "full image" included in the post.
Data on image: size 3.5MB jpeg ( note, this actually can be closer to 4MB or even less depending on the complexity of the image.. I'm just using 3.5MB as a sampling for the math.. )
2) Determine the number of fps you want. Let's take 10 fps, seems like a good compromise for capturing enough motion and details.
So
SIZE in MBs per frame x fps = MBps or 35MBps +/- ( yes, I am ignoring any possible compression between the various frames as the OP wanted to keep as much detail as possible from each frame )
Ok how much storage do I need per day...
60 sec per minute x 60 minute per hour x 24 hours = 86400
multiply by the storage amount of 35MBps => 3024000 ~= 3TB per day of data from just one camera
OH, but I want it like a movie... 30 fps at least.. ok that is 9 TB per day of data..
YES - that's what I want.. and I should be able to get it for about the price of a Nikon 3100...
ummm... wait that Nikon 3100 can only take 3 fps at full resolution IF you have a fast enough memory card...
but wait, the JPEG image does not give enough detail, I WANT The RAW image.. all the data...
so according to the Nikon manual: = 25.3 MB per image, uncompressed full data
OK, so now let's plug that in...
25.3MB per image frame x 30 fps x 60 x 60 x 24 = 274,332,960 MB ... so only 274 TB per day....
How much do you think a camera like that will cost? How much do you think the network and storage units will cost to support that?
update: executive summary for those math challenged: It can, just will cost you.