Hikvision ColorVu + 4K (DS-2CD2087G2-L)

I installed 2x 2CD2T87G2 4mm this week, difference between the 2CD2087G2 is the size and LED strength. The LED's in the 2T87 are more powerful then the one's in the 2087 and thus need more space.

Very happy with them, picture quality during the day very good obviously but I was blown away by the picture quality at night. Tested it at a site where no lights were in the nearby area, only moon light and the picture the camera provided was mid day like..

Off course one downside to this bright and colourful pictures at night.. the standard exposure time for these models is 1/12 so moving cars and people are blurry. That's when the LED's come in handy, I've set exposure to 1/100. LED's cannot be linked to motion detection but rumours are that Hikvision is implementing this in the next firmware update which is something I would use instantly because I don't want the LED's to be on all night, just when people walk by.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Parley, CCTVCam, ljw2k and 3 others
I think the 6mm will give you the perfect face detection capture and you are in for a treat in how it performs. Look forward to the Pictures and clips. I want the 4mm version now but my supplier is waiting for stock.
 
T123456 said:
16ft you'll be able to identify a person you know, but to zoom in and identify a random person when necessary will become more pixelated - especailly at night. I'd go with a 6mm for that, (8mm would be ideal but you'd need a variable zoom camera to get that i belive). I posted some pictures of my camera in the post above with 4mm. The distance to the car from the camera is probably about 20ft to give you an idea. A 6mm would give you a more zoomed in view while at that distance only removing a couple feet in every direction.
Click to expand...
Kevin Doe actually raised a good point. I'm not an expert photographer but can kind of understand that a very wide aperture, large sensor and perhaps large lens let in loads and loads of light, so giving this camera its fantasmagorical low light performance. I also guess that the reason for it's specified difficulty in focusing near objects is that light beams entering the lens from near objects are diverging and not parallel with each other, so ending up on the sensor at the wrong point.

But, when it's dark, it's a question of compromise. Where I want to put one, the 4mm will give the optimum angle of view. I wonder what the crossover distance is between reduced clarity caused by a near object, that caused by dark conditions and motion blur based on shutter speed?

The spec is 7 metres but I would like this crossover distance to be under 1 metre.

I wonder if some kind person can provide an informed answer? (Or be clever enough like wopi82 to point out what I am misunderstanding)
 
Hi Dave not sure why they state 7m but here is a capture at around 2m from the camera and the gate is around 4-5 m

2021-02-01 13_41_32-Blue Iris.jpg

Realtime Clip

View attachment Hikvision.20210201_084833_1.mp4
















DORI
2.8 mm, D: 96 m, O: 38 m, R: 19 m, I: 9 m
4 mm, D: 111 m, O: 44 m, R: 22 m, I: 11 m
6 mm, D: 167 m, O: 66 m, R: 33 m, I: 16 m

Depth Of Focus
2.8 mm: 4.5 m to ∞
4 mm: 7 m to ∞
6 mm: 13 m to ∞
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hung_1301, Parley, 5252 and 4 others
You can definitely tell that the focus is soft up close in those images. The gate area is much clearer than ljw2k is. The gate probably doesn't have pin point accurate focus either, but it is close enough. That's why the specs might say 7m, but it is usable closer than that (like the 4-5m gate area).
 
The Automation Guy said:
You can definitely tell that the focus is soft up close in those images. The gate area is much clearer than ljw2k is. The gate probably doesn't have pin point accurate focus either, but it is close enough. That's why the specs might say 7m, but it is usable closer than that (like the 4-5m gate area).
Click to expand...

In that case it is pointless getting a 4mm lens or even 6mm as the distance DOF will be around the same. If you watch the actual clip focus is spot on IMHO and the screen shot was just a quick capture.
 
the f/1.0 lens used inherently has shallower DoF than those found in DH5542's for example (f/1.6, or higher for the VF's)
Of course, if you're willing to void your warranty, one can open them up and adjust, to some extent.
May give up some clarity in the distance to focus closer, but there has yet to be single camera that can do everything...

and 4mm or 6mm still gets you more PPF at any distance than 2.8 (with reduced FoV of course), as well as less wide-angle lens distortion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: alastairstevenson and ljw2k
ljw2k said:
Hi Dave not sure why they state 7m but here is a capture at around 2m from the camera and the gate is around 4-5 m

View attachment 81274

Realtime Clip

View attachment 81275
















DORI
2.8 mm, D: 96 m, O: 38 m, R: 19 m, I: 9 m
4 mm, D: 111 m, O: 44 m, R: 22 m, I: 11 m
6 mm, D: 167 m, O: 66 m, R: 33 m, I: 16 m

Depth Of Focus
2.8 mm: 4.5 m to ∞
4 mm: 7 m to ∞
6 mm: 13 m to ∞
Click to expand...


Not sure about the 7m- infinity claimed focus of this camera although I'm sure infinity is pretty much a standard claim. The DOF certainly looks excellent. You can clearly read the number plate on the VW car parked opposite which I'd estimate is 30-40 ft (10-13m) away (almost double the claimed figure), and whilst not being crystal clear or sharp, it's clearly readable at that distance. The telephone number on the chip shop is the same, whilst the number plate on the renault car to the left hand side which is about the claimed 20 feet (7m) away is clearly crystal clear and sharp as you'd expect at the claimed focus distance. However, the infinity claim is pushing it considering the result on the VW. It's clear that DOF is in play here and whilst objects may appear sharp, in reality they fade in sharpness when detail is examined, and that sharpness worsens the further you get away from the focus point as proven by the VW. Although you're slightly soft in the picture (at least in sharpness terms :) ), you're clearly recognisable as is the VW plate (just) so overall an excellent performance from this camera. I would however, question the use of the 6mm as a door/ side of property camera instead of a long range view camera as based on the 4mm, the likely focus close up would be similar to that on the VW and so might prove unacceptable in sharpness for close capture. Given the higher pixel count I wonder if 4mm might be a better choice in some closer areas where previously 6mm might have been chosen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ljw2k and alastairstevenson
Here is the general area I want to cover with the 6mm version of this camera. I have moved this camera placement a couple of times and will do it again this time. I have also trimmed the tree some since this picure was taken with the lowest branch being removed. The camera is located on the eave of my house. It is maybe 15' to the wall.

Onyx Robbery Car Rear A_Moment.jpg
 
In this picture it would be located on the eave of the house by the far wall. This gives you and idea of the distance involved. The Magnolia tree on the curb is the same one in both pictures.

Camera 5 Side Yard Daylight.jpg
 
Parley said:
In this picture it would be located on the eave of the house by the far wall. This gives you and idea of the distance involved. The Magnolia tree on the curb is the same one in both pictures.

View attachment 81337
Click to expand...
Hello,

Have you used the IPVM calculator for a rough guidance on what a 6mm would give you from your location ?. I find it helps give a good rough guidance. IPVM Camera Calculator V3
 
Night-Owl said:
Hello,

Have you used the IPVM calculator for a rough guidance on what a 6mm would give you from your location ?. I find it helps give a good rough guidance. IPVM Camera Calculator V3
Click to expand...

No, I am just going by past experience. In reality it should be a little bigger camera but I think with 8MP versus 2MP of the current camera it will make up for a lot detail wise. I currently have a license plate camera that covers the area so I do not need it for that.

LPR NVR_IP Camera4_LPR NVR_20210202110736_14777718.jpgLPR NVR_IP Camera4_LPR NVR_20210202110736_14777718.jpg
 
Parley said:
No, I am just going by past experience. In reality it should be a little bigger camera but I think with 8MP versus 2MP of the current camera it will make up for a lot detail wise. I currently have a license plate camera that covers the area so I do not need it for that.

View attachment 81341View attachment 81341
Click to expand...
Experience is best. I had a shock going from the 2.8 when I noted how much you lose in area but the clarity for catching faces etc is worth it, I just need 4 * 6mm cameras now to cover the same width as 2 x 2.8's did :).
 
  • Like
Reactions: spammenotinoz and alastairstevenson
Night-Owl said:
Experience is best. I had a shock going from the 2.8 when I noted how much you lose in area but the clarity for catching faces etc is worth it, I just need 4 * 6mm cameras now to cover the same width as 2 x 2.8's did :). I am going to buy 4mm or 6mm ones as soon as supplier can get them as very impressed at the night colour vision in 4k.
Click to expand...
 
More cams is better anyway at different focal length and can set different rules. I have put 3 cams to cover critical area with overlap and different angles and planning to add another one. I wish there were recent good 2.8 - 12mm varifocals from Hikvision or maybe Dahua under 200?
 
ZeeCam said:
More cams is better anyway at different focal length and can set different rules. I have put 3 cams to cover critical area with overlap and different angles and planning to add another one. I wish there were recent good 2.8 - 12mm varifocals from Hikvision or maybe Dahua under 200?
Click to expand...
The Ipc-b5442e-ze i.e IPC-HFW5442-ZE is such a varfocal I believe and excellent. It's 4MP and not 4K though. Andy's version is called Ipc-b5442e-ze
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom