IR light - 5 model comparison

[genesant]

I'm including 5 pictures with me walking ~25' away from the camera taken on the same night so you can see what happens with a person in the picture. Lights one and two were so hot at the center that the AGC of the camera backed off significantly and the surrounding items got darker. It was not as much of an issue with lights 3, 4, and 5. I am including two pictures taken 6 days later showing how the built in IR works in the same scene.

 

[Dodutils]

I'm including 5 pictures with me walking ~25' away from the camera taken on the same night so you can see what happens with a person in the picture. Lights one and two were so hot at the center that the AGC of the camera backed off significantly and the surrounding items got darker. It was not as much of an issue with lights 3, 4, and 5. I am including two pictures taken 6 days later showing how the built in IR works in the same scene.

1st and 2nd too strong, face is burned, camera do not handle it well.

 

[Tizeye]

This is actually a good study in the basics of exposure. First, all cameras only 'see' in B&W and exposure is adjusted, assuming no overrides, to 18% gray. While there are specialized metering systems such as spot or center weighted, most are average metering of the entire frame. With that knowledge, while #1 and 2 were viewed as 'overexposed' compared to the others, in reality, it was correctly exposed as the camera adjusted for the higher black content to bring the overall average back to 18%. Think about if you zoomed in and eliminated the black (i.e. camera coverage doesn't overshoot the light source coverage) you would have a correctly exposed photo. That is what you see in the remainder of the photos as the light source expands, reducing (but not totally eliminating) the unlighted area, and giving a better exposure average. The native IR gave the most detail and is perfectly serviceable, but could be tweaked by adjusting the camera setting for slightly more gain. While #1 and 2 could be adjusted by zoom as noted earlier, it can also be adjusted with the current FOV and camera settings. Given the strength of the shadows which are absent in the native IR photo, you have more than enough light. Placing a diffuser over the light would spread the light over the entire scene and the camera would naturally make the appropriate exposure adjustment based on the new data. As such, both lights are quite useable. And if you want to get really fancy, use both 1 and 2, aiming both across the center of the frame to concentrate the light on the dark edges. Not only would this even up the lighting but would reduce/eliminate the shadow as each light takes out the shadow the opposite light creates.

 

[weigle2]

@genesant - Out of curiousity, have you thought of mounting the IR lights at least 10' - 15' to the left/right of the camera and then testing? I would do this (thinking about doing this) testing both the external and internal camera lighting. By moving the external lights away from the camera, you should get better 'fill' on the scene.

 

[Kawboy12R]

In that scene I'd take #5. Most evenly spread lighting. It's not just about the face in the center of the frame because an intruder could be anywhere on that lawn. No choke point to be able to tune the cam to take advantage of the hotspot in the other illuminators.

 

[CCTVCam]

running external ir is not practical, and looks like crap...the ideal solution is have enough external white light to run good low light cams in day mode...this way you capture color images and dont have any of these issue..they dont need much light to perform well.

+1 .

The OP could try an LED floodlight. Ridiculously bright for only a few watts - 50w gives you the around 4-500 watts of traditional light, 30W around 2-300, plus if you're careful about LED light selection, it's possibly to get "daylight" floodlights or cool temperature lights that are close to daylight in colour temp.

Not recommending this as a brand, but just a random comparison video I found on Youtube:



I'm not using mine with CCTV, but I have a carport with 6 x 10 W mounted in the rafters equally spaced around both sides of the perimeter with the placement staggered so 1 side shines in the gap between the ones on the other. Nearest thing I can compare it to for 60w is a floodlit 5 a Side Football Pitch at night. It really is that bright and white. The area covered is about the same as the area garden in the IR picture above.

On the rear of my house I have a single 30W LED. It's fairly bright, but I probably would suggest a larger light with higher lumens (50-100W LED) for CCTV simply to push the camera more into the daylight lit category. I have a smallish garden 30ft square ie approx 90-100 sq ft of which 1/2 is well lit although I concentrate my light close to the house as that's the priority area to be well lit. No reason why you couldn't fit multiple lights under the eves around a large country house though.

I'd have said a 30W would have been OK for the small plot in the OP's IR test above, although I would probably err towards 50W LED or more just to ensure it was bright.

External IR Led is not a problem for me, I don't care about "visual" at country's house ;-)

Whilst it's personal preference, a daylight picture is always superior to a black and white IR picture in my opinion. Studies have been done that have shown human beings have a far higher level of recognition when viewing a colour picture to a black and white.

Another factor to visible light is it's far more likely to deter, whilst if using invisible IR illuminators, it's far more likely the thief won't notice and will still break in. Catching the thief is one thing but the real aim is to prevent the theft in the 1st place as it's a lot of hassle and cost to restore your home if the intruder trashes it and steals, and little comfort afterwards beyond the satisfaction of knowing he might get caught, knowing that he's on CCTV when your houses is still trashed, items are missing and possibly worse.

My neighbour was recently burgled, they emptied everything out - cupboards - the contents of cereal packets and food jars onto the floor which then gets trodden into carpets (looking for concealed money), drawers of which both contents and the drawers themselves were flung across the room onto the floor (often scratching the drawer fronts or the furniture they're flung against), wardrobes and cupboards, bedding and mattresses off beds everything, and stole cash and jewellery - the worst of which was the sentimental pieces from dead relatives. It's also not unheard of for them to pee or sh*t in your bed or otherwise vandalise your home.

My philosophy to security is deter 1st, catch 2nd.

That's partly why in the UK there's been a big push towards anti-snap locks, high security door handles, all glazing comes with multipoint locking windows, the police hand out UV property marking pens and big fluorescent stickers to put in your window to warn intruders that security measures have been taken. Many people like myself also have keysafes in the house as one of the biggest reasons to break in now is to steal car keys given that most EU modern cars are now almost impossible to steal without a key. The rear of my house is guarded with a steel see through gate that's kept locked (steel so it's see through and doesn't conceal any thief attacking the rear), and pricker strips on the fence top. I also have a intercommunicating house alarm (DIY Fitted). The simple fact is, if you make your house so obviously secure that the thief notices, it simply becomes not worth the effort of breaking in as the risk and time required becomes too great so they simply go elsewhere. I've never had an attempt in 50 years at the address although I admit my area is generally a good area, although not immune to burglary as the above tale shows.

The whole deterrence aspect is why the UK police hand out fluorescent stickers to advertise the fact the home has been secured.

 

[Dragon]

Be careful - searching Amazon for "jc infrared illuminator" (JCheng Security brand) turns up a high percentage of negative reviews that units stopped working within months or never put out much light.

"Univivi" sells similar lights, some of which claim IP67 protection (protected against temporary submersion) instead of IP65 (protected against low pressure water jets). I'm pretty sure both brands come from the same company as they use similar wording in various listings. The Univivi lights with IP65 protection also have a lot of failures reported, but ones with IP67 seem to do better. I ordered two of the 8 LED IP67 lights to try.

 

[GFM]

I have a Dahua HDW4431C-A set up that works great pointing out into an open area. Since installing the camera at this position I have noted a lot of interesting wildlife I was not expecting; deer, fox, a skunk or two, stray cats, and various birds that frequently visit the area. The IR on the camera does well to illuminate the area in front of the camera, but I would like to extend the IR coverage maybe another 50ft or so as I often see shadows just out of range of the IR light. There is a forest of evergreens about 100 ft away from the camera, so there is a large are not well covered at night.

Looking at the specifications of the camera, I can't find anything indicating the sensor sensitivity regarding light frequency/wavelength such as 850 or 950nm. Does anyone have this info, rather critical to knowing what IR unit will work.

Also need a wide area coverage since the camera lens is 3.6mm and area is about 100' from camera... may even need more than one illuminator to cover the area. Maybe the one Dragon posted above would work for this camera?

e 8 LED I

Thanx for any input!

 

[Kawboy12R]

Always get 850nm if you want the best illumination. 940nm is for stealth at the expense of "light". You'll need a big one to have any hope of clarity at 100ft. Mount high and shoot over the cam's IR. A 60 degree is a decent compromise for spot/flood for a 3.6 mm lens but two big 30s would be better.

 

[GFM]

I've ordered one like #3 in the list above. Will see how it works, should be here in a month or so.
Plan is to mount it on a tv dish mast at roof level pointing into the area that needs the extra light.

 

[CCTVCam]

Be careful - searching Amazon for "jc infrared illuminator" (JCheng Security brand) turns up a high percentage of negative reviews that units stopped working within months or never put out much light.

"Univivi" sells similar lights, some of which claim IP67 protection (protected against temporary submersion) instead of IP65 (protected against low pressure water jets). I'm pretty sure both brands come from the same company as they use similar wording in various listings. The Univivi lights with IP65 protection also have a lot of failures reported, but ones with IP67 seem to do better. I ordered two of the 8 LED IP67 lights to try.

I bought all mine off ebay, although the seller is long gone. I've had 1 10W led fail (out of 6), in 3 years (now replaced from another ebay seller) and my 30W LED is still as good as new after 4 years. Not branded so not sure who made them.

I also always buy lights and a separate PIR which I usually buy from a recognised company such as Screwfix. That way, when the PIR wears out, which they inevitably do, you only have to swap out the PIR not a whole light that's otherwise working. PIR's are cheap - less than a tenner, and in my experience last 3-5 years before the range reduces and they need changing.

 

[weigle2]

Based on your excellent review, I went ahead and ordered (1) CMvision CM6, #4 in the comparison. I also ordered a rather odd IR LED light, just to test out. It's this model: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B075ZYG89D/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

It's 4 LED's with some kind of filter to prevent hot spots. I ordered this to test out and I'm hoping it will work fine as a 'fill' IR to cover a pretty small area. At any rate, I'll post pics when I can.

 

[TheSwede]

Nice comparision, thanks for that.

940nm !
I just tested a 940nm IR light I bought earlier on a Dahua 5231 Starlight, Nice !
On other cameras the 940 was low light compared to 850 but the 5231 is more sensitive to 940 so it is good enough.

I bought a FELT 9W 940nm IR illuminator 60degree who is running on 220v and the range is about 5-10 meters.


Brgds TheSwede

 

[GFM]

I purchased this unit from Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Infrared-Ill...gle+Long+Range+160+Feet+6pcs+LED+Array+Lights

Works well, good and bright at about 100', but a somewhat narrow beam. Likely doesn't help that I mounted it up on the TV tower maybe 12' off the ground but it's just tie-strapped on so I can move it.

Here'a a pic:

 

[Kawboy12R]

@GFM it looks like the illuminator is to the far right and aimed down at the ground?

 

[GFM]

Yes. It's maybe 20-25' to the right and up about 12'. That was a very dark area before, now lots of light right up to the trees and the weather station.

 

[looney2ns]

Yes. It's maybe 20-25' to the right and up about 12'. That was a very dark area before, now lots of light right up to the trees and the weather station.

You are getting IR reflection from the soffit with the cams IR. That is causing the whitesh glare in the picture.

It's possibly also causing the cams exposure to be worse than it would be without the reflection.

 

[GFM]

Certainly could be. Not sure how I could still get a decent view of the edge of the lawn if I lower the angle any more than that. Also snow on the ground is likely reflecing too causing the auto exposure to cut back. I'll post a picture without the camera's IR for interest's sake.

exposure

 

[GFM]

This is with the IR off:

 

[looney2ns]

Certainly could be. Not sure how I could still get a decent view of the edge of the lawn if I lower the angle any more than that. Also snow on the ground is likely reflecing too causing the auto exposure to cut back. I'll post a picture without the camera's IR for interest's sake.

Lower the cam a bit away from the soffit with a junction box or such, or move it closer to the fascia.