Lit up neighbors
- Thread starter StratRider
- Start date
LOL - I do use Post-it notes to test things like that - but as bp2008 stated - I think the lens flare will still exist.I took the photo from the height that I intend to use and only moved to the center of the driveway to get a direct shot of their light.
Right now there are a few tiny branches with leaves between the final cam location and this light, but those will die off in a few months and so this will still be a problem.
Possibly doing a soffit mount at the edge of the garage will make a difference.
Will be having that "light pollution" talk with them and show them this picture too.
Mainly I was fishing the forum to see if someone else had dealt with this already.
A very small object stuck to the lens isn't going to work either. That would not even block the camera's view, just make it a little fuzzy in one spot. To fully eliminate the effect of a bright spot, you would need to fully shade the entire lens from the entire bright spot.
I still think a real security camera isn't going to be affected as much as the picture we've seen. But in this case I think it is definitely warranted to test positioning first. You can make a test rig from a 2x4 and a bucket of rocks.
I still think a real security camera isn't going to be affected as much as the picture we've seen. But in this case I think it is definitely warranted to test positioning first. You can make a test rig from a 2x4 and a bucket of rocks.
On the bright side, your neighbor shouldn't have any issues when you put up your own 2 billion watt driveway light to supplement your cameras
One thing that stands out in your cell phone picture is that that the exposure is wrong. Your driveway and car are too dark. Did you provide any supplemental lighting for your phone? Or are you planning to run with IR? The more light you provide, whether it's IR and white light, the less of a problem you should have since the change in exposure will darken the background light... Just look at @bigredfish's BW picture. His cross-street neighbor has a bright light as well, but it appears insignificant thanks to a well-lit driveway and proper exposure of his setup.
One thing that stands out in your cell phone picture is that that the exposure is wrong. Your driveway and car are too dark. Did you provide any supplemental lighting for your phone? Or are you planning to run with IR? The more light you provide, whether it's IR and white light, the less of a problem you should have since the change in exposure will darken the background light... Just look at @bigredfish's BW picture. His cross-street neighbor has a bright light as well, but it appears insignificant thanks to a well-lit driveway and proper exposure of his setup.
How it looks in that photo is exactly how it feels when I stand in my front yard but of coarse you are seeing a lot of lens flare.On the bright side, your neighbor shouldn't have any issues when you put up your own 2 billion watt driveway light to supplement your cameras
One thing that stands out in your cell phone picture is that that the exposure is wrong. Your driveway and car are too dark. Did you provide any supplemental lighting for your phone? Or are you planning to run with IR? The more light you provide, whether it's IR and white light, the less of a problem you should have since the change in exposure will darken the background light... Just look at @bigredfish's BW picture. His cross-street neighbor has a bright light as well, but it appears insignificant thanks to a well-lit driveway and proper exposure of his setup.
The phone settled on its own exposure after taking one with the flash on. ( I'll attach that)
I'll be checking to see what Starlight does, but likely this will be too dark for Starlight to work so IR will be on.
There is another motion detected light with 2 floods in this location also but it is normally dark here like the 1st photo - so will be experimenting a lot with the driveway.
I've also been thinking of supplementing just enough light to get the Starlight to work too - again, lots of experiments that I am looking forward to.
Reading the "Light as Deterrent" thread has me thinking.
Last edited:
J Sigmo
Known around here
- Feb 5, 2018
- 996
- 1,336
I hate to be pessimistic, but with a bright light shining so that it strikes your camera's lens, even if the camera is aimed so that the light source is not visible in the frame, you will likely have lens flare.
So you need to block (mask) the light mechanically, or change the aim of the light source itself.
If the neighbor is a friend, they may work with you once you show them the problem.
Ideally, their light will give them what they want (good lighting of their property and anyone on it, or near their cars on the street, etc.) but also not shine onto parts of your property where you need to be shaded from it.
As was pointed out earlier, a mask at your end to shade your camera from that light may reflect your own IR unless it is made very absorptive on the back side (flat black paint or the like).
But at the neighbor's side, you may be able to construct something that shades your house while not reducing the light hitting areas he wants to have illuminated.
Maybe if he sees what the problem on your side is, and ends up liking the security camera idea, he will work with you to shield the light at his end.
Think "barn doors" as used on photo lights. Something you can adjust to get exactly what works for you both.
I've had to build some shields to block my own porch lights from shining on the lenses of my security cameras in places. If you build them carefully, and paint them nicely, they don't look too strange. It really helps a lot!
These security cameras need to have something in their software that let's you set areas that are completely ignored by their auto exposure systems. Not just privacy masking, but "exposure masking".
That would help get better exposure in the areas we DO want to see.
But you still have the issues of lens flare, and nothing fixes that except shading to block the errant light.
So you need to block (mask) the light mechanically, or change the aim of the light source itself.
If the neighbor is a friend, they may work with you once you show them the problem.
Ideally, their light will give them what they want (good lighting of their property and anyone on it, or near their cars on the street, etc.) but also not shine onto parts of your property where you need to be shaded from it.
As was pointed out earlier, a mask at your end to shade your camera from that light may reflect your own IR unless it is made very absorptive on the back side (flat black paint or the like).
But at the neighbor's side, you may be able to construct something that shades your house while not reducing the light hitting areas he wants to have illuminated.
Maybe if he sees what the problem on your side is, and ends up liking the security camera idea, he will work with you to shield the light at his end.
Think "barn doors" as used on photo lights. Something you can adjust to get exactly what works for you both.
I've had to build some shields to block my own porch lights from shining on the lenses of my security cameras in places. If you build them carefully, and paint them nicely, they don't look too strange. It really helps a lot!
These security cameras need to have something in their software that let's you set areas that are completely ignored by their auto exposure systems. Not just privacy masking, but "exposure masking".
That would help get better exposure in the areas we DO want to see.
But you still have the issues of lens flare, and nothing fixes that except shading to block the errant light.
J Sigmo
Known around here
- Feb 5, 2018
- 996
- 1,336
Sort of, but what I've seen in my security cameras isn't what I'd like to have. It is far too limited.
I'd like to be able to draw specific and complex shapes and sizes of areas to completely exclude from the metering. Alternatively, be able to draw some complex shapes to define the areas that are to be considered in the metering.
This wouldn't necessarily be "backlight control". Instead, I want to totally exclude certain areas from any consideration. It shouldn't matter if the excluded areas are dark or bright. They just won't be considered.
That way, you don't necessarily need to run any sort of dynamic range compression. Instead, you simply expose for the areas of interest, and the excluded areas are conpletely ignored. They may be blown out or black. Fine.
I'm used to "real" photography and cameras. When shooting a photo, you simply meter for the areas of interest, and let the other areas do what they will. And I've always preferred partial or spot metering.
So yes and no. I haven't been really impressed with the way this is implemented in my security cams. They tend to use average metering, and that's understandable for the default mode.
But if I could carefully define the areas within a scene that I want to expose for, that would be great!
And within the active metered areas, it would be neat to be able to set how forgiving or strict the exposure is with regard to smaller areas being blown out. An example is when a person approaches the light source.
Often, the camera is averaging the overall area. So a person near the light source can be blown out as the camera tries only for good average exposure. And that's where some form of highlight compression, or what we called with "regular cameras" "protecting the highlights".
Within the non-excluded areas, it would be nice to be able to adjust how protective of highlights the system is. One part of that is to be able to set the minimum size of an area that is protected. In other words, small areas will be allowed to blow out, but something larger will be protected (by reducing the overall exposure, as necessary) so a person near the light source will be exposed correctly. And yes, that means that the overall scene would get darker at these times.
Being able to define these parameters and areas would really make a difference at night. Sort of a more intelligent exposure control, like what you wish was happening, or what you'd do yourself if you had manual control over exposure, and were there constantly adjusting as you watch the scene.
This is all stuff that can be done. The software developers just need to think about what would make this better.
Last edited:
I agree with @bigredfish here. Using one camera in the center of the garage door probably will not give you the coverage to ID a perp even if the light across the street was out. Use two cameras, one at each corner pointed in crossing views. That way the spot from across the street will not be pointed directly at the cameras. With the varifocal lens, you can really get the proper zoom to cover the driveway and for ID. Why would you buy a Starlite and not use it in color mode at night? Capitalize on the neighbor's free light and supply some of your own all night long to get a good balance and full color all night. There are all sorts of exposure setting to play with which may give you a very good exposure, even if there is some flair. You will never get it perfect.
The flair and exposure you get with a cell phone (or a DSLR) camera will NOT be what you get with those Dahua cameras. I too tried to overwork the exposure prior to buying the cameras. None of my cell phone or DSLR photos looked like the final install of my HDW5231R-ZE cameras. When you get the cameras, do placement tests. It may be better to not approach your neighbor on this until you have the cameras and see what they actually show. I know if I was the neighbor, I would probably want to see the true problem before I considered making a change on my property.