You guys agree with this guy?
- Thread starter tibimakai
- Start date
Figures don't lie, liars figure, what do you want the answer to be? He values low price and pretty pictures over tweaked performance. Others value night performance and ability to identify people and vehicles. Here he appears to praise the 5442 series at night, while simultaneously praising the low price on the Reolinks. For my time, it really isn't worth spending much time on his videos. If someone likes Reolink, fine, get it. Just don't complain and blame BI when it doesn't work with Bi, or you can't identify the guy who walked by your car and smashed the window.
It's a start. At least it points out the poor night performance of the cheaper camera.
At least poster Brian Simmons was pointing out the truth and flaws and logic...and yet people slammed his comments....
I agreed with Brian's comments, so no need to repeat them here, other than confirming what we say is don't use a wide-angle lens to IDENTIFY someone 40 feet away.
The fact of the matter is, the consumer grade camera manufacturers know that the general consumer wants wide angle "see the whole neighborhood" bright images and cater to that market very well. If Ring sold a varifocal I doubt many of their user base would purchase it because "the view is so restricted and I can only see a 10 foot stretch of the street" without realizing that this "restricted" view is what allows you to get the clean shot of a perp in the middle of the night!
At least poster Brian Simmons was pointing out the truth and flaws and logic...and yet people slammed his comments....
I agreed with Brian's comments, so no need to repeat them here, other than confirming what we say is don't use a wide-angle lens to IDENTIFY someone 40 feet away.
The fact of the matter is, the consumer grade camera manufacturers know that the general consumer wants wide angle "see the whole neighborhood" bright images and cater to that market very well. If Ring sold a varifocal I doubt many of their user base would purchase it because "the view is so restricted and I can only see a 10 foot stretch of the street" without realizing that this "restricted" view is what allows you to get the clean shot of a perp in the middle of the night!
mat200
IPCT Contributor
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,057
- 25,391
Hi @tibimakai
When I first noticed his videos, I thought they looked very good. Then something odd struck me.. the Reolink night time image capture he got was a 100% failure in my point of view,.. and YET in his conclusion have gave a massive endorsement to Reolink as a good option across the board.
Thus I took the time to deconstruction his video and analyze it in details.
The results I posted in the following thread:
Reolink: Deconstruction of a dangerous misleading youtube review "Finding the BEST 4K Security Camera NVR Package (Reolink vs Amcrest vs Swann)"
Executive Summary: DO NOT be a sheep. Ask what a reviewer can be missing, ask if a reviewer is using hype words to sell the cheapest product. Test your cameras and kits right away. Just do a bench test. Test real world conditions. Test moving suspects. Test at night, test at day. Use a test rig...
As a result I no longer trust his videos.
I have not looked at that particular video you inquired about, as I do not know if watching his videos is really worth my time right now. ( we'll see.. perhaps this thread will compel me .. we'll see .. )
I strongly feel we have much better help here for people looking to get a decent setup with numerous members sharing what they are learning and experiencing.
Me too, especially where he stated "....... You have a long history of posting videos that end up making the Reolink models look like the only viable option because the other cameras never have enough "clarity" to be attractive in your tests and yet you fail to discuss the fact that you can get the necessary clarity from other cameras by simply choosing an appropriate focal length for the need."
This particular "The Hook Up" YT post reminds me of our present day media: you don't need to be untruthful in your statements when attempting to achieve a certain bias; just don't state all the facts.
user8963
Known around here
Its common sense that reolink has superior sharpness on still image on day and night. they are trimmed to behave like this. also 8mp vs. 4mp in perfect light condition is a real unfair comparison. why should the 4mp win over the 8mp ? only if the 8mp is out of focus there should be a chance.
also hookup strikes again. i have no idea how many feet the street is away from the camera, but its obvious that he should not use 2,8mm/3,6mm if he want to identify persons on street..
also he never talks about settings. are they auto mode ? who knows.
mat200
IPCT Contributor
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,057
- 25,391
FYI -
adding for reference ( as sometimes info does get deleted and wiped out on youtube .. this way anyone reading this thread can see the current references )
Text:
Brian Simmons
10 hours ago (edited)
The reason you don't get images clear enough for identification purposes is because you still don't talk about (or perhaps even understand) the concept of DORI (the distances at which a camera will Detect, Observe, Recognize, or Identify a person). These distances are a direct result of two things, focal length and resolution. Obviously a higher resolution camera will provide more detail than a lower resolution (and you do mention this in your videos). However the second way to increase DORI distances is to increase the focal length (zoom) of a camera. You never talk about this in your videos. If you want a camera that can identify someone at the end of your driveway at night, one of the better nighttime performing cameras can do it, just not with the 3.6mm version. You need a version with a longer focal length. Now I realize you are trying to keep things as equal as possible when comparing cameras these shootout formats, but you don't even mention these concepts. You consistently make it sound like there simply aren't cameras that can get sharp nighttime images at longer distances without spending a lot of money (you even say this in this video). The fact is that you are not matching your camera to your goal. You CAN get excellent nighttime performance at longer distances by simply choosing one of the cameras that performed well in your test, but a model with a longer focal length. For example, you tested the Dahua 5442 and rightly say that it has very good nighttime performance. What you fail to mention is that while you tested the 3.6mm cameras (which has DORI numbers of detect=236', observe=95', recognize=46', identify=23'), they make a lot other 5442 variants with longer (or shorter) focal length - all the way out to a 8-32mm vari-focal lens that gives DORI numbers of 1312', 525', 262', 131' at the max zoom. That means you could identify a person as far as 131' away from the camera with that particular model while the 3.6mm version only has an identify distance of 23' (which your 25' test distance is obviously beyond). You negatively talk about the fact that the 5442 model you tested can only "recognize" a person at 25', yet fail to mention that this is exactly the performance you should expect from that particular camera with that particular focal length and you also fail to mention that there are other focal lengths available (shorter and longer) that would allow for a different result.
The Hook Up
10 hours ago
Sure, But to use that much zoom I’d need 8+ cameras to cover my front yard.
Brian Simmons
6 hours ago (edited)
@The Hook Up The fact that you don't talk about these things in your video leaves in incomplete story however. People will watch this video and will come to the logical conclusion that there are just two viable options: 1) the Reolink which provides better daytime images, but poor low light performance or 2) the Dahua which provides much better low light performance, but not enough detail/clarity to be worth it. You have a long history of posting videos that end up making the Reolink models look like the only viable option because the other cameras never have enough "clarity" to be attractive in your tests and yet you fail to discuss the fact that you can get the necessary clarity from other cameras by simply choosing an appropriate focal length for the need. Furthermore, you talk about wanting to make these tests as fair and consistent as possible yet you constantly test the 2k models with subjects outside of their "identify" distances (which is why they lack clarity) while putting the 4k models squarely in their "identify" distance spec.(which is why they have more clarity). If you want a fair test you need to test these cameras with subjects all within the different camera's "Identify" distance range - perhaps 15' from the cameras. If presented with just these two options, I too would probably choose the Reolink cameras and just assume that poor low light performance is normal. The reality is that you can have both great low light performance AND the proper detail/clarity by selecting the appropriate focal length for the situation. Again, this is a truth that I have never seen you talk about in your videos. While I personally don't believe you are a Reolink shill, it is easy to understand why people have come to this conclusion when you stack the tests against 2k cameras. We've already had a long discussion about why 4k cameras are not always better than 2k cameras, yet you seem to want to perpetuate that lie as well.
Image capture:
adding for reference ( as sometimes info does get deleted and wiped out on youtube .. this way anyone reading this thread can see the current references )
Text:
Brian Simmons
10 hours ago (edited)
The reason you don't get images clear enough for identification purposes is because you still don't talk about (or perhaps even understand) the concept of DORI (the distances at which a camera will Detect, Observe, Recognize, or Identify a person). These distances are a direct result of two things, focal length and resolution. Obviously a higher resolution camera will provide more detail than a lower resolution (and you do mention this in your videos). However the second way to increase DORI distances is to increase the focal length (zoom) of a camera. You never talk about this in your videos. If you want a camera that can identify someone at the end of your driveway at night, one of the better nighttime performing cameras can do it, just not with the 3.6mm version. You need a version with a longer focal length. Now I realize you are trying to keep things as equal as possible when comparing cameras these shootout formats, but you don't even mention these concepts. You consistently make it sound like there simply aren't cameras that can get sharp nighttime images at longer distances without spending a lot of money (you even say this in this video). The fact is that you are not matching your camera to your goal. You CAN get excellent nighttime performance at longer distances by simply choosing one of the cameras that performed well in your test, but a model with a longer focal length. For example, you tested the Dahua 5442 and rightly say that it has very good nighttime performance. What you fail to mention is that while you tested the 3.6mm cameras (which has DORI numbers of detect=236', observe=95', recognize=46', identify=23'), they make a lot other 5442 variants with longer (or shorter) focal length - all the way out to a 8-32mm vari-focal lens that gives DORI numbers of 1312', 525', 262', 131' at the max zoom. That means you could identify a person as far as 131' away from the camera with that particular model while the 3.6mm version only has an identify distance of 23' (which your 25' test distance is obviously beyond). You negatively talk about the fact that the 5442 model you tested can only "recognize" a person at 25', yet fail to mention that this is exactly the performance you should expect from that particular camera with that particular focal length and you also fail to mention that there are other focal lengths available (shorter and longer) that would allow for a different result.
The Hook Up
10 hours ago
Sure, But to use that much zoom I’d need 8+ cameras to cover my front yard.
Brian Simmons
6 hours ago (edited)
@The Hook Up The fact that you don't talk about these things in your video leaves in incomplete story however. People will watch this video and will come to the logical conclusion that there are just two viable options: 1) the Reolink which provides better daytime images, but poor low light performance or 2) the Dahua which provides much better low light performance, but not enough detail/clarity to be worth it. You have a long history of posting videos that end up making the Reolink models look like the only viable option because the other cameras never have enough "clarity" to be attractive in your tests and yet you fail to discuss the fact that you can get the necessary clarity from other cameras by simply choosing an appropriate focal length for the need. Furthermore, you talk about wanting to make these tests as fair and consistent as possible yet you constantly test the 2k models with subjects outside of their "identify" distances (which is why they lack clarity) while putting the 4k models squarely in their "identify" distance spec.(which is why they have more clarity). If you want a fair test you need to test these cameras with subjects all within the different camera's "Identify" distance range - perhaps 15' from the cameras. If presented with just these two options, I too would probably choose the Reolink cameras and just assume that poor low light performance is normal. The reality is that you can have both great low light performance AND the proper detail/clarity by selecting the appropriate focal length for the situation. Again, this is a truth that I have never seen you talk about in your videos. While I personally don't believe you are a Reolink shill, it is easy to understand why people have come to this conclusion when you stack the tests against 2k cameras. We've already had a long discussion about why 4k cameras are not always better than 2k cameras, yet you seem to want to perpetuate that lie as well.
Image capture:
user8963
Known around here
LOL
wanted to post the same. wittaj said something about brian simmons and i googled that name and ask myself ... wtf
but then i read through the comments and found it at the end
he just didnt listen to sebastiantombs. cameras multiple like rabbits..
wanted to post the same. wittaj said something about brian simmons and i googled that name and ask myself ... wtf
but then i read through the comments and found it at the end
he just didnt listen to sebastiantombs. cameras multiple like rabbits..
Isn't everyone an expert on YouTube LOL...just remember many of those videos are by people being paid promotional/affiliate dollars by a vendor and/or receiving revenue by YouTube based on number of hits they get. In the past few months we have seen many people come here after being burned by hookup... Plus, when someone has 200,000+ subscribers, inevitably they will start to push consumer grade stuff that is "plug-n-play" because they do not want to take thousands of posts asking what does this setting do and what does that do...
We should give him some credit though - he could have just ignored the people giving his channel a hard time, but he attempted to address the issues. Unfortunately, as others pointed out, using a wide angle to try to identify someone at 40 feet will fail with any of these types of cameras. He also acknowledged that in some form or fashion he is getting some money based on his reviews.
I would suggest finding the reviews for the cameras here. You will find much better examples here than out on YouTube or Amazon. The members here put them through their paces. Most of the YouTube videos just use auto settings and many do not show motion, so the images look great. It is motion at night that we are interested in, and every review of cameras here have folks providing video clips of their camera in action at multiple settings and shutter speeds, etc. Auto settings results in blur and ghosts during motion at night and is useless. Most Amazon reviews if they include images are static images of no motion.
Plus the YouTube videos tend to be full productions for the likes and thus YouTube revenue, where the folks here post videos for the sole sake of letting others know how well or not the cameras perform. Now some here do an excellent job of post-production of the reviews of cameras with text narrative and overlays of the settings, etc., but most of us just put out raw video for you to see for yourself.
A great camera can be placed at the wrong spot, which then leads to bad reviews on an otherwise great camera. Likewise, a novice surveillance camera user goes by static images and boasts about how great a camera is when it really isn't very good with motion. So if someone calls it a security camera, then maybe do not put much stock in what they say
This forum allows others to actually see videos of these cameras at locations and can then make a determination on if that is similar to their situation (lighting, distance, etc.) and would that camera be the right or wrong selection for what they are trying to achieve.
We should give him some credit though - he could have just ignored the people giving his channel a hard time, but he attempted to address the issues. Unfortunately, as others pointed out, using a wide angle to try to identify someone at 40 feet will fail with any of these types of cameras. He also acknowledged that in some form or fashion he is getting some money based on his reviews.
I would suggest finding the reviews for the cameras here. You will find much better examples here than out on YouTube or Amazon. The members here put them through their paces. Most of the YouTube videos just use auto settings and many do not show motion, so the images look great. It is motion at night that we are interested in, and every review of cameras here have folks providing video clips of their camera in action at multiple settings and shutter speeds, etc. Auto settings results in blur and ghosts during motion at night and is useless. Most Amazon reviews if they include images are static images of no motion.
Plus the YouTube videos tend to be full productions for the likes and thus YouTube revenue, where the folks here post videos for the sole sake of letting others know how well or not the cameras perform. Now some here do an excellent job of post-production of the reviews of cameras with text narrative and overlays of the settings, etc., but most of us just put out raw video for you to see for yourself.
A great camera can be placed at the wrong spot, which then leads to bad reviews on an otherwise great camera. Likewise, a novice surveillance camera user goes by static images and boasts about how great a camera is when it really isn't very good with motion. So if someone calls it a security camera, then maybe do not put much stock in what they say
This forum allows others to actually see videos of these cameras at locations and can then make a determination on if that is similar to their situation (lighting, distance, etc.) and would that camera be the right or wrong selection for what they are trying to achieve.
Is Brian Simmons on this forum?
Also, screw YouTube, 75% of their content is advertising crap
Also, screw YouTube, 75% of their content is advertising crap
I think he said the running test was only 25 feet. Isn't that within the identify range for the 5442? Why were the images so bad?
25 or 50 feet doesn't much matter for a wide angle fixed lens. It won't cut it with motion at that distance.
Most of us have recognized that "ideal" and "real world" are two different numbers and I never go by the full DORI numbers or IR range numbers. I cut DORI in about half for day and 60-75% at night time.
And no idea what he had for settings. Was it default?
Most of us have recognized that "ideal" and "real world" are two different numbers and I never go by the full DORI numbers or IR range numbers. I cut DORI in about half for day and 60-75% at night time.
And no idea what he had for settings. Was it default?
Dunno. Just surprised me that the 5442 didn't blow the rest out of the water.
Well he made at least two errors - too far for the fixed cam and then he digitally zoomed in when he presented it. Combined that is a disaster. We do not know shutter and other parameters, but at that distance it still wouldn't have been the magic clear image.
mat200
IPCT Contributor
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,057
- 25,391
Hi @KenAllen15 , @tibimakai
As Brian Simmons clearly points out, you have to understand DORI, FOV, and effective resolution as a basic start point.
When I get a chance I will review the numbers, I am certain - judging on the past videos and Brian Simmons post in the chat that there's something once again deceptive and misleading going on here.
"The reason you don't get images clear enough for identification purposes is because you still don't talk about (or perhaps even understand) the concept of DORI (the distances at which a camera will Detect, Observe, Recognize, or Identify a person). These distances are a direct result of two things, focal length and resolution."
mat200
IPCT Contributor
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,057
- 25,391
Challenge accepted... ( oh, and no .. I don't think you're a super villain .. as I would expect a super villain to .. well .. do some calculations ... like, say .. DORI calculations .. )
Promise:
"So, today on the hookup I'm going to tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about reolink cameras." - The Hook up Sept. 22, 2201
".. and the last comparison camera I selected was the 4MP Dahua 5442 which costs around $155, I wish I would have had the varifocal version for this test so I could perfectly line up the field of view, but I didn't have one on had so I had to settle for the 3.6mm focal length version, but it should be similar enough in field of view to the 4mm focal length Reolink cameras."
one of the Reolink cameras
"I haven't found a low cost system a that can do it well ( to positively identify a specific person ), and while the Dahua 5442 was the standout in almost every nighttime category it still lacks enough details to be able to actually identify a person. so if that's your goal.. " - The Hook UP
A quick review and I have to 100% agree with the post by Brian Simmons, you HAVE to understand the basics of DORI to really compare what you are seeing.
This is the fundamental flaw, once again, in The Hook UP's "reviews"
Neither the Reolink nor the Dahua 5442 cameras can positively Identify someone at 40 feet away in low light conditions. ( "neither can id at 40 feet in the dark.. " thus implying similarities between the Reolink and Dahua 5442 and equating that in low light conditions they have similar value .. )
So, let's do the basic math..
From the Cliff notes:
We're going to use 100 ppf for this, Dahua iirc uses 80 ppf for their DORI numbers. ( we like 100 ppf better, again for basically close to a straight on facial image capture .. )
The equation to calculate the Radius (the distance in feet) for identification for 100 ppf as discussed above: Radius = (( Horizontal Res / 100 ppf ) * ( 360 / Angle ))/2*Pi
The Dahua IPC-HDW5442TM-AS
Resolution: 2688 (H) × 1520 (V)
FOV: H: 89°, V: 48
ID distance ( Radius ) = ((2688/100)*(360/89)) / 2*Pi = 17.3 feet
The Reolink RLC-810a
Resolution: 3840x2160 (8.0 Megapixels)
FOV: Horizontal: 87° Vertical: 44°
ID distance ( Radius ) = ((3840/100)*(360/87)) / 2*Pi = 25.3 feet
The above numbers are under ideal conditions ( good light ). It is basic math, and represents the basic starting point of comparing and contrasting one camera vs another.
A 2MP ( 1080P ) camera has 1/2 the ID distance of an 8MP ( "4K" ) camera.
A 4MP camera with the same aspect ratio is 1/2 way between the 2.
The Hook Up fails to appropriately discuss that and this error of omission leads to the wrong conclusions, and he does share the incorrect conclusion when attempting to ID beyond the DORI distance.
40 feet away is clearly too far away for either the Reolink RLC-810a w/a 4mm or the Dahua 5442 w/a 3.6mm for a positive ID image - even during the day with good lighting.
Ask why he did not attempt to force a color night time image out of the Reolink to compare and contrast it?
"The footage in the description has a full color night vision test for the 5442. Again, comparing Reolink color night vision would be like bringing a tow truck to a drag race. " - The Hook UP
Answer, because it would be a clear failure.
contactcr
13 hours ago
5442 has great color night vision and would give you more details about said person but this was mostly excluded. In addition 40ft night distance is asking too much for anything. Hopefully your camera is closer than that to your valuables.
The Hook Up
12 hours ago
The footage in the description has a full color night vision test for the 5442. Again, comparing Reolink color night vision would be like bringing a tow truck to a drag race.
image capture:
There is a 6mm 5442 .. let's calculate the DORI for that..
ID distance ( Radius ) = ((2688/100)*(360/56)) / 2*Pi = 27.515 feet
So, in terms of ID Distance ( DORI ) it is actually better to compare the Dahua 5442 in 6mm vs a 8MP camera with a 4mm lens ( 25.3 feet ID distance ).
Without understanding Resolution, FOV, and DORI calculations people can and will come to incorrect and misleading conclusions.
A proper review would have addressed the DORI topic along with FOV and Resolution as well as tested for potential positive ID image captures within the ID range ( the I in DORI ).
I bet you put that 5442 3.6mm camera to a test on a suspect face on at 16 feet in low light conditions vs the Reolinks and you'll see the appropriate results.
ref:
Dahua
Reolink RLC-810a
Last edited:
mat200
IPCT Contributor
- Jan 17, 2017
- 15,057
- 25,391
Let's check the IPC-HDW5442T-ZE ID distance:
ID distance ( Radius ) = ((2688/100)*(360/47)) / 2*Pi = 32.78 feet
Close .. but still short of the 40 foot mark .. will need more zoom ... ( Dahua thinks it is good tho,.. iirc as I noted I believe they are using 80 ppf .. remember this is for basically a straight on face ID image capture )
ID distance ( Radius ) = ((2688/100)*(360/47)) / 2*Pi = 32.78 feet
Close .. but still short of the 40 foot mark .. will need more zoom ... ( Dahua thinks it is good tho,.. iirc as I noted I believe they are using 80 ppf .. remember this is for basically a straight on face ID image capture )