Please Register and login to reply and use other advanced options
Posted by j on February 15, 2012, 2:59 pm
On 2/15/2012 8:41 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
I think getting HD at low light levels (and large depth of field) is
expensive. For the same size sensor, the 1080 HD pixels are a fraction
of the size of 640x480. I say that because 1080 HD in pocket cameras is
getting ubiquitous. The video on a $00 or so camera is quite good, but
it doesn't have the sensitivity (or weather resistance) of a
The market for surveillance is also a fraction of that for snapshot video.
640 x 480 works well on conventional tube TVs, it's actually a bit more
horizontal resolution than they are capable of. The 480 is close to the
uncropped 520 or so scan lines. Adapted to old technology..., I believe
they call that VGA resolution.
Keep us informed how this goes, you've got quite an experiment going.
Unencumbered by any real knowledge, it seems to me like
Posted by (PeteCresswell) on February 15, 2012, 4:53 pm
That seems tb the weak point all around. Even that muy-expensive
Sony falls apart badly at low light levels using it's IR. Having
one of the Foscam's IR beam aimed at the same target redeems the
Sony somewhat - let's say from "utterly pathetic" to "marginally
Here's a clip of one of our foxes with the help of the FosCam:
I have a clip of what is probably the same animal without the
extra IR, but can't find it at the moment. Suffice to say that
it wasn't even possible to tell whether it was a fox or a cat -
except by it's gait/speed.
I'm coming around to what Somebody-Who-Knows said about forgoing
IR in favor of motion-activated flood lights. I'm not there yet
- pending trial of some lights; but it's definitely on the table.
I also fantasize that there might be an additional advantage when
whoever trips the light has that "WTF" moment and looks towards
the light (and camera) for a full face shot. Sort of like the
nipple cam on the nudie calendar in the legendary repair shop.
FWIW, this all started when somebody asked me to set up a surf
cam for a windsurfing shop - so people could check out the
conditions directly instead of having the shop owner's phone ring
every five minutes.
I'm starting to wonder if it's becoming an unhealthy obsession...
OTOH, I'm learning about a subject that many people talk about
glibly but know nothing about.
Posted by j on February 15, 2012, 7:48 pm
On 2/15/2012 11:53 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Since you are running power out there, have you considered a separate IR
light, may be some of these:
They seem to review well.
I hadn't heard of that. I have a photographer friend, that was at a well
healed event trying to get his Rollie to focus on this group of tuxed
and well dressed individuals. The girl was getting inpatient, and
finally popped out her tit, pointed at it, and exclaimed "focus on
this". It's a fabulous shot that hangs in my kitchen, everyone looks at it!
It's a plan!
Posted by (PeteCresswell) on February 15, 2012, 8:55 pm
After seeing one guy's Before/After pix with low-end supplemental
IR, I kind of dismissed it. But now that you're saying it
again - and in light of what I'm experiencing with the FosCam's
extra lighting (which has tb about the most el-cheapo possible)
I'm gonna give that a try.
Posted by v8z on February 16, 2012, 3:46 pm
Any incandescent (halogen, xenon, etc. but not LED) light can be converted
inexpensively to an IR illuminator by simply putting a 720nM -920nM filter
over it. I have a 2 d-cell xenon bulb mag-lite flashlite that has a 55mm
diameter 850nM photo filter ($.00 free shipping on Ebay) attached to over
the lens with electrical tape. It works better than the illuminator that
came with our NV monocular, and all that you see downrange is a very slight,
dull red glow. The same should work for a 12VDC Malibu light.