From: mung_me@att.net   
      
   On 2/15/2012 8:41 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:   
   > Per j:   
   >> No static IP?   
   >   
   > DynDns seems to do the job cheaper.   
   >   
   >   
   >> It looked to me that they are all useable and they are all a bit blown   
   >> out. I suppose that is normal for a contrasty night shot. One did not   
   >> look better than the others at the web resolution, to me. Although one   
   >> appeared to have less "color" depth, such that you could see steps in   
   >> the gray scale.   
   >>   
   >> Which one are you favoring?   
   >   
   > I think the same-ness is an artifact of the Blue Iris   
   > presentation/bandwidth.   Locally there is a huge diff between   
   > the Sony and the FosCam.  If you look again, zoom in on the   
   > lettering of the Stop sign and it will show.   
   >   
   > Right now I'm not thinking so much in terms of make/model camera   
   > as in what resolutions work.   
   >   
   > The Sony at 1920x1080 is, of course the hands-down favorite - but   
   > it costs almost a thousand bucks.   
   >   
   > The EdiMax - at 1290x1024 and less than a tenth of that price -   
   > seems to me to have adequate resolution for most tasks, but it is   
   > not weatherproof, does not seem to accept different lenses, and   
   > does not do IR.   
   >   
   > I think the 640x480 FosCams (at $80 each and with IR) could have   
   > a role for small views - like the shot of the side of the car. I   
   > have some alternate lenses coming and we'll see....  But for   
   > other than small views like a doorway or the side of that car, it   
   > seems to me like 640x480 just does not offer enough resolution   
   > for facial recognition.   
   >   
   > HD is awfully pricey.... 1280x1024 seems to me like the sweet   
   > spot for my anticipated use.   
      
   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 $100 or so camera is quite good, but   
   it doesn't have the sensitivity (or weather resistance) of a   
   surveillance camera.   
      
   The market for surveillance is also a fraction of that for snapshot video.   
      
   >   
   > I've got an el-cheapo ($18) enclosure coming and then we'll see   
   > about the EdiMax and maybe some motion-sensing floodlights to get   
   > around the lack of IR.   
   >   
   > I'm a little puzzled about the vast preponderance of 640x480   
   > cams.   
      
   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.   
      
   Jeff   
      
      
      Unencumbered by any real knowledge, it seems to me like   
   > the only diff between 640x480 and 1280x1024 would be the sensor   
   > they put in the cam - and the $80 EdiMax would seem tb proof that   
   > the more capable sensor doesn't have to add that much to the   
   > price.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)