From: r_delaney2001@yahoo.com   
      
   On September 19, Phil Hobbs wrote:   
   >>> a few outdoor >> surveillance cameras, primarily   
   >>> intended for night security. The problem is, the   
   >>> lighting is quite dim, such that no human witness could   
   >>> reliably testify to an intruder's identity. Are there   
   >>> cameras that operate better than the human eye, in such   
   >>> circumstances?   
   >   
   >> CCD's "see" down to ~1um. But that doesn't help all   
   >> that much if there is no light to reflect off something.   
   >   
   > There are low light CCD cameras intended for amateur   
   > astronomy. Watec makes good ones for not much dough.   
   > You do trade off some response speed, of course.   
      
   For security, you need some reasonable sample   
   time.  Let's say you record an inage every 2   
   seconds, integrating.  The light is too dim   
   for reliable human identification.  Are there   
   cameras more sensitive, providing more detail,   
   than the human eye?   
      
   It's a simple question.   
      
   --   
   Rich   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)