Are IP Cameras really ready for prime time?

ipnotready · Post by **ipnotready** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:29 pm

My answer is no. They make it easy to roll-out using the existing network, while they fail in many other aspects.

To begin,
Never again will I buy ACTi cameras. I had the tech on the phone showing him the poor quality of images with more than ideal lighting, and showing him a comparison to Cisco (Logitech) Webcam at the same location. The idiot tried to convince me that he could not see any noise on ACTI the camera and then proceeded to tell me how much noise there is on my Cisco 1.3MP wecbcam. The ACTI image was one big snow storm. What an idiot.
---

Which brings me to another point. With this much snow all 16 cameras are getting tripped constantly. Even at best detection. I might as well let them run at constant record.

Is there anything that can be done to fix this problem?

Thanks,

ipnotready · Post by **ipnotready** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:31 pm

Excuse my rant... Here is some relevant info for 8 cameras:

2x Acti ACM 1231
2x Acti ACM 3401
4x Acti ACM 3411

Zoneminder 1.24.1 on Ubuntu 9.10 64bit Server:
With AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 925 Processor (4x2800Mhz), 8GB of ram.
3.5GB of ram has been alocated for shared resources.

Cameras are connected via RTP Stream.

Yet,
16:31:52 up 4 days, 4:52, 1 user, load average: 3.94, 4.40, 4.48

curtishall · Post by **curtishall** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:38 pm

It would help if you posted some images, 'noise' is pretty generic.

Did you try new firmware? Did you adjust the video settings on the camera itself? Does the image look fine in VLC player?

ipnotready · Post by **ipnotready** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:39 pm

One second. I will post some images.

ipnotready · Post by **ipnotready** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:43 pm

LEFT: ACti ACM-3401, RIGHT 1.3MP CISCO WEBCAM

Curtis,

All the cameras have the newest firmware and the newest profile.

jameswilson · Post by **jameswilson** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:26 am

btw image doesnt show for me.

I have had great success with IP cams, but only since only using axis.
I have fitted 223m's and are my current fav cam. But i would like to find another option to just one brand.
Used in the past panasonic (poor IMHO) and the bosch dinion IP camera (worse than poor)

Myself if budget is an issue (ie more of an issue than usual) then i use analogue cams. Not ideal but at a price for price comparison analogue IMHO again wins hands down.
However if quality is the factor then for me its IP everytime.

*edit images now show

curtishall · Post by **curtishall** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:41 am

ipnotready wrote:
LEFT: ACti ACM-3401, RIGHT 1.3MP CISCO WEBCAM

Curtis,

All the cameras have the newest firmware and the newest profile.

To really compare you would want to set both cameras from the same angle / location. IP cameras, especially *cheap* one, will never outperform an analog camera when dealing with low lux situations.

I would try messing with the on-camera video settings to see if the image clears up, or possible move the camera so there's more / less light and see if the image improves.

jameswilson · Post by **jameswilson** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:47 am

theres also a lot of compression artifacts in your left image.
as curtis says check you cam config, you will probably need (loking at the image) to increase your bitrate by quite a bit.

ipnotready · Post by **ipnotready** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:34 am

Thanks guys. I'll take a look at the video settings. AFAIK it is set to 3M

kingofkya · Post by **kingofkya** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:48 am

Look for jpeg compression or quality. That relly looks like jpeg comresion artifacts.

also heres a sample for a axis camera 216mfd 1024x768 10fps

http://www.box.net/shared/s242npy7b0

its out of focus right now but notice theres no artifacts.

Post by **Flasheart** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:09 am

Don't judge all ip cameras by one make.