On Friday, 22 November 2019 10:51:55 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 22:25:44 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

On 21/11/2019 16:22, T i m wrote:

That picture was taken from just such a camera, and it wasn't set
at anything like the lowest light level.

So, if you set it to a sensitivity where it wouldn't smear with (say)
someone walking across the scene, would it be any more sensitive than
a cheaper camera with an inferior light level spec would you think?

I'd guess so.

And that was my caution, re spending a substantial sum on something
where I don't fully use it's USP because of some compromise (smearing)
and where it's use may not be ideal (for said USP).

eg, Say you needed to see what order a range of different colour cars
parked each night (with no additional light),

It's important to use logic and science here rather than ceativity/emotion.
I'm sure you must have seen the effect sodium street lights have on your perception of the colour of parked cars.
So what you see as colours (which don't really exist) is dependant on the colour of the light shone on the cars and what colour(s) they reflect.
No light no colour, even if you have a colour amplifier which goes up to 11.


or to determine what
pattern / colour cat is stopping for a dump on your vegetable patch

Now we see the real reason

... a NiteDevil set on it's most sensitive might be a good way to go.
;-)

Of course you can use a wide aperture lens with these
cameras if you like.

Again, from my small exposure to camera lenses (excuse the pun),
aren't bigger aperture lenses often more expensive?

Yes, due to the extra glass or plastic required for the elements
and everything that goes with with it.



However I think they are discontinued!

Doh!

The last one
I bought had an integral lens.

If we are still talking Nitedevils I think I saw those as being
'indoor' cameras for nightclubs and pubs etc.

They do out door ones but I'm guessing they are far more expensive
that is what I foubd when looking for an outdoor web cam.
The price seemd to triple or more.


The low light performance seemed just as
good though.

It sounds like what am looking for could be the holy grail of CCTV
cameras and unless finding something second hand, might just be
something you have to pay for.

Yes and they still can't do the impossible.


I was hoping to find something (with practical recommendation) that
would offer as good a resolution as my DVR could use, give quality
colour pictures in as low a light as possible (/ reasonable), be
reliable (electrically and in use) and ideally, considered good VFM by
most.


We can all hope.



The other thing I believe I sound consider is the lens. eg, without
having mechanical zoom (likely to make it more expensive and once set,
likely not to be ever changed) or any PTZ features at all (see above),
I need to determine what 'angle' of lens would give me the sort of
width I want to cover at the distance I'm interested.

That is also coupled to the sensor size of the camera, in photography it;s called the crop factor, but you could get some idea of the angle of wiew using a simple protractor and a couple of matchsticks.
I;d ask someone with a reasonable camera and lens and ask them to take some pictures and then see what the focal lengh of the lens was at and hence find the angle of view.


eg. If it's under the eaves on the rear wall of a house overlooking a
back garden, I would want it to cover the length of the garden (so
that would be the 'vertical angle') and the width of the garden (the
std way we normally consider 'wide angle' etc) but no more than
necessary (to retain more 'focus' on the desired area.

Yopou'd need a good zoom in order to take pictures of the cat taking a **** for ID purposes I doubt the ECHR will proceed with a low quality picture of the cat. :-}



Like a floodlamp, I would set the upper edge to just capture the
bottom of the garden and the lower edge would then be wherever it was
(ideally, near the back of the house).

However, I'm guessing whilst the lenses are generally round, the CCD's
aren't(?) and so I'm guessing there must be some overlap / compromise
between the size of the image projected onto the CCD and what you see
from the CCD?

Standad practice for all cameras, lenses and CCD excapt perhaps the hubble and the like.


For my scenario above, maybe I need a widescreen rotated though 90 Deg
to best fit my target area? No use if I have other cameras that use a
more traditional layout of course. ;-(

Cheers, T i m