"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 15:46:04 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message



Didnt you watch that link that compared the 3 latest top
of the range smartphones ?

Smartphones use all sorts of tricks and amplifications,

What I said originally, not artificial light.

yes they amplify the light that is there in the scene.


mostly HDR for such things,

That mangles the real story utterly with the latest top end smartphones.

No it doesn;lt simialr technigue of multi exposure.


but this is all software driven by the phones I doubt
you can install the software needed for the iphone
or google pixel on to a CCTV camera.

So you use the smartphone as the cctv camera, stupid.

Sure why not, spend a grand on a camera for CCTV.
Most would need 2-4 , thenn you'd have to make them water proof

Nope, they mostly are now.

and not be too worried about them getting nicked.

True of any camera.

Sure tape the phone to a pole in the
ground and use that as CCTV then.

Dont meed tape, there are smartphone holders/mounts
and some of them even have standard camera mount
screw sockets etc.

Yes I have one for mounting on a tripod but I
wouldn't leave that out in the garen on the front.

Doesnt have to be out in the garden and
trivial to make it impractical to steal.

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 06:55:49 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the senile asshole's usual sick ****

06:55 in Australia? ...and you've been up and trolling for about FIVE AND A
HALF HOURS, already! Are you clinically insane, senile Rodent? Of course you
are! LOL

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 06:52:48 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH troll****

You really know NO shame AT ALL, right, you senile pest? That IS indicative
of your psychopathy, senile psycho!

--
Norman Wells addressing senile Rot:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

alan_m Wrote in message:
On 19/11/2019 22:40, Martin Brown wrote:


You might want to ask the question on sci.astro.amateur too and take a
look at the unconventional use of webcams for astronomy on the QCUIAG
site (true DIY stuff using and adapting cheap webcams)

http://www.qcuiag.org.uk/

There is a lot of interesting low light stuff there.



In astronomy the low intensity object is tracked so it always occupies
the same pixel on the camaras sensor allowing for long exposures or for
the combination of many frames. You can do the same with any CCTV
camera attached to your house assuming that everything in the scene
remains static.


For what point exactly? If something moves, I suspect you want to
be able to see it?
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

alan_m wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

SO why don;t the military use such a system
rather than rely on image intensifiers.

Essentially because the smartphone technique is
so recent and it remains to be seen if it will in fact
be used by the military much more in future.

Also it's got to work in adverse conditions such as
100% cloud cover at night and when raining. Its of
limited use if it only works in fine weather conditions.

Sure but the best of the latest smartphone do that night
vision fine in a lot more than just fine weather conditions.

Less clear how good it is time on battery tho.

The current military stuff has in fact been around for
decades now and is primarily physical technology
rather than the dramatic computer assisted tech
that smartphones use with so much computer power
available in the top of the range smartphones.

Military equipment probably has more computing
? power than an average domestic application.

Not with the personal night vision systems tho.

In addition many cameras are just part of a larger system
that can cope with image processing in real time with ease.

Sure but not with the personal night vision systems.

On 19/11/2019 22:45, T i m wrote:

So, for a scenario as per the picture linked above, would we be
looking at something like this:

http://www.nitedevil.com/nitedevil-traditional.html
(Say, CAM341 or 348 with suitable lens)?

Cheers, T i m

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

Bill

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 15:32:43 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



Sure but

LOL

Not

LOL

Sure but not

LOL

Anyone still unsure about why this senile pest from Oz has NOBODY in real
life to talk to? And I mean, really NOBODY! BG

--
Bod addressing senile Rot:
"Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless
and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of
trouble."
Message-ID:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:47:44 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
snip

Which in the case of star or moon light it is. It's our eyes that
can't work in colour at low light levels and transition from using
the cones (colour) to rods (monochrome).

Clever aren't we, how we have evolved such things. ;-)

Also bear in mind that the
central area of our vision is exclusively cones

I've had experience of that going a bit wrong when I had what I think
they described as some 'wet' distortion of the macular in one eye
making square things look distorted and creating what looked like a
oil stain on anything I was reading (that wouldn't wipe off and moved
when I looked elsewhere). ;-)

Luckily, it cleared up on it's own and if it hadn't, any (laser?)
surgery I could have had on it would have left permanent distortion
(in my main focal function in that eye).

so if you want to see
something in low light levels don't look directly at it but 15 to 20
degress away so the image is formed on the retina where the maximum
number of rods are.

Cool. ;-)

It's this sort of 'human' thing I was talking about in another group
regarding the proliferation of what many of us would describe as
'overbright' vehicle headlights.

In the old days, the light levels projected and visible were directly
related to the wattage of the lamps used and hence the wattage limit /
restrictions. Yes, upgrading your headlamp bulbs to something more
powerful might make things better for you but not anyone else
(especially those swept by them on corners and on roundabouts etc,
even if they were properly aligned / focused).

Eg, we (humans) have a tolerance to a range of light levels, from
pretty dark to a bright sunny day and we can generally cope with them
all (by looking away from the sun etc) but we don't generally have the
same option when driving.

And it's not just the light levels, but the colour temperature and
density of a source that can make a big difference as well (LED /
laser V an incandescent filament). You get bright lights at a football
match for example but they aren't painful to look at.

Cheers T i m

On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 18:33:38 UTC, alan_m wrote:
On 20/11/2019 17:54, Andrew May wrote:


You could try one of these:

https://petapixel.com/2016/03/22/clo...s-iso-4500000/


Few, large surface area pixels. Not something that could fit in a
mobile phone

It's not for a mobile phone it's to help T i m get the CCTV night vision system he wants. I assume he has soem sort of spending limit or budget and at a guess I;m betting that the above camera (he may require more than one too) might exceed this.

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 05:50:52 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

On 19/11/2019 22:45, T i m wrote:

So, for a scenario as per the picture linked above, would we be
looking at something like this:

http://www.nitedevil.com/nitedevil-traditional.html
(Say, CAM341 or 348 with suitable lens)?


Yes.

Cool.

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?

Or is it that these cameras are still good vfm no matter what you are
aiming for?

Cheers, T i m

On Thursday, 21 November 2019 11:50:22 UTC, T i m wrote:


And it's not just the light levels, but the colour temperature and
density of a source that can make a big difference as well (LED /
laser V an incandescent filament). You get bright lights at a football
match for example but they aren't painful to look at.

Are they that bright though ?
I've not been to a football match and I;ve only seen them from a distance.
But teh shodows don;t seem as dark as those that the sun produces, but then again those lights come from at least 4 differnt directions.
Your eyes do adapt over time to differnt light levels.

Think of those kids in the cave in thialand and how they had to wear eye protection when they came out.
Aslo mots can;t tell the colour of a star from just veiwing with the naked eye.
but they aren't all white. I can just make out that Mars has a sort of orange colour.


Cheers T i m

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 08:37:27 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave wrote:

And it's not just the light levels, but the colour temperature and
density of a source that can make a big difference as well (LED /
laser V an incandescent filament). You get bright lights at a
football
match for example but they aren't painful to look at.

Are they that bright though ?

These days at many Premier League stadiums each luminaire is about 2
kW LED and there are around 100 of 'em. They are no longer up
stantions in each corner but encircle the pitch mounted above/blew
the stand rooves. The light level, evenness and shadows (the playing
area is almost shadow free) are very tightly specified. Premier
League and Champions League have slightly different specs both can be
found on the 'net.


Aslo mots can;t tell the colour of a star from just veiwing with the
naked eye. but they aren't all white. I can just make out that Mars has
a sort of orange colour.

Mostly down to the light level from the point source of a star not
being high enough for the cones to work. You can tell the colour of
the really bright stars. Mars isn't a star. B-) and looks like a
red/orange dot to me, Jupiter is a definate disc.

--
Cheers
Dave.

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. Of course you can use a wide aperture lens with these
cameras if you like. However I think they are discontinued! The last one
I bought had an integral lens. The low light performance seemed just as
good though.

Bill

On 21/11/2019 17:36, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 08:37:27 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave wrote:


Aslo mots can;t tell the colour of a star from just veiwing with the
naked eye. but they aren't all white. I can just make out that Mars has
a sort of orange colour.

Mostly down to the light level from the point source of a star not
being high enough for the cones to work. You can tell the colour of
the really bright stars. Mars isn't a star. B-) and looks like a
red/orange dot to me, Jupiter is a definate disc.

Jupiter might seem like a disk to you but it is more likely to be from
scattering in your eye. A tiny handful of young children with better
than 40:20 vision can sometimes see the Galilean satellites of Jupiter
in the most favourable conditions (and also split epsilon Lyra).

Mars is very obviously red/orange. Saturn is yellowish.
Venus is pure white very bright. Visible in daylight at maximum
elongation if you know exactly where and how to look.

Arcturus and Betelgeuse are also orange. Rigel is bluish white.

First and second magnitude stars do show some colour to the naked eye
but it is hard to judge unless you compare one with another. The human
eye is rather good at doing an automatic white balance.

The brightest stars Sirius and Canopus when they are low in the sky
appear to flicker between quite saturated colours due to wavelength
dependent differential refraction.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

On Thursday, 21 November 2019 17:36:51 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 08:37:27 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave wrote:

And it's not just the light levels, but the colour temperature and
density of a source that can make a big difference as well (LED /
laser V an incandescent filament). You get bright lights at a
football
match for example but they aren't painful to look at.

Are they that bright though ?

These days at many Premier League stadiums each luminaire is about 2
kW LED and there are around 100 of 'em. They are no longer up
stantions in each corner but encircle the pitch mounted above/blew
the stand rooves. The light level, evenness and shadows (the playing
area is almost shadow free) are very tightly specified. Premier
League and Champions League have slightly different specs both can be
found on the 'net.

My local football team is Leyton Orient which might explain why I've not noticed.


Aslo mots can;t tell the colour of a star from just veiwing with the
naked eye. but they aren't all white. I can just make out that Mars has
a sort of orange colour.

Mostly down to the light level from the point source of a star not
being high enough for the cones to work. You can tell the colour of
the really bright stars.

Difficult in London unless you're in a dark place for a while.

Mars isn't a star. B-) and looks like a
red/orange dot to me, Jupiter is a definate disc.

I k ow but even the clever greeks called them wandering stars, and stars are brighter in reality but so far away and such a small 'footprint' that we can't easily tell the colour, which was my point.


--
Cheers
Dave.

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

On 21/11/2019 12:13, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 18:33:38 UTC, alan_m wrote:
On 20/11/2019 17:54, Andrew May wrote:


You could try one of these:

https://petapixel.com/2016/03/22/clo...s-iso-4500000/


Few, large surface area pixels. Not something that could fit in a
mobile phone

It's not for a mobile phone it's to help T i m get the CCTV night vision system he wants. I assume he has soem sort of spending limit or budget and at a guess I;m betting that the above camera (he may require more than one too) might exceed this.



Mine was more of a comment about modern mobile phones being capable in
low light conditions. The individual pixel area in these cameras is
possibly 100x more than that in a phone camera yet Canon have to go to
this extreme to produce a quality image via candlelight.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Saturday, 23 November 2019 14:43:39 UTC, alan_m wrote:
On 21/11/2019 12:13, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 18:33:38 UTC, alan_m wrote:
On 20/11/2019 17:54, Andrew May wrote:


You could try one of these:

https://petapixel.com/2016/03/22/clo...s-iso-4500000/


Few, large surface area pixels. Not something that could fit in a
mobile phone

It's not for a mobile phone it's to help T i m get the CCTV night vision system he wants. I assume he has soem sort of spending limit or budget and at a guess I;m betting that the above camera (he may require more than one too) might exceed this.



Mine was more of a comment about modern mobile phones being capable in
low light conditions.

Yes they are and modern camera can also good zooms and closeup facilities.

But DLSRs and smartphones aren't used as CCTV.


The individual pixel area in these cameras is
possibly 100x more than that in a phone camera yet Canon have to go to
this extreme to produce a quality image via candlelight.

Yes so.
Find a CCTV system that makes use of iphones or pixels or any other smartphone or DLSR or any camera how about those go-pros set up a CCTV system with those.
Or invent one yourself.

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 03:58:57 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

Find a CCTV system that makes use of iphones or pixels or any other smartphone

snip

Idiot. Squirm your way out of these then ...

http://www.ichano.com/

https://alfred.camera/

Cheers, T i m

On Tuesday, 26 November 2019 14:07:29 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 03:58:57 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

Find a CCTV system that makes use of iphones or pixels or any other smartphone

snip

Idiot. Squirm your way out of these then ...

http://www.ichano.com/

if that's what you want go for it, I doubt it'll do what you are expecting at the price you're willing to pay.



https://alfred.camera/

yes I can see the 4 or so iphone11 around your property being a solutionb so why are you asking for advice if yuo already knew how to do it.,



Cheers, T i m

what do they say about the low light feature that you want. ?