Hi all,

I was looking into a very basic domestic CCTV solution. I already have
a variety of gear to play with (old cameras, external enclosures,
DVR's etc) but am specifically interested in the very low light
cameras.

I believe some here have mentioned the NiteDevil range but reading
around seems to suggest that these sort of low light cameras (as
opposed to high-end / military I suspect) achieve such with fairly
long shutter times and so are prone to blurring / smearing on any
moving objects?

If that *is* likely to be an issue, IR would be ok as there is nothing
reflective, as could be basic PIR LED lamps to generally illuminate
the scene.

I don't have a specific target / scenario in mind, just that the std
IR illumination with colour during the day and b/w at night must be
the norm for good reason?

Cheers, T i m

On 18/11/2019 22:33, T i m wrote:
Hi all,

I was looking into a very basic domestic CCTV solution. I already have
a variety of gear to play with (old cameras, external enclosures,
DVR's etc) but am specifically interested in the very low light
cameras.

I believe some here have mentioned the NiteDevil range but reading
around seems to suggest that these sort of low light cameras (as
opposed to high-end / military I suspect) achieve such with fairly
long shutter times and so are prone to blurring / smearing on any
moving objects?

If that *is* likely to be an issue, IR would be ok as there is nothing
reflective, as could be basic PIR LED lamps to generally illuminate
the scene.

I don't have a specific target / scenario in mind, just that the std
IR illumination with colour during the day and b/w at night must be
the norm for good reason?

Cheers, T i m


I have a starlight camera and yes they blur on moving objects.

It doesn't use long shutter times but integrates many frames (512 max I
think).

I don't use it as a security cam.

The PIR light is probably the best if the camera can switch to daytime
colour fast enough.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 18/11/2019 22:33, T i m wrote:
Hi all,

I was looking into a very basic domestic CCTV solution. I already have
a variety of gear to play with (old cameras, external enclosures,
DVR's etc) but am specifically interested in the very low light
cameras.

I believe some here have mentioned the NiteDevil range but reading
around seems to suggest that these sort of low light cameras (as
opposed to high-end / military I suspect) achieve such with fairly
long shutter times and so are prone to blurring / smearing on any
moving objects?

If that *is* likely to be an issue, IR would be ok as there is nothing
reflective, as could be basic PIR LED lamps to generally illuminate
the scene.

I don't have a specific target / scenario in mind, just that the std
IR illumination with colour during the day and b/w at night must be
the norm for good reason?

Cheers, T i m


I have a starlight camera and yes they blur on moving objects.

It doesn't use long shutter times but integrates many frames (512 max I
think).

I don't use it as a security cam.

The PIR light is probably the best if the camera can switch to daytime
colour fast enough.


Some of the night camera footage with the latest iphone and Samsung
Galaxys is amazing. Looks like it is taken in the late afternoon even when
it looks like in the middle of the night on a no moon night with ho street
lights in real life. Not cheap[ tho.

On 18/11/2019 22:33, T i m wrote:
Hi all,

I was looking into a very basic domestic CCTV solution. I already have
a variety of gear to play with (old cameras, external enclosures,
DVR's etc) but am specifically interested in the very low light
cameras.

I believe some here have mentioned the NiteDevil range but reading
around seems to suggest that these sort of low light cameras (as
opposed to high-end / military I suspect) achieve such with fairly
long shutter times and so are prone to blurring / smearing on any
moving objects?


The sensors in digital cameras/phones can see IR up to around 1.1um
although most may have a filter to exclude the near IR band. Point your
phone camera at the output of your TV remote and press any button and
probably you will see the IR LED flashing. Iphones may have a IR filter
on the back camera but possibly not on the front camera.

Military IR cameras operate in the 3um to 5um band or the 8 to 12/14um
band. Cameras fitted to the police helicopters are probably the latter.
With these cameras no additional illumination is required. These cameras
do not have glass lenses because glass blocks the IR in these bands.

The domestic CCTV cameras you can buy will be optimised for the visible
band but have response into the near IR band (1.1um). IR has no colour
hence B&W video output. So basically you are operating the camera just
outside the visible band and in low light hence longer exposure times,
frame to frame integration over a period of time or additional
illumination (in the IR band)


If you have an old digital camera and you want to experiment
https://www.instructables.com/id/inf...-the-real-way/

or

https://tinyurl.com/wdu4oey

Try it on a very cheap web cam.

If you have any processed colour film negatives around the bits at the
end that are completely black can be used as the filter instead of of
the Congo Blue filters mentioned in the above article. You could use two
bits(double thickness) of this black negative as a stronger filter.


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

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:53:13 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Some of the night camera footage with the latest iphone and Samsung
Galaxys is amazing. Looks like it is taken in the late afternoon even when
it looks like in the middle of the night on a no moon night with ho street
lights in real life. Not cheap[ tho.

"Middle of the night"? That's when you get out of bed to start with your
insipid trolling on all these groups. Innit, senile Rodent?

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

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:52:21 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

snip

I have a starlight camera and yes they blur on moving objects.

Thanks.

It doesn't use long shutter times but integrates many frames (512 max I
think).

Sure ... but that worked as a practical overview of *why* it happens.
;-)

I don't use it as a security cam.

Ok.

The PIR light is probably the best if the camera can switch to daytime
colour fast enough.

.... depending on how long the subject is there to view or how much
footage (can I say that or should I say 'megabytes of video data' g)
you have captured to review?

I would like a Starlight camera to play with but not sure if there any
VFM models worth having (I believe my recorder (Alien MEGAHero)
supports 1080p FWIW).

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:33:45 +0000, T i m wrote:

If that *is* likely to be an issue, IR would be ok as there is nothing
reflective, ...

Nothing reflective that you can see with visible light. Vegetation
reflects far more IR than it does red and blue light (which is why it
appears green). Grass verges look snow covered under IR.

... as could be basic PIR LED lamps to generally illuminate the scene.

If the camera switches fast enough and you can get the light levels
high enough. Also bear in mind any shadows or areas of lower
illumination are going to be dark or just black.

IR illumination avoids any camera mode switching, though there will
be a exposure issue if when you switch the IR on/off. Leaving the IR
on at low light levels is best. The camera is running at or near
maximum sensitivity so lower illuminated areas aren't completely
black.

I don't have a specific target / scenario in mind, just that the std
IR illumination with colour during the day and b/w at night must be
the norm for good reason?

"Colour" is defined the frequency of the lightwaves, so as IR is
outside the the range of frequencies of visible light it has no
colour. One can of course transpose a range of IR frequencies into
the visible range and create "false colour" images, as some thermal
image cameras do.

How covert do you want to be? 850 nm (ish) ("near infrared") IR
illuminators are visible as dull red glow. If you shift to 960 nm
(ish) the source is not visible but the sensitivity of most cameras
is noticably falling off by then.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 18/11/2019 22:33, T i m wrote:
Hi all,

I was looking into a very basic domestic CCTV solution. I already have
a variety of gear to play with (old cameras, external enclosures,
DVR's etc) but am specifically interested in the very low light
cameras.

Ones using Sony chips tend to have the lowest noise and best performance
in the dark. Cameras intended for industrial machine vision or amateur
astronomy have the ultimate lowest readout noise and dark sensitivity
for a price - however you have to trade number of pixels to get it.

I believe some here have mentioned the NiteDevil range but reading
around seems to suggest that these sort of low light cameras (as
opposed to high-end / military I suspect) achieve such with fairly
long shutter times and so are prone to blurring / smearing on any
moving objects?

Starlight is one variety of Sony CCTV camera using the latest generation
chips that will with the right fast lens come close to what you want.
You will end up paying a lot extra for a fast wide angle lens to get the
ultimate in low light video capability. To get an idea of what they can
do have a look at this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlFUaE_e4bo

Skip to the second half for low light video performance of the various
common chips (unless you enjoy mind numbing musak). One trick they often
use is to bin 2x2 or 4x4 pixels to boost signal to noise in low light.

This one compares an iphone 6S, camera and two starlight ones followed
by a random promotional video which may or may not be interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwLsHh2a1VY

If that *is* likely to be an issue, IR would be ok as there is nothing
reflective, as could be basic PIR LED lamps to generally illuminate
the scene.

There are PIR near IR LED illuminators as well as some security LED
lamps that are sufficiently not far IR that I can see them by their
~700nm tail of emission which the eye can see as deep red.

I don't have a specific target / scenario in mind, just that the std
IR illumination with colour during the day and b/w at night must be
the norm for good reason?

You can trade signal to noise by averaging over the pixels to get a
better monochrome image instead of a poxy looking noisy colour one. Same
applies to stereo vs mono audio when the signal is marginal.

There are certainly sensors about now when coupled with the right lens
that will give colour video images by the light of the moon. This is one
area where you do get what you pay for (although overpriced tat exists).


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tuesday, 19 November 2019 09:18:28 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:52:21 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

snip

I have a starlight camera and yes they blur on moving objects.

Thanks.

It doesn't use long shutter times but integrates many frames (512 max I
think).

Sure ... but that worked as a practical overview of *why* it happens.
;-)

It's because there's little or no light.



I don't use it as a security cam.

Ok.

The PIR light is probably the best if the camera can switch to daytime
colour fast enough.

... depending on how long the subject is there to view or how much
footage (can I say that or should I say 'megabytes of video data' g)
you have captured to review?

and the sensor isnl;t sensitive enough to 'see' the light.


I would like a Starlight camera to play with but not sure if there any
VFM models worth having (I believe my recorder (Alien MEGAHero)
supports 1080p FWIW).

Cheers, T i m

Star light camera to me, means the 'camera' has to have an image intensifier attached to it, these can be expensive, the sort of thing you'll get in military binocluars and gun sights.
Modern smartphones can use clever algorithims to artificaly lighten a subject.

The othe roption is to illuminate the subject with a IR lamp, this is the sort of thing they use for security cameras.

Not sure which would be easist to set up for what yuo want to do, but here they do describe things a little better than purhaps I have.

https://www.optics4birding.com/starl...echnology.aspx

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:03:34 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

On 18/11/2019 22:33, T i m wrote:
Hi all,

I was looking into a very basic domestic CCTV solution. I already have
a variety of gear to play with (old cameras, external enclosures,
DVR's etc) but am specifically interested in the very low light
cameras.

I believe some here have mentioned the NiteDevil range but reading
around seems to suggest that these sort of low light cameras (as
opposed to high-end / military I suspect) achieve such with fairly
long shutter times and so are prone to blurring / smearing on any
moving objects?


The sensors in digital cameras/phones can see IR up to around 1.1um
although most may have a filter to exclude the near IR band.

Are these the things you can hear clicking in and out if you put your
finger over the light sensor?

Point your
phone camera at the output of your TV remote and press any button and
probably you will see the IR LED flashing.

Yup. Used that as a remote control basic functionality test many
times. ;-)

Iphones may have a IR filter
on the back camera but possibly not on the front camera.

I don't like / use iPhones.

Military IR cameras operate in the 3um to 5um band or the 8 to 12/14um
band. Cameras fitted to the police helicopters are probably the latter.

Ok.

With these cameras no additional illumination is required.

Although the SX-16 'Nightsun' could be handy?

These cameras
do not have glass lenses because glass blocks the IR in these bands.

Oh, so plastic then, something more exotic or no physical lens as
such?

The domestic CCTV cameras you can buy will be optimised for the visible
band but have response into the near IR band (1.1um). IR has no colour
hence B&W video output.

Check.

So basically you are operating the camera just
outside the visible band and in low light hence longer exposure times,
frame to frame integration over a period of time or additional
illumination (in the IR band)

Check.


If you have an old digital camera and you want to experiment
https://www.instructables.com/id/inf...-the-real-way/


Interesting, thanks.

or

https://tinyurl.com/wdu4oey

Try it on a very cheap web cam.

Good idea.

If you have any processed colour film negatives around the bits at the
end that are completely black can be used as the filter instead of of
the Congo Blue filters mentioned in the above article.

I should have some somewhere.

You could use two
bits(double thickness) of this black negative as a stronger filter.

Cool, thanks.

Can you still get b/w cctv cameras and if so, might they perform
better at night than yer typical colour / b/w camera?

Cheers, T i m

On 19/11/2019 12:47, T i m wrote:

Oh, so plastic then, something more exotic or no physical lens as
such?


More exotic - Germanium lens is common.


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

On 18/11/2019 22:33, T i m wrote:

I believe some here have mentioned the NiteDevil range but reading
around seems to suggest that these sort of low light cameras (as
opposed to high-end / military I suspect) achieve such with fairly
long shutter times and so are prone to blurring / smearing on any
moving objects?

The shutter speed is limited by the frame rate. These cameras store
successive frames then combine them. It's adjustable (everything on
NightDevils is adjustable) so you can get optimum setting for your
application. The most extreme setting gives still pictures in near total
darkness that look like day, but anything moving faster than a council
workman looks like a ghostly apparition!

Look at
https://www.donvalley.tv/cctv
especially the picture captioned 'Although this shot appears to be well
lit its actually quite dark out there!'
That isn't an example of real extreme low light, but if you went out
there you'd find it very dark.

Bill

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 19 November 2019 09:18:28 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:52:21 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

snip

I have a starlight camera and yes they blur on moving objects.

Thanks.

It doesn't use long shutter times but integrates many frames (512 max I
think).

Sure ... but that worked as a practical overview of *why* it happens.
;-)

It's because there's little or no light.



I don't use it as a security cam.

Ok.

The PIR light is probably the best if the camera can switch to daytime
colour fast enough.

... depending on how long the subject is there to view or how much
footage (can I say that or should I say 'megabytes of video data' g)
you have captured to review?

and the sensor isnl;t sensitive enough to 'see' the light.


I would like a Starlight camera to play with but not sure if there any
VFM models worth having (I believe my recorder (Alien MEGAHero)
supports 1080p FWIW).

Cheers, T i m

Star light camera to me, means the 'camera' has to have an image
intensifier attached to it, these can be expensive, the sort of thing
you'll get in military binocluars and gun sights.
Modern smartphones can use clever algorithims to artificaly lighten a
subject.

They dont artificially lighten the subject, they combine multiple
images, much closer to a long exposure but without the smearing.

The othe roption is to illuminate the subject with a IR
lamp, this is the sort of thing they use for security cameras.

Not sure which would be easist to set up for what yuo want to do,
but here they do describe things a little better than purhaps I have.

https://www.optics4birding.com/starl...echnology.aspx

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 04:30:31 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



They don¢t artificially lighten the subject, they combine multiple
images, much closer to a long exposure but without the smearing.

LOL In auto-contradicting mode again, you clinically insane senile ****head?

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

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:51:49 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:33:45 +0000, T i m wrote:

If that *is* likely to be an issue, IR would be ok as there is nothing
reflective, ...

Nothing reflective that you can see with visible light. Vegetation
reflects far more IR than it does red and blue light (which is why it
appears green). Grass verges look snow covered under IR.

Ah, that's true. Maybe I meant not synthetically retro-reflective,
like a car number plate?

... as could be basic PIR LED lamps to generally illuminate the scene.

If the camera switches fast enough and you can get the light levels
high enough.

I have played a bit with a mates system with a mix of different
cameras and you can see the system adjusting the light balance after
say a car has gone past at night with it's headlights on.

Also bear in mind any shadows or areas of lower
illumination are going to be dark or just black.

Another good point. Mate has multiple IR LED equipped pointing in a
range of directions so as long as the cameras aren't being swamped
with light (car headlights) they seem to expose most areas pretty
well.

IR illumination avoids any camera mode switching, though there will
be a exposure issue if when you switch the IR on/off. Leaving the IR
on at low light levels is best. The camera is running at or near
maximum sensitivity so lower illuminated areas aren't completely
black.

I think mate discussed the idea of an 'IR floodlight'. Could that be
better than using the IR illumination in the cameras themselves or
could just turning them down be better?

I don't have a specific target / scenario in mind, just that the std
IR illumination with colour during the day and b/w at night must be
the norm for good reason?

"Colour" is defined the frequency of the lightwaves, so as IR is
outside the the range of frequencies of visible light it has no
colour.

OK.

One can of course transpose a range of IR frequencies into
the visible range and create "false colour" images, as some thermal
image cameras do.

Seen.

How covert do you want to be?

Not at all specifically, it was more of the thought of being able to
determine colour (as our eyes define it) at lower levels of ambient
light.

850 nm (ish) ("near infrared") IR
illuminators are visible as dull red glow.

Noted (on my mates cameras and one I setup for our daughter [1]).

If you shift to 960 nm
(ish) the source is not visible but the sensitivity of most cameras
is noticably falling off by then.

I wonder if you 'masked' an IR light with a visible one, would that
help or hinder most CCTV cameras (at night obviously)?

By that I mean a fairly low level PIR Led floodlight alongside a
higher power IR one (also on a PIR possibly)?

Cheers, T i m

[1] I had an old CCTV DVR and a couple of old colour CCTV cameras and
I set one up looking out of a first floor flat window overlooking her
car in the carpark. During the day everything worked as expected but
as night drew on you could slowly see the IR LEDs surrounding the lens
in the reflection in the window. So I cut some circular blanking rings
and stuck them over the LEDS and because I believe they had Sony CCD's
(that seemed to work well in low light), you could still see
everything pretty clearly at night because there were a couple of
bulkhead lights that were on dusk to dawn that were reasonably bright.
;-)

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:27:00 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 18/11/2019 22:33, T i m wrote:
Hi all,

I was looking into a very basic domestic CCTV solution. I already have
a variety of gear to play with (old cameras, external enclosures,
DVR's etc) but am specifically interested in the very low light
cameras.

Ones using Sony chips tend to have the lowest noise and best performance
in the dark.

I think that's what I have (as mentioned elsewhere) and they did seem
pretty good (to my untrained eye) under pretty low light conditions.
They were quite old so only low(ish?) res at 720 or so?

Cameras intended for industrial machine vision or amateur
astronomy have the ultimate lowest readout noise and dark sensitivity
for a price - however you have to trade number of pixels to get it.

Ah, ok.

I believe some here have mentioned the NiteDevil range but reading
around seems to suggest that these sort of low light cameras (as
opposed to high-end / military I suspect) achieve such with fairly
long shutter times and so are prone to blurring / smearing on any
moving objects?

Starlight is one variety of Sony CCTV camera using the latest generation
chips that will with the right fast lens come close to what you want.
You will end up paying a lot extra for a fast wide angle lens to get the
ultimate in low light video capability. To get an idea of what they can
do have a look at this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlFUaE_e4bo

Interesting.

Skip to the second half for low light video performance of the various
common chips (unless you enjoy mind numbing musak). One trick they often
use is to bin 2x2 or 4x4 pixels to boost signal to noise in low light.

I assume they were all using their own built in IR LEDS and so I would
have like to seen them side by side using a common external IR light
source, so as to get a more accurate comparison of the actual lens /
CCD etc?

This one compares an iphone 6S, camera and two starlight ones followed
by a random promotional video which may or may not be interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwLsHh2a1VY

Thanks.

If that *is* likely to be an issue, IR would be ok as there is nothing
reflective, as could be basic PIR LED lamps to generally illuminate
the scene.

There are PIR near IR LED illuminators as well as some security LED
lamps that are sufficiently not far IR that I can see them by their
~700nm tail of emission which the eye can see as deep red.

Seen.

I don't have a specific target / scenario in mind, just that the std
IR illumination with colour during the day and b/w at night must be
the norm for good reason?

You can trade signal to noise by averaging over the pixels to get a
better monochrome image instead of a poxy looking noisy colour one. Same
applies to stereo vs mono audio when the signal is marginal.

Interesting.

There are certainly sensors about now when coupled with the right lens
that will give colour video images by the light of the moon. This is one
area where you do get what you pay for

I guessed that might be the case. ;-)

(although overpriced tat exists).

Quite and something I'm keen to avoid and hence why I asked here. ;-)

For food for thought.

Cheers, T i m

On 19/11/2019 22:33, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:27:00 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 18/11/2019 22:33, T i m wrote:

I don't have a specific target / scenario in mind, just that the std
IR illumination with colour during the day and b/w at night must be
the norm for good reason?

You can trade signal to noise by averaging over the pixels to get a
better monochrome image instead of a poxy looking noisy colour one. Same
applies to stereo vs mono audio when the signal is marginal.

Interesting.

There are certainly sensors about now when coupled with the right lens
that will give colour video images by the light of the moon. This is one
area where you do get what you pay for

I guessed that might be the case. ;-)

(although overpriced tat exists).

Quite and something I'm keen to avoid and hence why I asked here. ;-)

For food for thought.

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.


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 14:37:25 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

On 18/11/2019 22:33, T i m wrote:

I believe some here have mentioned the NiteDevil range but reading
around seems to suggest that these sort of low light cameras (as
opposed to high-end / military I suspect) achieve such with fairly
long shutter times and so are prone to blurring / smearing on any
moving objects?

The shutter speed is limited by the frame rate.

Or *is* the frame rate in the case of these 'cameras'. ;-)

These cameras store
successive frames then combine them.

Makes sense.

It's adjustable (everything on
NightDevils is adjustable) so you can get optimum setting for your
application.

Ah, that's good to know.

The most extreme setting gives still pictures in near total
darkness that look like day, but anything moving faster than a council
workman looks like a ghostly apparition!

Hehe.

Look at
https://www.donvalley.tv/cctv
especially the picture captioned 'Although this shot appears to be well
lit it’s actually quite dark out there!'

This one:
https://www.donvalley.tv/sites/defau...02_800x432.jpg

That isn't an example of real extreme low light, but if you went out
there you'd find it very dark.

I think I saw that before and agree that's a pretty good image. ;-)

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

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:40:59 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

snip

For food for thought.

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.

I like this:

http://www.pmdo.com/images/wsccamera.jpg

I do miss making up electronics projects. Some of that has been taken
away via microcontrollers etc (and I'm better with a soldering iron
than I am an IDE). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Tuesday, 19 November 2019 17:37:48 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 19 November 2019 09:18:28 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:52:21 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

snip

I have a starlight camera and yes they blur on moving objects.

Thanks.

It doesn't use long shutter times but integrates many frames (512 max I
think).

Sure ... but that worked as a practical overview of *why* it happens.
;-)

It's because there's little or no light.



I don't use it as a security cam.

Ok.

The PIR light is probably the best if the camera can switch to daytime
colour fast enough.

... depending on how long the subject is there to view or how much
footage (can I say that or should I say 'megabytes of video data' g)
you have captured to review?

and the sensor isnl;t sensitive enough to 'see' the light.


I would like a Starlight camera to play with but not sure if there any
VFM models worth having (I believe my recorder (Alien MEGAHero)
supports 1080p FWIW).

Cheers, T i m

Star light camera to me, means the 'camera' has to have an image
intensifier attached to it, these can be expensive, the sort of thing
you'll get in military binocluars and gun sights.
Modern smartphones can use clever algorithims to artificaly lighten a
subject.

They dont artificially lighten the subject, they combine multiple
images, much closer to a long exposure but without the smearing.

But it only works on stationary objects otherwise there will be smearing unless the moving objects such as a thief are ignored,

On Tuesday, 19 November 2019 22:13:15 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:51:49 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

How covert do you want to be?

Not at all specifically, it was more of the thought of being able to
determine colour (as our eyes define it) at lower levels of ambient
light.


That would be a really big challenge because in order to see light as our eyes define it, that light has to be present in the light source illuminating the objects you wish to see.
I remmeber it from physics regarding addictive and subtractive lighting, primary and secondary colours.

another option might be to have a low intensity search light on an automatic pattern of movement that covers the area you wish to view.





Cheers, T i m

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 19 November 2019 17:37:48 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 19 November 2019 09:18:28 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:52:21 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

snip

I have a starlight camera and yes they blur on moving objects.

Thanks.

It doesn't use long shutter times but integrates many frames (512 max
I
think).

Sure ... but that worked as a practical overview of *why* it happens.
;-)

It's because there's little or no light.



I don't use it as a security cam.

Ok.

The PIR light is probably the best if the camera can switch to
daytime
colour fast enough.

... depending on how long the subject is there to view or how much
footage (can I say that or should I say 'megabytes of video data' g)
you have captured to review?

and the sensor isnl;t sensitive enough to 'see' the light.


I would like a Starlight camera to play with but not sure if there any
VFM models worth having (I believe my recorder (Alien MEGAHero)
supports 1080p FWIW).

Cheers, T i m

Star light camera to me, means the 'camera' has to have an image
intensifier attached to it, these can be expensive, the sort of thing
you'll get in military binocluars and gun sights.
Modern smartphones can use clever algorithims to artificaly lighten a
subject.

They dont artificially lighten the subject, they combine multiple
images, much closer to a long exposure but without the smearing.

But it only works on stationary objects

Thats wrong.

otherwise there will be smearing

Thats wrong too.

unless the moving objects such as a thief are ignored,

And so is that.

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

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 19 November 2019 22:13:15 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:51:49 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

How covert do you want to be?

Not at all specifically, it was more of the thought
of being able to determine colour (as our eyes
define it) at lower levels of ambientlight.

That would be a really big challenge because in order to
see light as our eyes define it, that light has to be present
in the light source illuminating the objects you wish to see.

It is tho, even when it looks very dark.

I remmeber it from physics regarding addictive and
subtractive lighting, primary and secondary colours.

But have mangled it comprehensively now.

There isnt a lot of different between gloomy conditions
and in the dark color wise, just a much lower level of
the colors when there isnt any IR illumination, just a
long exposure or adding multiple frames electronically.

another option might be to have a low intensity search light on an
automatic pattern of movement that covers the area you wish to view.

On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 14:17:29 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 19 November 2019 17:37:48 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 19 November 2019 09:18:28 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:52:21 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

snip

I have a starlight camera and yes they blur on moving objects.

Thanks.

It doesn't use long shutter times but integrates many frames (512 max
I
think).

Sure ... but that worked as a practical overview of *why* it happens.
;-)

It's because there's little or no light.



I don't use it as a security cam.

Ok.

The PIR light is probably the best if the camera can switch to
daytime
colour fast enough.

... depending on how long the subject is there to view or how much
footage (can I say that or should I say 'megabytes of video data' g)
you have captured to review?

and the sensor isnl;t sensitive enough to 'see' the light.


I would like a Starlight camera to play with but not sure if there any
VFM models worth having (I believe my recorder (Alien MEGAHero)
supports 1080p FWIW).

Cheers, T i m

Star light camera to me, means the 'camera' has to have an image
intensifier attached to it, these can be expensive, the sort of thing
you'll get in military binocluars and gun sights.
Modern smartphones can use clever algorithims to artificaly lighten a
subject.

They dont artificially lighten the subject, they combine multiple
images, much closer to a long exposure but without the smearing.

But it only works on stationary objects

Thats wrong.

otherwise there will be smearing

Thats wrong too.

unless the moving objects such as a thief are ignored,

And so is that.

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

Smartphones use all sorts of tricks and amplifications, mostly HDR
for such things, 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.

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

On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 14:25:07 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 19 November 2019 22:13:15 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:51:49 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

How covert do you want to be?

Not at all specifically, it was more of the thought
of being able to determine colour (as our eyes
define it) at lower levels of ambientlight.

That would be a really big challenge because in order to
see light as our eyes define it, that light has to be present
in the light source illuminating the objects you wish to see.

It is tho, even when it looks very dark.

I remmeber it from physics regarding addictive and
subtractive lighting, primary and secondary colours.

But have mangled it comprehensively now.

There isnt a lot of different between gloomy conditions
and in the dark color wise,

SO why don;t the military use such a system rather than rely on image intensifiers. Why arenlt the wildlife programmes you see on TV at night in full colour ?

just a much lower level of
the colors when there isnt any IR illumination, just a
long exposure or adding multiple frames electronically.

That's who they take pictures of the deep space to show distant stars and galaxes. But there is light out there to see.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 05:25:07 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave wrote:

How covert do you want to be?

Not at all specifically, it was more of the thought of being able
to
determine colour (as our eyes define it) at lower levels of
ambient
light.

That would be a really big challenge because in order to see light as
our eyes define it, that light has to be present in the light source
illuminating the objects you wish to see.

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

See thes colour moon lit images:

https://www.howhill.com/weather/view...2005&m=01&d=21

Yes the gamma has been tweaked but not the colour balance.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 14:25:07 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 19 November 2019 22:13:15 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:51:49 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

How covert do you want to be?

Not at all specifically, it was more of the thought
of being able to determine colour (as our eyes
define it) at lower levels of ambientlight.

That would be a really big challenge because in order to
see light as our eyes define it, that light has to be present
in the light source illuminating the objects you wish to see.

It is tho, even when it looks very dark.

I remmeber it from physics regarding addictive and
subtractive lighting, primary and secondary colours.

But have mangled it comprehensively now.

There isnt a lot of different between gloomy conditions
and in the dark color wise,

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. 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.

Why arenlt the wildlife programmes
you see on TV at night in full colour ?

Basically because it can be more useful in that
situation to have IR illumination triggered by
the movement of the animal when you are
often counting a particular type of animal
and all you need to do is work out which
type of animal it is and you mostly dont
need color images to do that.

They mostly arent used to just count the number
of say lesser spotted ring tailed nocturnal lemurs
which have a distinctive red blaze on their backs etc.
You're just counting say beavers and not domestic
cats etc or koalas or possums etc and all you need
to see is if its got a tail etc.

just a much lower level of the colors when there
isnt any IR illumination, just a long exposure or
adding multiple frames electronically.

That's who they take pictures of the deep space to show
distant stars and galaxes. But there is light out there to see.

Not with black holes. Thats why they are called that, stupid.

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.

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

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 14:17:29 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 19 November 2019 17:37:48 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 19 November 2019 09:18:28 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 22:52:21 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

snip

I have a starlight camera and yes they blur on moving objects.

Thanks.

It doesn't use long shutter times but integrates many frames (512
max
I
think).

Sure ... but that worked as a practical overview of *why* it
happens.
;-)

It's because there's little or no light.



I don't use it as a security cam.

Ok.

The PIR light is probably the best if the camera can switch to
daytime
colour fast enough.

... depending on how long the subject is there to view or how much
footage (can I say that or should I say 'megabytes of video data'
g)
you have captured to review?

and the sensor isnl;t sensitive enough to 'see' the light.


I would like a Starlight camera to play with but not sure if there
any
VFM models worth having (I believe my recorder (Alien MEGAHero)
supports 1080p FWIW).

Cheers, T i m

Star light camera to me, means the 'camera' has to have an image
intensifier attached to it, these can be expensive, the sort of
thing
you'll get in military binocluars and gun sights.
Modern smartphones can use clever algorithims to artificaly lighten
a
subject.

They dont artificially lighten the subject, they combine multiple
images, much closer to a long exposure but without the smearing.

But it only works on stationary objects

Thats wrong.

otherwise there will be smearing

Thats wrong too.

unless the moving objects such as a thief are ignored,

And so is that.

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.

mostly HDR for such things,

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

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 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.

On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 14:47:50 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 05:25:07 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave wrote:

How covert do you want to be?

Not at all specifically, it was more of the thought of being able
to
determine colour (as our eyes define it) at lower levels of
ambient
light.

That would be a really big challenge because in order to see light as
our eyes define it, that light has to be present in the light source
illuminating the objects you wish to see.

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

See thes colour moon lit images:

So.

as I said yuo need light of teh corect wavelenghs in order to see colour.

You can''t just shine a IR floodlight and get true colour night photos.


https://www.howhill.com/weather/view...2005&m=01&d=21

Yes the gamma has been tweaked but not the colour balance.

But this wasn't taken by a CCTV camera was it ?

I;ve seen pictures taken by the hubble that have exposure times of 20 days.





--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wednesday, 20 November 2019 15:37:55 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message

There isnt a lot of different between gloomy conditions
and in the dark color wise,

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.

So nothing is avaible now at this present moment is there.

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.

So nothing is avaible now at this present moment is there.

Perhaps T i m is willing to spend over a grand on a single camera.



Why arenlt the wildlife programmes
you see on TV at night in full colour ?

Basically because it can be more useful in that
situation to have IR illumination triggered by
the movement of the animal when you are
often counting a particular type of animal
and all you need to do is work out which
type of animal it is and you mostly dont
need color images to do that.

Easier to count & identify them if you can see them in colour.


They mostly arent used to just count the number
of say lesser spotted ring tailed nocturnal lemurs
which have a distinctive red blaze on their backs etc.
You're just counting say beavers and not domestic
cats etc or koalas or possums etc and all you need
to see is if its got a tail etc.

I doubt T i m is looking for lesser spotted ring tailed nocturnal lemurs.

He's more likely to be looking for Brexiteers.
But only he knows what he wants.



just a much lower level of the colors when there
isnt any IR illumination, just a long exposure or
adding multiple frames electronically.

That's who they take pictures of the deep space to show
distant stars and galaxes. But there is light out there to see.

Not with black holes. Thats why they are called that, stupid.

There's harwkins radaition coming from black holes and you can
with the correct equipment, skill and knowledge photograph a black hole.

https://interestingengineering.com/h...ack-hole-taken

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
and not be too worried about them getting nicked.


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.

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 01:17:19 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll****

01:17 in Australia? And you have been up and trolling for HOW long already,
you clinically insane, trolling senile pest? Is your unbearable loneliness
not letting you sleep in again? Serves you right! LOL

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

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 02:45:54 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the sick asshole's troll****

02:45 in Australia??? And you've been up and trolling for OVER AN HOUR, yet
AGAIN????

You ARE clinically insane, right, senile Rodent? I always knew it! LOL

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 01:24:58 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH troll****

01:24??? Is your unbearable loneliness not letting you sleep in again,
senile cretin? GOOOOD!!! LOL


--
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 Thu, 21 Nov 2019 02:37:43 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the clinically insane trolling senile pest's latest troll****

02:37, AGAIN??? ...and you've been up and trolling for OVER AN HOUR already!

Can't you even TRY to hide how miserable you are, you lonely senile pest?

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

On 20/11/2019 15:37, Rod Speed wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

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.

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


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

On 20/11/2019 15:44, alan_m wrote:
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.Â* You can do the same with any CCTV
camera attached to your house assuming that everything in the scene
remains static.

You could try one of these:

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

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

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

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

There isnt a lot of different between gloomy
conditions and in the dark color wise,

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.

So nothing is avaible now at this present moment is there.

Thats less clear. They clearly are rather secretive about
what they use, for a reason, and dont have any reason
for true color night vision. Heat sensitive is what they
need because its impossible to stop the humans
being visible from the higher body temperatures etc.

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.

So nothing is avaible now at this present moment is there.

Record's stuck.

Perhaps T i m is willing to spend over a grand on a single camera.

He hasnt been clear about what he wants it for.

Why arenlt the wildlife programmes
you see on TV at night in full colour ?

Basically because it can be more useful in that
situation to have IR illumination triggered by
the movement of the animal when you are
often counting a particular type of animal
and all you need to do is work out which
type of animal it is and you mostly dont
need color images to do that.

Easier to count & identify them if you can see them in colour.

Thats bull**** with the color, particularly with the nocturnal stuff.

There might just be a reason why the most
colorful birds and fish mostly arent nocturnal.

They mostly arent used to just count the number
of say lesser spotted ring tailed nocturnal lemurs
which have a distinctive red blaze on their backs etc.
You're just counting say beavers and not domestic
cats etc or koalas or possums etc and all you need
to see is if its got a tail etc.

I doubt T i m is looking for lesser
spotted ring tailed nocturnal lemurs.

Duh.

He's more likely to be looking for Brexiteers.
But only he knows what he wants.

And is being very secretive about it.

Bet he's a pervert or a gutless streaker or a terrorist.

just a much lower level of the colors when there
isnt any IR illumination, just a long exposure or
adding multiple frames electronically.

That's who they take pictures of the deep space to show
distant stars and galaxes. But there is light out there to see.

Not with black holes. Thats why they are called that, stupid.

There's harwkins radaition coming from black holes

But even you should have noticed that that isnt visible.

and you can with the correct equipment, skill
and knowledge photograph a black hole.

Only dur to the lack of anything visible from there, stupid.

https://interestingengineering.com/h...ack-hole-taken