"Deep Reset" <DeepReset (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

Not so rarely, for the consumer rated setups, and the OP is
seeking an "AV camera" in the subject line.

Luck;
Ken

"tg" <tg (AT) nospamevereverever (DOT) net> wrote

This kind of reaction tells us much about you, and provides little
motivation to help address the issue you originally raised.

As Mr. Crowley has pointed out, there is a need to correct the
misleading information, as I tried to do in my reply. There is no
value to pointing out perceived personal flaws, I personally try
to only make personal comments, after the individual has provided
ample evidence of their combative nature.

Luck;
Ken

"Trev" <trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM> wrote

What you see on the monitor/LCD is after the optics and image
sensor(s) [most likely 1/6" CCD] have had their impact. Check
out this thread for some information that would be helpful in
finding a used camera for this purpose.
http://www.videohelp.com/forum/archive/t315673.html

One thing not mentioned, in the thread, are the older analog
VHS-C camcorders, they have "AV" outputs and a little better
chance for low light performance. (The Geeks had a refurbished
JVC GR-AXM17U for $99, recently) But even with something
like this you will need some lighting, even if it's just a Tensor Lamp.

But my suggestion is for cameras that are not in the 5 LUX and
above set, or even the 3 LUX capable cameras. Try a Google on
"Low Light surveillance cameras" (without the quotes).

Luck;
Ken

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net> wrote

Nope, sorry Ken, worked with a fair few surveillance cameras, not one of 'em
had an "A" input or output.
I've added mikes and amplifiers to them, but I've never seen a (decent) low
light camera with one fitted.

Deep.

"Deep Reset" <DeepReset (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

There is so much that can be done with a qualifier like "(decent)", isn't
there. I would agree with what you have said, as a matter of comparison
between the various professional and consumer devices available. Still,
there are some units with built-in audio such as used for Baby or Entrance
monitors.

I am not saying that the OP should be looking for such a consumer "AV
camera" solution, just that they exist. They are even in the neighborhood
Radio Shack:
The cheapest I found:
http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...ntPage=familyA more expensive one:http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...entPage=family Now I agree none of the cameras fall in the "(decent)" category,when viewing the capabilities of more professional gear, but theyare surveillance cameras with audio and therefore both "A" and "V". The OP doesn't need any "A" from his camera, he will be usinga headset mic, most likely. There are real low light surveillance cameras (<1 LUX) and theycan be fitted with fixed lenses or adjusted to function as the OPintends. They are generally small and most provide an analogvideo signal that can match the requirements of the "V" part ofthe OP's "AV capture". A good bullet camera, might be foundto address the requirements. Sense most of these cameras use 1/3" image sensors insteadof the 1/6" sensors of the camcorders, they start out with anadvantage, in low light performance. It may even be possible that the OP could just add a white"pillar box" to his monitor display, and provide enough light.Luck; Ken

"Trev" <trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM> wrote in message

Why is that? (Not disputing - just thought that the ISO was dealt with at
the sensor end of the camera.)

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net> wrote

http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...entPage=family


A more expensive one:
http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...entPage=family


Now I agree none of the cameras fall in the "(decent)" category,when
viewing the capabilities of more professional gear, but theyare surveillance
cameras with audio and therefore both "A" and "V".

The OP doesn't need any "A" from his camera, he will be using
a headset mic, most likely.

There are real low light surveillance cameras (<1 LUX) and they
can be fitted with fixed lenses or adjusted to function as the OP
intends. They are generally small and most provide an analog
video signal that can match the requirements of the "V" part of
the OP's "AV capture". A good bullet camera, might be found
to address the requirements.

Sense most of these cameras use 1/3" image sensors instead
of the 1/6" sensors of the camcorders, they start out with an
advantage, in low light performance.

It may even be possible that the OP could just add a white
"pillar box" to his monitor display, and provide enough light.

Luck;
Ken

P.S. Hope this is better.

"G Hardy" <gareth.hardy1 (AT) ntlwrold (DOT) com> wrote

camera uses clever mathematics to filter out noise and produce colour. If
they get it right you get a good captured image but it takes place at the
capture stage.

"Trev" <trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM> wrote

Oh right - I think I understand what you meant, now.

I _thought_ you meant that any artificial processing done by the camera on
the sensor's image would not get shown on a monitor - clearly daft, which is
why I queried it.

I now realise you meant that if you have two cameras, one of which has a
lower F stop while the other has higher ISO sensitivity they will (between
them) produce more or less the same image.

I know there's likely to be a mathematical relationship between the F Stops
you need to drop in order to make up for the lack of one higher ISO setting,
but I've no idea what it is... )

It's worth aiming towards a better lens than higher ISO though. Not only
will it give better results when the camera is used in its "day job"
capacity (recording video to tape in normal light), it means there's less
image processing going on during its night-time webcam duties. A clearer
picture will be easier to compress, so the webcam image will look better at
the receiving end or need less bandwidth to transmit or use less CPU power -
or a combination of the three.

In message <B9edncQ0SOpOc53bnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d (AT) pipex (DOT) net>, Trev
<trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM@?.?.invalid> writes
low-light figure in lux, but they don't specify what sort of picture you
get at that limit, so I'd question if it is worth putting it in the
spec. I doubt that all manufacturers use the same "acceptable picture"
for their lux spec.

IME, the picture starts to degrade much above the spec's minimum light
figure - notably in contrast, colour saturation and in granularity.

--
Tony Morgan