DS-2CD2132F-IS sharpness issue

[OldStyle]

Permanently mounted my DS-2CD2132F-IS over the weekend. Took me a bit of time because I wanted it to look very clean, and I achieved that. However, I have to say that not the entire picture appears to be sharp. The camera is facing the rear of my garage (I mounted it towards the front, where the garage door is). The cars, I can see quite clearly and are quite sharp, but the rear wall and what is mounted on it is not. There are two windows in the back, but doubt that is what is causing this issue.

The 2032-I seem noticeably sharper throughout the entire picture.

Any ideas?

 

[fenderman]

Post an image.

 

[OldStyle]

Post an image.

Let me do a bit more research first. I was looking at footage from when I first installed it, and everything looked MUCH sharper throughout the entire picture. Not sure what happened between then and now, but perhaps the dome cover is the culprit.

 

[OldStyle]

So I took off the dome, and still not as sharp as I want it to be. Could it be that I've gotten spoiled by the quality of the DS-2CD2032 and that I'm expecting too much from the DS-2CD2132F-IS?

 

[OldStyle]

Here is a crop of what I'm referring to... The helmets don't look sharp and there a substantial amount of noise on my red cabinet.

 

[Hoog23]

attachment?

 

[OldStyle]

attachment?

 

[bp2008]

It is best to post a complete, full resolution snapshot. You can pull it directly from the camera with the URL http://192.168.0.67/Streaming/channels/1/picture adjusted for your camera's IP address of course.


That snapshot is good enough. Looks like normal lens distortion to me. Lenses aren't perfect. You can clean it up a bit if you increase the bit rate though. Some of that definitely looks like compression artifacts. Reducing frame rate may also help as that boosts the quality of the remaining frames somewhat.

 

[OldStyle]

It is best to post a complete, full resolution snapshot. You can pull it directly from the camera with the URL http://192.168.0.67/Streaming/channels/1/picture adjusted for your camera's IP address of course.


That snapshot is good enough. Looks like normal lens distortion to me. Lenses aren't perfect. You can clean it up a bit if you increase the bit rate though. Some of that definitely looks like compression artifacts. Reducing frame rate may also help as that boosts the quality of the remaining frames somewhat.

I was afraid for that answer. This is a 2.8mm lens, and the objects furthest away are less sharp than objects closer by, which are brutally sharp. I put my face in front of the camera yesterday when I was cleaning the dome and you should see every single strand of hair on my hand individually. Perhaps a 4mm lens would have been a better option.

 

[bp2008]

It may be possible to improve the focus but the lens is almost certainly glued on and you'd have to break or dissolve the glue first.

 

[OldStyle]

It may be possible to improve the focus but the lens is almost certainly glued on and you'd have to break or dissolve the glue first.

Haha, no thanks...

 

[MrCourtney]

The glare coming through the windows is not helping. Dome cameras can be a PITA when trying to handle bright spots. Unless the foam around the lens fits tightly to the dome there can be some leakage from glare and/or IR lighting. I've generally stopped using domes and move to bullets for this reason. Soooo much better.

 

[OldStyle]

The glare coming through the windows is not helping. Dome cameras can be a PITA when trying to handle bright spots. Unless the foam around the lens fits tightly to the dome there can be some leakage from glare and/or IR lighting. I've generally stopped using domes and move to bullets for this reason. Soooo much better.

I took the dome off, and have exactly the same results. I feel like it worked perfectly when I first configured it in my office, and then when I was initially installing it in the garage. But something happened along the way between then and the final install that degraded the quality. I wonder if it's the cat6e cable vs. the cat5e I used during testing.

 

[fenderman]

I took the dome off, and have exactly the same results. I feel like it worked perfectly when I first configured it in my office, and then when I was initially installing it in the garage. But something happened along the way between then and the final install that degraded the quality. I wonder if it's the cat6e cable vs. the cat5e I used during testing.

The cable will make no difference in image quality...its a digital signal...it either works, doesn't or drops packets..but it wont cause this problem...you may have not noticed it when testing because of the way objects were positioned ....

 

[OldStyle]

The cable will make no difference in image quality...its a digital signal...it either works, doesn't or drops packets..but it wont cause this problem...you may have not noticed it when testing because of the way objects were positioned ....

You're right, but I wanted to eliminate it. Just swapped the 25 foot cat6e with a 100 foot cat5e and the same image quality. It has to be about the way the objects are positioned in the garage. Either way, it's really bothering me...

 

[MrCourtney]

Try throw a trap or something over the outside of the window and see if there's improvement. I could be way off base but the glare keeps telling me it's doing something.
Good luck.
BTY - clean the dome real good inside and out before putting it back. Make sure the foam around the lens fits tightly against the dome.

 

[alastairstevenson]

The image did look to me like it was too close focused, despite the bright effect at the door. Whilst recognising that generally the glued-in focus point is usually very good, and best not messed with - if it was mine I'd try a little very gentle twisting of the lens whilst having a good view of the image to see if there is any slack or if the image changes.

 

[OldStyle]

Try throw a trap or something over the outside of the window and see if there's improvement. I could be way off base but the glare keeps telling me it's doing something.
Good luck.
BTY - clean the dome real good inside and out before putting it back. Make sure the foam around the lens fits tightly against the dome.

I blocked it off, and with the garage door open it definitely makes a difference for everything directly around those windows. So that works, thanks! Not perfect, but a definite improvement. The only problem now is that I cannot leave the windows blacked out as my cameras will be in IR mode all the time. So I think it might be best for me to buy some cheap blinds. It'll probably help keep the garage cooler regardless.

 

[OldStyle]

The image did look to me like it was too close focused, despite the bright effect at the door. Whilst recognising that generally the glued-in focus point is usually very good, and best not messed with - if it was mine I'd try a little very gentle twisting of the lens whilst having a good view of the image to see if there is any slack or if the image changes.

I'm actually still surprised, considering it's a 2.8mm lens, that one cannot adjust the focus on these. I took the dome off and the results were the same image-quality wise, making me think it's the focus of the lens rather than the dome. Everything is razor sharp when objects are decently close, but in the further corners of my garage, they're soft.

 

[bp2008]

Again, you'll be able to help it a bit if you max out the bit rate and/or reduce the frame rate. There were some compression artifacts in the snapshot you posted that could be reduced by this.

Something you might also do is play with the Region of Interest (ROI) function in the Video/Audio settings. This will let you tell the encoder it needs to use especially high quality in a certain area (at the cost of image quality in other areas). Not that I'd recommend keeping a region of interest drawn over that corner, but it might be interesting to play with.