Document 7227491

Project Number & Name

121896 DAIMLER MER W213 EL RDR 77GHZ SRR REAR

Document id Document title

Camera and lens evaluation

Author

[Job position entered manually]

Richard Löfwenberg

Date of Release (YYYY-MM-DD)

N/A

Testreport_EN.docx

Document state

Preliminary

Revision Version

Page / Pages

1 of 31

Local Project No.

54028

Evaluation report

Reference cameras and lenses

CONFIDENTIAL - Content herein is the property of Autoliv Electronics AB. Unauthorized duplication of this document is PROHIBITED unless in accordance with written instructions given by Autoliv Electronics AB.

Template : P4-b069 Rev :000





Table of Contents

1.

GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1.

G ENERAL D ATA

2.

SUMMARY OF EVALUATION

2.1.

C AMERA SUMMARY WITH MARKS (0-5) HIGH GRADE IS GOOD

2.2.

L ENS SUMMARY WITH MARKS (0-5) HIGH GRADE IS GOOD

2.3.

C ONCLUSION

2.4.

B

EST CHOICE

3.

TESTS

3.1.

S TATIONARY TESTS

–

OFFICE

3.1.1.

P RE TEST

3.1.2.

FPS TEST

3.1.3.

A NGLE TEST

3.1.4.

R ESOLUTION TEST

3.2.

S TATIONARY TESTS

– B ERGKIRCHEN

3.2.1.

T EST 1 W IDE ANGLE

3.2.2.

T EST 2 – B LIND SPOT PERSON

3.2.3.

T EST 3 – B LIND SPOT CAR , FAR

3.2.4.

T EST 4 – B LIND SPOT CAR , NEAR

3.2.5.

T EST 5 – D AY 2 – BSM FAR , SIDE

3.2.6.

T EST 6 – BSM NEAR , SIDE

3.2.7.

T EST 7 – RCTA 10 M

3.2.8.


3.2.9.


3.2.10.

T EST 10 – LDP SIDE 20 KMH

3.2.11.

T EST 11 – LDP BACK 20 KMH

3.2.12.

T

EST

12 – LDP

BACK

40

KMH

3.3.

M OVING TESTS

– B ERGKIRCHEN

3.3.1.

B ACKLIGHT

3.3.2.

F AST MOVING CARS

4.

FURTHER POSSIBILITIES

4.1.

W IRELESS CAMERAS

1. General Information


Page / Pages Document state

2 of 31 Preliminary

Revision

000

Version

1

1.1. General Data

Test Objective

Date Of Testing

General Data

Evaluation of new reference cameras to replace the existing ABUS TV7511.

03.04.2014

09.04.2014

4

9

9

14

16

19

22

24

4

4

5

6

7

26

27

28

28

29

29

30

30

31

3

3

3

4

4

2

2

31

31







Location

Weather day 1

Weather day 2

Evaluated cameras

Evaluated lenses

Camera server

Video protocol

FPS

Resolution

Voltage used

Power supply




Revision

000

Autoliv office in Dachau

Bergkirchen

Clear sky, sunny. Morning

– midday.

Cloudy, partly sunny. Morning - midday

ABUS TV7511 S/N: TV7511####C5000597ATA

Pixim Seawolf SW100-B S/N: 612132007820003

Sony EFFIO-P MNL2355X S/N: Not specified

Jensen 2,5 mm F2.0

3,6 mm F2.0

Jensen 25 mm F2.0

AXIS Q7404 S/N: 00408CD74944

For pretest with Pixim and Sony: AXIS P7214

H.264

See for every test

4CIF(704x576)

Power supply set to 12.47 V. Not calibrated

For pretest with Pixim and Sony: 13.98 V

For the in car tests the cars battery was used: ~14.40 V

Manson NSP-2050 (HIL FSW NSP#01) S/N: MG291308827

Version

1

2. Summary of evaluation

2.1. Camera summary with marks (0-5) high grade is good

Test

Pretest

1 Wide angle

2 Blind spot person

Sony

4

4

4

4 Blind spot car, near 5

5 BSM, far, side 3

6 BSM, near, side

7 RCTA 10m

8 RCTA 4m

9 RCTA 1m

3

3

3

3

10 LDC side 20 kmh 4

11 LDC back 20 kmh 4

12 LDC back 40 kmh 4

Backlight 4

Fast moving cars

Summary

5

3,79

5

5

5

5

Pixim

4

5

5

3

5

5

5

5

5

4

4,71

4

3

3

3

ABUS

3

3

3

3

4

3

3

3

3

2

3,073

2.2. Lens summary with marks (0-5) high grade is good

Test

1 Wide angle

2 Blind spot person

3 Blind spot car, far

4 Blind spot car, near

2.5mm

4

5

4

5

3.6mm

4

0

4

4

25mm

2

0

0

0







5 BSM, far, side

6 BSM, near, side

7 RCTA 10m

8 RCTA 4m

9 RCTA 1m

10 LDC side 20kmh

11 LDC back 20 kmh

12 LDC back 40 kmh

Backlight

Summary

5

5

5

5

5

4

4

4

5

4,62

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

4

4,15




Revision

000

Version

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0,15

2.3. Conclusion

The grades say it all. The best choice is the Pixim with the 2,5mm lens. Even though it had a slightly higher bitrate than the Sony outdoor was it so much better. In the far distance the 3,6mm lens was better, so perhaps for the rear camera that the 3,6mm is preferred and 2,5mm on the sides.

5 fps should be picked for frame rate, see separate Conclusion

4CIF should be used for resolution, see separate Conclusion

2.4. Best choice

Camera

Lens 0-40m

Lens 40-80m

Frame rate

Resolution

Pixim Seawolf SW100-B

Jensen 2,5 mm F2.0

3,6mm F2.0

5 FPS

4CIF(704x576)

3. Tests

3.1. Stationary tests

– office

3.1.1. Pre-test

Pixim 3,6mm

FPS: 25

Sony 3,6mm

FPS: 25

ABUS

FPS: 25

Comment

Pretest\Pixim_3.6mm_first_test.asf

Pretest\Pixim_3.6mm_first_test_media_info.txt

Bitrate: 11,16 MB/min

Pretest\Sony_3.6mm_first_test.asf

Pretest\Sony_3.6mm_first_test_dark.asf

Pretest\Sony_3.6mm_first_test_media_info.txt


Pretest\ABUS_first_test.asf

Pretest\ABUS_first_test_info.txt


The quality of the Pixim is better than the Sony, the colors are sharper and the sharpness is better. The Pixim-chipset has easier to adapt to screens










Revision

000

Version

1 and there is no flicker like there is from the Sony.

Sony has the advantage in shaky conditions, it’s quicker to respond and there is no blur. We will see later how that affects the driving.

Pixim has easier to adapt to the lights although the Sony seems to be better all-round.

In the dark test both adapt quite fast to the light conditions. Interesting is that the screen doesn’t flick for the Sony when it’s dark. The Pixim has much harder to adapt to strong light sources in the dark.

During the test I’ve noticed that the Pixim requires quite much light to turn back to color-mode after being in black-white. I h aven’t noticed that in the

Sony.

Pixim has a much lower bitrate than the Sony, but it doesn’t seem to affect the picture quality.

Overall the Pixim is more sensitive to light, the Sony has much easier to adapt to the ceiling light.

Conclusion and marks Sony – 4: The Sony behaved quite well, the flaws were the disability to focus on the LCD and the high bitrate.

Pixim – 4: Also good behavior. Flaws were oversensitivity to light in dark conditions and blur during the shake.

ABUS – 3: Behaved quite well, although the darkness was hard for it.

3.1.2. FPS test

Objective:

Camera used

25 FPS

20 FPS

15 FPS

To see which FPS is the best compromise between quality and bitrate

A film of a car is played and recorded by the camera that can simulate the driving. Test different FPS and measure bitrate.

Sony

FPS_test\FPS_test_25fps_1.asf

FPS_test\FPS_test_25fps_1_info.txt



























10 FPS

5 FPS

1 FPS

Conclusion




Revision

000

Version

1

































There is quite a difference between recording in 25 and 1 fps, the files are very much smaller, but the quality suffers from it. One fps is a little bit too slow, there can happen quite much in one second, you almost miss the overtaking in the film for example.

5 fps is probably the best, there isn’t so much happening in a fifth of a second; a car closing in on autobahn in a 50km/h speed difference will be captured every 2-3 meter.

3.1.3. Angle test

Description

Pictures used

2,5mm

3,6mm

With help of two pictures from the test I’ve calculated the AOV of the two lenses with the unit circle and trigonometry.

Test_3\Pixim_3.6mm_test_3.jpg

Test_3\Pixim_2.5mm_test_3.jpg

96°

73°







3.1.4. Resolution test

D1

(720x576)




Revision

000

Version

1







4CIF

(704x576)




Revision

000

Version

1

2CIF

(704x288)







CIF

(352x288)




Revision

000

Version

1

QCIF

(176x144)

Conclusion The difference between D1 and 4CIF isn’t big, 4CIF is a little bit narrower, but it’s just black space that is removed so using D1 is not necessary. The other resolutions are too small, the details aren’t good enough. The little bitrate we save on 4CIF is at least something, therefore 4CIF should be used.

3.2. Stationary tests – Bergkirchen

3.2.1. Test 1 - Wide angle

Test 1 – Wide angle

Objective:

Cameras are placed on desk. How many squares in the floor is it 5 meters forward? See the red ring in Fig 3. Is it possible to count the squares at even greater distance? Test with all lenses







Fig 1




Revision

000

Version

1

Pixim 2,5mm







Pixim 3,6mm




Revision

000

Version

1

Pixim 25mm







Sony 2,5mm




Revision

000

Version

1

Sony 3,6mm







Sony 25mm




Revision

000

Version

1

ABUS

Comment This test was altered compared to the instructions. There were too many bricks on the floor and too unclear to count. Instead you can see the borders










Revision

000

Version

1 of the image.

In these images you can clearly see that the ABUS doesn’t handle backlight very well. The stick at a distance of 3,7m and all three cameras are adjusted to have the stick in the middle. The Pixim and the Sony are quite similar, it`s quite hard to say which is the better one. The Sony does have a little bit softer colors, and outdoor maybe that it is a little bit better quality. On the other hand is the Sony has a little bit harder to manage the colors, there is disturbances e.g. on the corner of the trailer.

The 2.5mm lens gives approx. 2 meter wider angle of view (AOV) on both sides. But the quality overall is worse. The 25mm lens is very zoomed in, not suitable for this type of use.

The resolution isn’t any better on either of the cameras. I think the problem lies within the video server; it cannot deliver any higher resolution than it already does.

Conclusion and marks Pixim – 5: Nothing to complain about, good result.

Sony – 4: Unbalance in the colors, otherwise good.

ABUS – 3: The colors are not good.

2.5mm – 4: Good wide angle but a little bit blurry in the edges.

3.6mm – 4: A little bit narrower AOV but better sharpness.

25mm – 2: Worthless in the given scenario, although good quality.

3.2.2. Test 2 – Blind spot person

Test 2 – Person BSM

Objective:

Pixim 2,5mm

FPS: 25

A person is standing in (-4m, 4m). Is the person distorted? How good can you see the face of the person? The person moves to (-1m, 4m), how does the movement look? Test with all lenses.

Test_2\Pixim_2.5mm_test_2.asf

Test_2\Pixim_2.5mm_test_2_info.txt








Pixim 3,6mm




Revision

000

Version

1

Pixim 25mm

Sony 2,5mm

FPS: 25

N/A

Test_2\Sony_2.5mm_test_2.asf

Test_2\Sony_2.5mm_test_2_info.txt








Sony 3,6mm




Revision

000

Version

1

Sony 25mm

ABUS

FPS: 25

Comment

N/A

Test_2\ABUS_test_2.asf

Test_2\ABUS_test_2_info.txt


There we saw the disadvantage of the 3,6mm lens, when there is a person in the blind spot it isn’t sure this camera will capture it.

It isn’t much, but the MTV-lens is better than the fixed ABUS-lens. The body becomes a little bit more crooked with the ABUS. The bitrates are lower in this test, probably due to the fact that the cameras are fixed. Once again the

Sony has the highest bitrate. The color setting of the Pixim makes the shirt look darker than the Sony.

Conclusion and mark Sony – 4: There isn’t much to see, but the quality is ok, the flaw once again is the bitrate.

Pixim – 5: Good, nothing to remark on.

ABUS – 3: Bad colors, otherwise good

2.5mm – 5: Only lens that could see the body.

3.6mm – 0: Did not pass the test.

25mm – 0: Did not pass the test.

3.2.3. Test 3 – Blind spot car, far

Test 3 – Car BSM

Objective:

A car is standing with the front right corner in (-1m, 3m). How does the side of the car look? Test with all lenses







Pixim 2,5mm




Revision

000

Version

1

Pixim 3,6mm

Pixim 25mm N/A







Sony 2,5mm




Revision

000

Version

1

Sony 3,6mm

Sony 25mm N/A







ABUS




Revision

000

Version

1

Comment The 2.5 lens gives grater angle, the 3.6 gives more quality. Nothing new to mention about the cameras.

Conclusion and marks 2.5mm – 4: Great AOV but worse quality

3.6mm

– 4: Great quality but worse AOV

3.2.4. Test 4 – Blind spot car, near

Objective: The car is now standing at (-1, 1).







Pixim 2,5mm




Revision

000

Version

1

Pixim 3,6mm

Pixim 25mm N/A







Sony 2,5mm




Revision

000

Version

1

Sony 3,6mm

Sony 25mm N/A







ABUS




Revision

000

Version

1

Comment The wheels are much less distorted on the 2.5mm lens compared to the

ABUS but without losing angle width. The Sony has much better quality in this scenario.

Conclusion and marks Pixim

– 3: A bit blurry and has problems with the light.

Sony – 5: Everything looks great.

ABUS

– 3: Trouble with lights and colors

2.5mm – 5: Does the job, very little distortion.

3.6mm

– 4: Once again a little bit too narrow but almost no distortion

3.2.5. Test 5 – Day 2 – BSM far, side

Objective: Now simulating the side cameras the camera board are turned 60°. The car is standing in (-1m, 3m).







Pixim 3,6mm




Revision

000

Version

1

Sony 2,5mm







ABUS




Revision

000

Version

1

Comments The Pixim did really well in this test, and so did the 3,6mm lens. The Sony struggled with the bright light, the lens were very good although, no problem with distortion, just the crane look distorted but then it’s in the extreme edge.

With help from geometry and the pictures I’ve calculated later in the office the rotation to 50 °, not 60°.

Conclusion and marks Pixim

– 5: Really good colors.

Sony – 3: The camera doesn’t handle the light conditions that well. Colors are very bad

ABUS – 4: The colors are off, otherwise good

3,6mm

– 4: Good sharpness, the last point missing because lack of AOV.

2,5mm – 5: Good sharpness and AOV although the Sony didn’t behave well.

3.2.6. Test 6 – BSM near, side

Description The car is now standing in (-1m, 1m)







Pixim 3,6mm




Revision

000

Version

1

Sony 2,5mm







ABUS




Revision

000

Version

1

Comment As above

Conclusion and marks As above

3.2.7. Test 7 – RCTA 10m

Test 7 – Person and car RCTA, side camera

Description:

All three in 5 FPS

A person starts in (0m, 20m) and goes to (-27.5m, 20m). When is it possible to see the person? Repeat with a car, does the car become distorted?

Repeat with the points (0m, 10m) to (-27.5m, 10m).

This test is for the side camera (behind Bpillar). Turn the camera 60° to the right and back one meter.

This was the original description, due to limited space the test was in the distances 10, 4 and 1 meter. Add one meter because the camera is supposed to be one meter back now.

The car drives sideways according the camera and not parallel as in the description, this is because this system is designed for cars coming from the sides.







Test 7




Revision

000

Version

1

Pixim 3,6mm

Sony 2,5mm

ABUS

Test_7\Pixim_RCTA_10m.asf

Test_7\Pixim_RCTA_10m_info.txt


Test_7\Sony_RCTA_10m.asf

Test_7\Sony_RCTA_10m_info.txt


Test_7\ABUS_RCTA_10m.asf

Test_7\ABUS_RCTA_10m_info.txt

Bitrate 1,44 MB/min

Comment The Pixim manages this test quite well, the light conditions is not such a drawback for the camera.

The Sony immediately struggle with the light, overall the colors are very bad.

The ABUS has trouble with the colors and is way too dark.

The 3,6mm is ideal for this scenario, it tracks the vehicle the whole way and in the left corner the back side camera will take over.

The 2,5mm lens is good, you have full line of sight, and the distortion is only significant in the extreme edges.

Interesting is that once we got out, the Pixim has the highest bitrate, perhaps because there is better quality on that one.

Conclusion and marks Pixim – 5: Very good colors and best of the three

Sony – 3: The colors are very bad

ABUS – 3: Also bad colors

2,5mm – 5: Very good


3.2.8. Test 8 – RCTA 4m

Description Now the distance is 4 meter







Pixim 3,6mm

Sony 2,5mm







ABUS Test_8\ABUS_RCTA_5m.asf



Comment Pretty much like last test

Conclusion and marks See last test

3.2.9. Test 9 – RCTA 1m

Description

Pixim 3,6mm

Sony 2,5mm

Now the distance is 1 meter







ABUS Test_9\ABUS_RCTA_1m.asf



Comment See last test





Revision

000

Version

1

3.2.10. Test 10 – LDP side 20kmh

Test 10

Description:

All videos 5 FPS

A car starts in the point (-80, 4) and drives to the point (-10, 4). Repeat with the points (-80, 0) and (-10, 0). How does the car look?

Due to limited space, the car started in the point (-55, 4).

Pixim 3,6mm

Sony 2,5mm

Test_10\Pixim_LDP_side_20kmh.asf

Test_10\Pixim_LDP_side_20kmh_info.txt


Test_10\Sony_LDP_side_20kmh.asf










Revision

000

Version

1

Test_10\Sony_LDP_side_20kmh_info.txt


ABUS

Comment

Test_10\ABUS_LDP_side_20kmh.asf

Test_10\ABUS_LDP_side_20kmh_info.txt


The Pixim once again is very good.

The Sony has some problems with the light, but this time it’s tolerable, the glare from the car is not good.

The ABUS is very bad here; the car glares and the colors are bad.

Between the lenses it’s a little bit of a dead heat, it’s a little bit easier to see the car moving in the most distance on the 3,6mm so when you add 30 meter then it’s the best one.

Conclusion and marks Pixim – 5: Nothing remarkable

Sony – 4: Works this time

ABUS – 3: Not good at all, but it worked

2,5mm – 4: Missed last point, see the last sentence in the comment.


3.2.11. Test 11 – LDP back 20kmh

Description

Pixim 3,6mm

Sony 2,5mm

Now the car moves from (-50,0) to (0,0)

Test_11\Pixim_LDP_back_20kmh.asf

Test_11\Pixim_LDP_back_20kmh_info.txt


Test_11\Sony_LDP_back_20kmh.asf

Test_11\Sony_LDP_back_20kmh_info.txt


ABUS Test_11\ABUS_LDP_back_20kmh.asf

Test_11\ABUS_LDP_back_20kmh_info.txt


Comment Like last test


3.2.12. Test 12 – LDP back 40kmh

Description

Pixim 3,6mm

Sony 2,5mm

ABUS

Comment

Same as 3.2.12. but at 40 kmh

Test_12\Pixim_LDP_back_40kmh.asf

Test_12\Pixim_LDP_back_40kmh_info.txt


Test_12\Sony_LDP_back_40kmh.asf

Test_12\Sony_LDP_back_40kmh_info.txt


Test_12\ABUS_LDP_back_40kmh.asf

Test_12\ABUS_LDP_back_40kmh_info.txt


See last test











Revision

000

Version

1

3.3. Moving tests – Bergkirchen

3.3.1. Backlight

Description:

Pixim 3,6mm

Sony 2,5mm

I tried to make the camera shake and also directed it to sunlight and higher speeds.

Backlight_test\Pixim_backlight_5fps.asf

Backlight_test\Pixim_backlight_5fps_info.txt


Backlight_test\Pixim_backlight_10fps_1.asf

Backlight_test\Pixim_backlight_10fps_1_info.txt


Backlight_test\Pixim_backlight_10fps_2.asf

Backlight_test\Pixim_backlight_10fps_2_info.txt


Backlight_test\Sony_backlight_5fps.asf

Backlight_test\Sony_backlight_5fps_info.txt


Backlight_test\Sony_backlight_10fps_1.asf

Backlight_test\Sony_backlight_10fps_1_info.txt


Backlight_test\Sony_backlight_10fps_2.asf

Backlight_test\Sony_backlight_10fps_2_info.txt


ABUS

Comments

Backlight_test\ABUS_backlight_5fps.asf

Backlight_test\ABUS_backlight_5fps_info.txt


Backlight_test\ABUS_backlight_10fps_1.asf

Backlight_test\ABUS_backlight_10fps_1_info.txt


Backlight_test\ABUS_backlight_10fps_2.asf

Backlight_test\ABUS_backlight_10fps_2_info.txt


The Pixim is as in all the other outdoor tests, the best. It blocked out the sun good and the colors where brilliant.

The Sony did quite well, but it had problems with the sun. Although you saw more of the sky compared to the Pixim, there was a big fat stripe across the screen.

Worse of them all was the ABUS, no good colors and awful backlight

“protection”

The lenses was a dead heat where the 2,5mm wins only due to wider AOV

Conclusion and marks Pixim – 5: Good as always

Sony – 4: Bad backlight

ABUS – 3: Everything bad

2,5mm – 5: Good

3,6mm – 4: Lost one point due to AOV










Revision

000

Version

1

3.3.2. Fast moving cars

Description:

Pixim 3,6mm

Record fast moving cars and see how they look.

Fast_cars\Pixim_fastcars_5fps.asf

Fast_cars\Pixim_fastcars_5fps_info.txt

Sony 2,5mm

ABUS

Comments


Fast_cars\Sony_fastcars_5fps.asf

Fast_cars\Sony_fastcars_5fps_info.txt


Fast_cars\ABUS_fastcars_5fps.asf

Fast_cars\ABUS_fastcars_5fps_info.txt


Both the Pixim and the Sony are good here, there isn’t much to say.

Interesting thing is that the Pixim is far more sensitive to change in light, the last seconds is hard to believe that it is the same recording, the Pixim’s recording becomes far darker than the Sony’s

The ABUS was particularly bad here.

The lenses was uninteresting in this case

Conclusion and marks Pixim – 4: Lost one because of the light condition

Sony – 5: Good in this case

ABUS – 2: Very bad colors and contrast

4. Further possibilities

4.1. Wireless cameras

It could be very handy with a camera that is wireless and you can place wherever you want on the vehicle. For this case the FPV-community is a good place to look. FPV stands for First Person View and is what RC-flyers use to control their planes via video. To do this you’ll need a receiver, a transmitter, a camera, a battery and it would be handy with a box to fit it all into. I’ve found a good starter kit at a reasonably price http://www.globe-flight.de/58-GHz-Immersionflight-SET-ADVANCED

There is the transmitter and receiver included. There it is a RCA-connector from the transmitter and we use BNC in our video server therefore we need an adapter. Possible to buy at most electric retailers but I’ve included a link http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/3-00m-Video-Anschlusskabel-Cinch-Stecker-auf-BNC-Stecker-

Schwarz_749913.html

For the powering there is a good deal of RC-batteries to use. The perk with this is that they are small but still powerful. All three cameras consume about 0,12A with a voltage of ~12,5V and the transmitter only about 0.002A according to the producer. With this battery http://www.globe-flight.de/Gens-Ace-3s-111V-2200mAh-25C-mit-XT60-passend-fuer-DJI-Phantom_1 you would get an awful lot of battery time, there exists also batteries that are cheaper and therefore weaker.

The drawback with a RC-battery is that you have to buy a special RC-battery charger, but that’s a onetime cost.



Document 7227491

Evaluation report

Reference cameras and lenses

Table of Contents

1. General Information

1.1. General Data

2. Summary of evaluation

2.1. Camera summary with marks (0-5) high grade is good

2.2. Lens summary with marks (0-5) high grade is good

2.3. Conclusion

2.4. Best choice

3. Tests

3.1. Stationary tests

– office

3.1.1. Pre-test

3.1.2. FPS test

3.1.3. Angle test

3.1.4. Resolution test

3.2. Stationary tests – Bergkirchen

3.2.1. Test 1 - Wide angle

3.2.2. Test 2 – Blind spot person

3.2.3. Test 3 – Blind spot car, far

3.2.4. Test 4 – Blind spot car, near

3.2.5. Test 5 – Day 2 – BSM far, side

3.2.6. Test 6 – BSM near, side

3.2.7. Test 7 – RCTA 10m

3.2.8. Test 8 – RCTA 4m

3.2.9. Test 9 – RCTA 1m

3.2.10. Test 10 – LDP side 20kmh

3.2.11. Test 11 – LDP back 20kmh

3.2.12. Test 12 – LDP back 40kmh

3.3. Moving tests – Bergkirchen

3.3.1. Backlight

3.3.2. Fast moving cars

4. Further possibilities

4.1. Wireless cameras

Related documents

Products

Support

Document 7227491

Evaluation report

Reference cameras and lenses

Table of Contents

1. General Information

1.1. General Data

2. Summary of evaluation

2.1. Camera summary with marks (0-5) high grade is good

2.2. Lens summary with marks (0-5) high grade is good

2.3. Conclusion

2.4. Best choice

3. Tests

3.1. Stationary tests

– office

3.1.1. Pre-test

3.1.2. FPS test

3.1.3. Angle test

3.1.4. Resolution test

3.2. Stationary tests – Bergkirchen

3.2.1. Test 1 - Wide angle

3.2.2. Test 2 – Blind spot person

3.2.3. Test 3 – Blind spot car, far

3.2.4. Test 4 – Blind spot car, near

3.2.5. Test 5 – Day 2 – BSM far, side

3.2.6. Test 6 – BSM near, side

3.2.7. Test 7 – RCTA 10m

3.2.8. Test 8 – RCTA 4m

3.2.9. Test 9 – RCTA 1m

3.2.10. Test 10 – LDP side 20kmh

3.2.11. Test 11 – LDP back 20kmh

3.2.12. Test 12 – LDP back 40kmh

3.3. Moving tests – Bergkirchen

3.3.1. Backlight

3.3.2. Fast moving cars

4. Further possibilities

4.1. Wireless cameras

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib