Rear Van Cameras ccd or Cmos, in Theory & Practice

Submitted: Sunday, Aug 03, 2008 at 14:21
ThreadID: 60439 Views:5145 Replies:5 FollowUps:8
This Thread has been Archived
I thought buying a Rear Camera/Screen for the van would not be complicated at all, its not, its involved.

Am told that a ccd camera (infra red??) is a lot better in low light (dusk/dawn) than the Cmos unit. Also the Cmos cameras are more impacted by headlights, a flash from rear oncoming headlights will blank out the camera for a longer period than a ccd camera. I am talking here of a Cmos costing $189 and a ccd for $280. Understand also that the ccd has a slight green tinge in low light that is not there in full light.

Have purchased the ccd at a good discount along with a screen that fits onto the rear vision mirror, on the understanding that if I am not happy with the ccd camera in the next few days can exchange it for a Cmos and cash difference. Will bench test my screen and ccd camera with mates screen and cmos camera.

Would appreciate your experiences with one or both cameras.

Peter


Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: RoyHarvey - Sunday, Aug 03, 2008 at 14:45

Sunday, Aug 03, 2008 at 14:45
Hi Peter
IMHO CCD provides a much better quality image.
I bought the components for our system off ebay.
7" TV monitor with 2 AV inputs was ~$120
1 CCD w'proof camera for back of van ~ $60 (Approx 90 deg angle of view, & need CCD for longer distance clarity.)
2 CMOS w'proof cameras, one for back of tug, one under van to monitor wheels & tyres. ~ $45 ea (Approx 120 deg angle of view, CMOS are OK for short distance.)
Cheers Roy
AnswerID: 318778

Follow Up By: sailorbaz - Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 14:43

Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 14:43
Hi Roy,
I'm in the process of setting up cameras on the Pajero and on the back of the caravan. I've been looking on ebay and there are plenty of CMOS cameras to choose from but when it comes to CCD cameras - a lot say they are only water resistant, in fact one says don't get it wet!! The best ones look like the Sharp or the Sony but both are on a stand with what looks like a tiny pin between the stand and camera. I intend to mount it on the spare wheel carrier on the back of the van but with vibration I don't know how long it would last.
What type have you got and how is it mounted?
Thanks for any help.
Barry
0
FollowupID: 589672

Follow Up By: RoyHarvey - Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 19:02

Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 19:02
Hi Barry
The CCD camera on the back of our van is similar to:-
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/12-24V-HD-120-CCD-IR-reversing-camera-crystal-clear_W0QQitemZ350091764575QQihZ022QQcategoryZ32826QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


The CMOS cameras are similar to:-
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Night-Vision-Car-Rear-View-CMOS-Color-Camera-5M-Cable_W0QQitemZ170255453761QQihZ007QQcategoryZ32826QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I made our camera brackets / shields from 3mm polycarbonate (Lexan) sheet. All the cameras have condensation / misting problems in really cold or wet weather even though they are well shielded from rain.

I took some photos, but because I'm not a member I can't post them! If you can let me know your email address I'd be happy to send them!

Hope this helps
Cheers Roy
0
FollowupID: 589720

Follow Up By: sailorbaz - Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 21:48

Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 21:48
Hi Roy,
Thanks for the info. The CCD camera is just what I was looking for.
My email is barry.dunwoody@gmail.com - I would appreciate the pics.
Many thanks
Barry
0
FollowupID: 589792

Reply By: Member - Graham H (QLD) - Sunday, Aug 03, 2008 at 18:03

Sunday, Aug 03, 2008 at 18:03
Look for listings on Ebay by 95soarer and buy one of his minicams for about $30 they do the job admirably. Had an infrared Swann one which cost #129 and was crap in bright sunlight was good in near darkness but honestly do you tow a van at night often???????.


Also a rearvision mirror screen is not much good either as most of them do mot have enough brightness to overcome the mirror image part of it.

Bought one of them and went back to the dash screen as it was almost useless in daylight.
You already have a thread 60419 about this to which I replied with photos.
AnswerID: 318816

Follow Up By: Sand Man (SA) - Sunday, Aug 03, 2008 at 20:25

Sunday, Aug 03, 2008 at 20:25
I disagree Graham.

I have a screen that clamps over the rear view mirror and it is very practical. Brightness is not an issue and the image takes up about two thirds of the screen which equates to an image the same size as a standard mirror.

I use mine almost exclusively for reversing to give me a clear view of what is behind the vehicle.
When the camera monitor is not in use the screen acts as a standard mirror.

The only "negative" I can state is that on some occasions, sunlight entering through the back window will make the screen image hard to see. On these rare occasions it is a simple matter to tilt the mirror/screen towards the rooflining and the resulting image is as clear as.

It probably gets down to the camera/monitor combination you choose.

I ordered mine online from Brash Imports and David's website gives a pretty good display of what the mirror mounted monitor looks like.

Brash Imports

You can choose a CCD or CMOS camera in several different formats and sizes and also a variety of monitors to suit everyones individual tastes or needs.

Bill.
Bill


I'm diagonally parked in a parallel Universe!

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 585359

Reply By: Member - Graham H (QLD) - Sunday, Aug 03, 2008 at 20:48

Sunday, Aug 03, 2008 at 20:48
Surely if u have to adjust your mirror to see it that negates the actual objective use of the mirror. Mine is fixed as the extra weight of the clip on mirror kept moving it so I put a clip from under it up to hang from the front lip of the roof console.

I tried doing the same but got p'd off shifting it all the time and thought why do this, use a dash screen. Look in the thread I mentioned above for pics of setup.
So what you are actually saying is that it is not perfect and we have enough distractions driving without having to change mirror positions as well.
Just my point of view.
I still maintain that in the standard position the sunlight overcomes the brightness of the screen.
I am going to put extra window tint on my rear window to see if it makes any difference.
I did try a translucent screen overlay that was not reflective and it did work quite well but got scruffy and I cant find any more of them
AnswerID: 318864

Follow Up By: Member - Graham H (QLD) - Sunday, Aug 03, 2008 at 20:50

Reply By: DIO - Sunday, Aug 03, 2008 at 21:30

Sunday, Aug 03, 2008 at 21:30
Cameras are used on the rear of vehicles for use as reversing aids. They do not replace correctly installed and adjusted rear view mirrors which are still required by law. Many find that by having the reversing camera activated whilst they are driving creates distraction and takes their focus and concentration away. You will also find that glare from following vehicles can not only be a nuisance but potentially dangerous. Limiting the use of a camera as an aid to reversing is a great aid and contribution to road safety. They also make the action of reversing easier and accurate.
AnswerID: 318871

Follow Up By: Member - Graham H (QLD) - Wednesday, Aug 06, 2008 at 13:25

Wednesday, Aug 06, 2008 at 13:25
Really!!!!!!!!!!!
0
FollowupID: 585925

Follow Up By: Member - Leave_enough_space - Friday, Aug 29, 2008 at 08:35

Friday, Aug 29, 2008 at 08:35
Mmmm! Interesting 'view', DIO! - please pardon the pun.

You are right in saying that cameras are used as reversing aids on vehicles, but many caravanners are now beginning to realise the benefit of having a camera mounted on the rear of their van, enabling them to have a constant view of the road behind them.

The camera does not obviate the legally required use of properly set up wing mirrors, but does provide an effective and comprehensive view of the road behind, in conjunction with the mirrors. I doubt many vanners would use the camera on the van for reversing unless they were on their own.

I also did not understand your statement "Limiting the use of a camera as an aid to reversing is a great aid and contribution to road safety".

Safe travels (& reversing!)
LES
0
FollowupID: 589831

Reply By: PajeroTD - Monday, Aug 04, 2008 at 07:53

Monday, Aug 04, 2008 at 07:53
Though it's like comparing diesel versus petrol, when not asking "which petrol versus which diesel engine?" if all being equal, CMOS is usually better. It's a newer technology and Sony make the best of them (and sell them to Nikon). They also made the best CCDs.
AnswerID: 318915

Follow Up By: PeterInSa - Wednesday, Aug 06, 2008 at 13:53

Wednesday, Aug 06, 2008 at 13:53
PajeroTD,
I really do not want to know, having been told by 2 sales persons from different stores that the CCD had better definition/depth than the CMOS and worked better in low light (we sometimes are on the road early morning/dusk), I purchased the CCD at list price of $289, the same brand CMOS $181. I received a good discount, the price seem to indicate the better camera.

Because of the effort involved in putting the system in, I though I shouuld buy the best, rather than getting a camera for $50 and not being happy with it. and redoing the install.

I realise CMOS is a new technology but with me new is not also better. Our new dishwasher will not last the same distance as our old one.

Peter
0
FollowupID: 585931

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)