D-Link Forums
The Graveyard - Products No Longer Supported => IP Cameras => DCS-2330L => Topic started by: Dystronic on May 10, 2015, 11:28:01 PM
-
The image quality is fine in sunlight but begins to severely break up in low light, exhibiting atrocious graininess when under IR alone. My 942 and two other 932's do not have anything even remotely resembling this problem. Take a look at the attached image and tell me whats you think is wrong, and the first one to say " you need more independent IR illumination" loses. This quality is just plain unacceptable in a camera that represents itself as "Night Vision" (http://i.imgur.com/Ofd64Cx.jpg?1)
I plan to tinker with the settings and hope I find some tidbit of wisdom here, otherwise it's going bye bye to this POS. Another gripe, I can see why the power cord for an outdoor unit is sealed into the camera housing but why is it also hardlined into the transformer without a plug? Do you expect me to run AC outside to the camera and the same 'elements' where any jackass can unplug it? A simple plug seems like a serious no-brainer. Now I have to cut the cord and splice in my own.
-
Link>Welcome! (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=48135.0)
- What Hardware version is your camera?
- Link>What Firmware (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=47512.0) version is currently loaded?
- What region are you located?
-
HW: A1
FW: 1.02.05
REGION:US/CAN
Messed around with the sharpness and denoiser. Image became less grainy, but masking that much graininess left the image looking foggy and blurred, like opening your eyes under water.
-
I presume the lens is clean? If so, maybe you have a faulty unit and would need to be RMAd. It should be crystal clear.
Is the camera near or next to any other electronic devices?
I recommend that you phone contact your regional D-Link support office and ask for help and information regarding this. We find that phone contact has better immediate results over using email.
Let us know how it goes please.
-
After a frustrating battle with D-Link's foreign based support people it was finally determined that the unit was in fact faulty and then, after being asked to call no fewer than 4 different phone numbers, 50++ minutes on the phone and 2 dropped calls later, they suggested I return it to...(wait for it)... the original point of purchase. (DOH!) Just as I was about to throw the camera in blender and send them the pieces, I remembered that this particular part of my Amazon order had been fulfilled BY Amazon itself. Needless to say, within minutes my account had been reimbursed, a new one in now on its way and I am printing a freight-paid bill of lading as I type this.
Anyway, thanks FurryNutz. I'd give you a big hug, but the visual is making me a little nauseous.
-
Glad you got it worked out.
Let us know how the new one works out.
No hugs necessary. ::)
-
Okay Round 2. I really wanted this camera to work as advertised. Went to the store and got another new unit, plugged it in and... same F'ing problem. Below is an image from my 202L illustrating the marked difference in the quality of the various devices on my network, including the new 2330. You be the judge. Would you buy the DCS-2330L based on this image? I hope there's an easy fix waiting, like i forgot to turn off the "look like sh*t" switch or something. If anyone can explain whats wrong or conversely, how D-Link finds this level of quality acceptable in their higher-end units?
I went ahead and changed denoise to 20 and sharpness to 0 and now the quality is about on par with a SD/VGA model. I guess I'll hang it outside and hope it gets stolen first.
Warning: The following image is no BS.
(http://i.imgur.com/3Op4l4i.jpg)
-
Ok, I've asked a couple of people to review this and comment. Hopefully we can figure out what the problem may be. Understand the frustration. Please be patient.
Thank you.
-
Is this camera wired or wireless when connected?
What is the Mfr and model of the main host router?
-
The camera is wireless when connected, but the image from the 202L posted earlier was from the plugged-in setup phase over Gigabit ethernet. Router is Linksys EA4500 Gigabit B/G/N router. Currently the image is passable in daylight, but rapidly deteriorates with the onset of dusk, exhibiting sparkling 'granular' artifacts throughout the nighttime mode. They are so bad that even with the denoisier and de-sherpening, I'm having real problems keeping the "noise" from triggering the frame-differencing algorithm, while still allowing legitimate motion detection to transpire. In fact, now that I think about it i'm just going to turn off video motion detection and hope the range on the built-in is good enough. I don't want to keep flogging a dead horse, but the night image is so bad that last night I unable to tell that the camera was being rained on. I just checked the default settings again and was astounded at the quality. See image attached at bottom. The only reason it even looks that good is the streetlight across the alley helps with background illumination.
Setting the output Resolution to SD has no discernible effect on image quality.
Switching from H.264 to MotionJPEG had no discernible effect on image quality.
Making unholy offerings to the elder gods has had no discernible effect on image quality.
Here is a sample video of me switching the camera manually between default and custom image settings. Framerate is intentionally set to 4 FPS to conserve drivespace. The 202L seems to have introduced some additional compression artifacts, but they are easily distinguished from the 'speckling' at issue. Brace yourself, its not pretty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU-wL7jCpA0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU-wL7jCpA0)
(http://i.imgur.com/ayQI9cv.jpg)
-
I'm going to recommend you phone contact D-Link support on this one. Ask for level 2 or higher support and refer them to this thread so they can review this. This seems to be problem with the camera and the 202L and needs to be reviewed by escalated support help. Please let us know how it goes. If you get a Case#, you can PM me this information.
-
This seems to be problem with the camera and the 202L
The above images are taken directly from the camera feed. The video was rendered from the 202L. I will perhaps try support again, but we will soon run afoul of the law of diminishing returns. At some point it is going to cost me more time/energy/frustration than the camera is worth. Especially in light of how unlikely a solution is. I just hope this thread doesn't get quietly discarded so that people can make informed decisions about their purchases.
-
We can't presume that the entire product is not good as we haven't been able to find out what is wrong with yours first. Could be a faulty unit that you have or just a bad batch. D-Link needs to review your settings and configuration and go from there. An RMA should be asked for and ask D-Link to look at a unit before they send you the RMA unit. Ask for level 2 or higher support.
The sooner you contact D-link support the fast this can be resolved and lower the ability to return the unit if needed.
Let us know how it goes.
-
Take a look at the attached image and tell me whats you think is wrong, and the first one to say " you need more independent IR illumination" loses.
Nonetheless, you need independent IR illumination. You can not want to hear that, but it's still true. These cameras have poor low-light performance. With only one IR illuminator, that's to be expected. (The 942 camera you compare it to has four IR illuminators; no surprise it sees better.) The image you posted of the car in the driveway looks exactly like what I would expect from this camera at night -- I should know, because I have two of them outside and that's exactly the result I get, too. So I bought a separate $20 IR illuminator lamp for each camera and problem solved.
If you're mad that D-Link promised something you don't think they deliver, then you should certainly return the camera and buy something else. Totally understandable. Or if you like the camera otherwise, buy an inexpensive illuminator. But there's no sense in continuing to frustrate yourself trying to get a blood from a stone here. The camera is behaving properly according to its actual capabilities, from what I see.
-
Okay Round 2. I really wanted this camera to work as advertised. Went to the store and got another new unit, plugged it in and... same F'ing problem. Below is an image from my 202L illustrating the marked difference in the quality of the various devices on my network, including the new 2330. You be the judge. Would you buy the DCS-2330L based on this image? I hope there's an easy fix waiting, like i forgot to turn off the "look like sh*t" switch or something. If anyone can explain whats wrong or conversely, how D-Link finds this level of quality acceptable in their higher-end units?
I went ahead and changed denoise to 20 and sharpness to 0 and now the quality is about on par with a SD/VGA model. I guess I'll hang it outside and hope it gets stolen first.
Warning: The following image is no BS.
(http://i.imgur.com/3Op4l4i.jpg)
Did you try the low noise setting in the f/w?
The 2230 is one of the better quality image dlink cameras.
-
I to am having the same issues with my 2330L. Have tried different settings but still looks BAD. My 932L that are 2 years old look better. I just bought this 2330L last week And yes I have the current firmware
-
If you have updated the FW and have tried any troubleshooting steps, ie, tested wired connections and reset the camera to default settings and set up from scratch or anything else and it still does not seem to fix this problem, you may have a faulty unit and would need to be RMAd with D-Link. I recommend that you phone contact your regional D-Link support office and ask for help and information regarding this. We find that phone contact has better immediate results over using email.
Let us know how it goes please.
I to am having the same issues with my 2330L. Have tried different settings but still looks BAD. My 932L that are 2 years old look better. I just bought this 2330L last week And yes I have the current firmware
-
I sent it back to Amazon, will buy a different brand for outside. The other thing about this camera is the wire is just hanging there. No way to hide wire from getting cut. Also being the power source is 5 volts I would need to extend the power cable about 30 feet. Thru my attic. I would rather have low voltage running across my attic than run a 110 cable or wire a outlet in my attic. The access to my attic is not easy. So with the exposed wire the voltage drop of running a long power cable . I will look at another brand that has more IR led's for night viewing. And the ability to hide the wiring in the base or mount it to a box and stuff the wiring inside the box as the wires come out the mounting base. Where the power wire or the cat 5 wire just hangs out in the open. I wanted to use the 2330L so I can record to my 202L DNR. But with the poor night vision and wire issue's it's a no go. Not to change the subject BUT, it would be nice to be able to add an additional camera or two with a firmware update for a small fee. The DNR 202L is 89 bucks to record 4 cameras. To record 8 the price jumps up to close to 300 dollars. I can buy 2 202L's for a hundred dollars cheaper. Something to think about.
-
Sorry it didn't work out. Again it could have been a faulty unit.
As for power and placement, it may behoove you to do a bit more research on placement and your power connection needs. You could have keep a low voltage running thru the attic by maybe using a low voltage power cord that was long between the units power adapter and the camera itself. Like making a DC power cord from custom adapters and a good two conductor cable cut to your specific length. Or you really should invest in putting 110v power outside compliant out let near where your outside camera needs to be. These are suggestions that users should and need to review and to take into consideration before installation of any outside camera.
I would have contacted D-Link to ask them what is the range of view and detected video when in night mode. Some cameras may or may not have the greatest video capture range that users may need. I presume it would have done just fine for you accept for the video quality which may have been just a bad unit. I guess we'll wont know now.
You may want to phone contact D-Link support and give them details of your outside needs and see if they can recommend a camera that will work best for you.
Hope you have better luck.
I sent it back to Amazon, will buy a different brand for outside. The other thing about this camera is the wire is just hanging there. No way to hide wire from getting cut. Also being the power source is 5 volts I would need to extend the power cable about 30 feet. Thru my attic. I would rather have low voltage running across my attic than run a 110 cable or wire a outlet in my attic. The access to my attic is not easy. So with the exposed wire the voltage drop of running a long power cable . I will look at another brand that has more IR led's for night viewing. And the ability to hide the wiring in the base or mount it to a box and stuff the wiring inside the box as the wires come out the mounting base. Where the power wire or the cat 5 wire just hangs out in the open. I wanted to use the 2330L so I can record to my 202L DNR. But with the poor night vision and wire issue's it's a no go. Not to change the subject BUT, it would be nice to be able to add an additional camera or two with a firmware update for a small fee. The DNR 202L is 89 bucks to record 4 cameras. To record 8 the price jumps up to close to 300 dollars. I can buy 2 202L's for a hundred dollars cheaper. Something to think about.
-
Okay Round 2. I really wanted this camera to work as advertised. Went to the store and got another new unit, plugged it in and... same F'ing problem. Below is an image from my 202L illustrating the marked difference in the quality of the various devices on my network, including the new 2330. You be the judge. Would you buy the DCS-2330L based on this image? I hope there's an easy fix waiting, like i forgot to turn off the "look like sh*t" switch or something. If anyone can explain whats wrong or conversely, how D-Link finds this level of quality acceptable in their higher-end units?
I went ahead and changed denoise to 20 and sharpness to 0 and now the quality is about on par with a SD/VGA model. I guess I'll hang it outside and hope it gets stolen first.
Warning: The following image is no BS.
(http://i.imgur.com/3Op4l4i.jpg)
I’ve bought the same camera, and the image at night is very similar to what you are getting, if not even worse… more grainy … I’ve seen the other comment from another poster related to the poor IR illumination, and it makes sense.
The question for D-link is: have D-Link engineers not expected this result when designing a product with only 1 IR LED source? Why do customers have to buy a separate IR illuminator source and go through another hassle of installing a power line for it - to make a $200 camera work reasonably well at night?
In my opinion it is a poorly design product…
-
I recommend that you phone contact your regional D-Link support office and ask for help and information regarding this. We find that phone contact has better immediate results over using email.
Let us know how it goes please.
Okay Round 2. I really wanted this camera to work as advertised. Went to the store and got another new unit, plugged it in and... same F'ing problem. Below is an image from my 202L illustrating the marked difference in the quality of the various devices on my network, including the new 2330. You be the judge. Would you buy the DCS-2330L based on this image? I hope there's an easy fix waiting, like i forgot to turn off the "look like sh*t" switch or something. If anyone can explain whats wrong or conversely, how D-Link finds this level of quality acceptable in their higher-end units?
I went ahead and changed denoise to 20 and sharpness to 0 and now the quality is about on par with a SD/VGA model. I guess I'll hang it outside and hope it gets stolen first.
Warning: The following image is no BS.
(http://i.imgur.com/3Op4l4i.jpg)
I’ve bought the same camera, and the image at night is very similar to what you are getting, if not even worse… more grainy … I’ve seen the other comment from another poster related to the poor IR illumination, and it makes sense.
The question for D-link is: have D-Link engineers not expected this result when designing a product with only 1 IR LED source? Why do customers have to buy a separate IR illuminator source and go through another hassle of installing a power line for it - to make a $200 camera work reasonably well at night?
In my opinion it is a poorly design product…
-
OP here. Nothing good to report. Camera is good to tell if there's a physical shape of someone passing by, and little else. All HD detail is lost. While IR illumination may help, the 'artifacts' really appear to resemble a heavily compressed low ISO image. I think the problem is in how the camera handles its light balancing. On most NV cameras an IR illuminator acts like a flashlight. Areas not illuminated will graduate softly to dark and you will only see what crosses the beam, based on its intensity. This camera seems to be trying to compensate by using a low-light adjustment to the image that simply isn't working. I have reduced the false 'hits' due to noise by blurring (de-sharpening) the feed but as a consequence I cant even read a license plate at a range of 4 Metres. I'm holding on to the model in the hope that with enough store returns, D-Link will wise up and press some new firmware, but I'm also not holding my breath, as it may not be possible to correct through software alone. Advice: DON'T BUY THIS. Get a cheap 640x480 camera instead and just replace it when/if it dies.
-
the feed but as a consequence I cant even read a license plate at a range of 4 Metres. I'm holding on to the model in the hope that with enough store returns, D-Link will wise up and press some new firmware, but I'm also not holding my breath, as it may not be possible to correct through software alone. Advice: DON'T BUY THIS. Get a cheap 640x480 camera instead and just replace it when/if it dies.
I don't think you can read much of anything with this camera. It is one of the less clear imaged dlink cams I have.
-
I recommend that you phone contact your regional D-Link support office and ask for help and information regarding this. We find that phone contact has better immediate results over using email.
Let us know how it goes please.
OP here. Nothing good to report. Camera is good to tell if there's a physical shape of someone passing by, and little else. All HD detail is lost. While IR illumination may help, the 'artifacts' really appear to resemble a heavily compressed low ISO image. I think the problem is in how the camera handles its light balancing. On most NV cameras an IR illuminator acts like a flashlight. Areas not illuminated will graduate softly to dark and you will only see what crosses the beam, based on its intensity. This camera seems to be trying to compensate by using a low-light adjustment to the image that simply isn't working. I have reduced the false 'hits' due to noise by blurring (de-sharpening) the feed but as a consequence I cant even read a license plate at a range of 4 Metres. I'm holding on to the model in the hope that with enough store returns, D-Link will wise up and press some new firmware, but I'm also not holding my breath, as it may not be possible to correct through software alone. Advice: DON'T BUY THIS. Get a cheap 640x480 camera instead and just replace it when/if it dies.
-
Worth a try:
http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=62852.msg257640#msg257640 (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=62852.msg257640#msg257640)
-
Thanks for posting this information. Hope it helps users out.
Worth a try:
http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=62852.msg257640#msg257640 (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=62852.msg257640#msg257640)
-
Looks terrible. I read this thread as considering the cam. But no way unless you resolved it?? What happened?