Starvis2 HDR?

[Cyker]

Hey all,

Had my A119v3 for a while and have been waiting for a similar form-factor with the Starvis 2, and only recently noticed the Mini 2 has been released!

At first I thought this was everything I was waiting for, but then I noticed when people are turning on HDR, it still drops to 30fps.

Does this mean it's still using the same 2-frame HDR the A119v3 uses??

A big part of why I was waiting for the Starvis2, is because I found enabling HDR in the day time produced a weird blur on my A119v3, whereas the Starvis2 supposedly supports single-frame HDR which would eliminate this blur.

Those of you that have the Mini2, do you think the non-HDR low-light abilities of the camera are a big enough improvement over the A119v3 that HDR isn't needed?

I'm less concerned about image quality as about the camera's ability to pick up detail at any light level, esp. number plates.

Also, one thing I haven't found out is if Viofo have enabled some sort of auto-HDR at low-light, e.g. if it drops to a certain exposure or ISO level, it switches HDR on, or if it's still time-based (Which is a bit less useful as the time it gets dark varies quite wildly between summer and winter!). Does anyone know if that's even in the pipeline or even possible?

Thanks!

 

[Karagandinez]

Also, one thing I haven't found out is if Viofo have enabled some sort of auto-HDR at low-light, e.g. if it drops to a certain exposure or ISO level, it switches HDR on, or if it's still time-based (Which is a bit less useful as the time it gets dark varies quite wildly between summer and winter!). Does anyone know if that's even in the pipeline or even possible?

The turn-on and turn-off time of the HDR must be set manually.

 

[Karagandinez]

I'm less concerned about image quality as about the camera's ability to pick up detail at any light level, esp. number plates.

At night, HDR is required, regardless of which sensor is installed.

 

[Chuck McCoy]

Those of you that have the Mini2, do you think the non-HDR low-light abilities of the camera are a big enough improvement over the A119v3 that HDR isn't needed?

I'm less concerned about image quality as about the camera's ability to pick up detail at any light level, esp. number plates.

 

[Cyker]

Thanks... Could you do some day/night comparisons with HDR on and off for just the Mini2...? It's the difference I'm curious about...
If the Starvis 2 has good enough night vision I might not need HDR at night, which would get around the 2-frame blur issue that my v3 has under certain light conditions with it enabled, and especially at speed!

 

[Chuck McCoy]

Thanks... Could you do some day/night comparisons with HDR on and off for just the Mini2...?

Daytime: HDR Off
Night Time & Low Light Situations: HDR On
Film your own test footage to confirm & verify.
-Chuck

 

[Cyker]

No, I mean compare daytime with HDR on and off, and night time with HDR on and off.
You can't compare daytime HDR off footage with nighttime HDR on footage! 😆

 

[Chuck McCoy]

HDR works best during night time & low light situations.
HDR does not work well during daytime.
Film your own test footage to confirm & verify.
-Chuck

 

[Cyker]

I don't have a Mini2 to test, I'm trying to find out if it's worth buying one to replace my A119v3; So far I'm feeling like there isn't enough of an improvement to justify it - There's not really that much difference between the two aside from the Starvis2, but it's not leveraging the Starvis2's most impressive feature (i.e. the single-frame HDR) and uses the same frame-based HDR the v3 does, so it'll have the same double-image still issue, and unless the sensor is sensitive enough to pick more detail at night without HDR than the v3 can, then I don't see the point, esp. as Viofo's later dashcams seem much more sensitive to heat than their older ones for some reason which I don't really want to risk again: I bought an A129 Pro Duo, and even without the 2nd camera plugged in, it would immediately hard-crash on startup in high summer unless I unplugged it, ran the AC in the car for 5 minutes, then plugged it in again.
Thankfully Viofo lived up to their reputation for awesome customer service when the original seller just ceased communicating with me when I tried to negotiate alternative options, and took the A129 back in exchange for a couple of v3's, which have been flawless.

 

[Nigel]

so it'll have the same double-image still issue,

All HDR is going to have that, HDR is by definition multi-exposure, even if the exposure times overlap. Starvis 2 HDR is better than Starvis 1, but definitely not perfect.

STARVIS 2 is a significant step forward but it sounds like you want more than one step, so I suggest you wait for the next step forward. Maybe an A229 Pro? I'm expecting that to run rather cooler than the A129 Pro, it will have a new generation of cooler running processor, and it is Starvis 2 with a big sensor instead of Pre-Starvis!

Of course the Mini 2 would give you other advances like wifi, a phone App, voice notifications, USB-C, etc.

 

[Chuck McCoy]

I don't have a Mini2 to test, I'm trying to find out if it's worth buying one to replace my A119v3; So far I'm feeling like there isn't enough of an improvement to justify it - There's not really that much difference between the two aside from the Starvis2, but it's not leveraging the Starvis2's most impressive feature (i.e. the single-frame HDR) and uses the same frame-based HDR the v3 does, so it'll have the same double-image still issue, and unless the sensor is sensitive enough to pick more detail at night without HDR than the v3 can, then I don't see the point, esp. as Viofo's later dashcams seem much more sensitive to heat than their older ones for some reason which I don't really want to risk again: I bought an A129 Pro Duo, and even without the 2nd camera plugged in, it would immediately hard-crash on startup in high summer unless I unplugged it, ran the AC in the car for 5 minutes, then plugged it in again.
Thankfully Viofo lived up to their reputation for awesome customer service when the original seller just ceased communicating with me when I tried to negotiate alternative options, and took the A129 back in exchange for a couple of v3's, which have been flawless.

You just answered all of your own questions.
Hold on to your V3, and hurry up and wait. lol

 

[Karagandinez]

I don't have a Mini2 to test, I'm trying to find out if it's worth buying one to replace my A119v3; So far I'm feeling like there isn't enough of an improvement to justify it - There's not really that much difference between the two aside from the Starvis2, but it's not leveraging the Starvis2's most impressive feature (i.e. the single-frame HDR) and uses the same frame-based HDR the v3 does, so it'll have the same double-image still issue, and unless the sensor is sensitive enough to pick more detail at night without HDR than the v3 can, then I don't see the point, esp. as Viofo's later dashcams seem much more sensitive to heat than their older ones for some reason which I don't really want to risk again:

Of course, it is up to you to change or not to change, but Viofo single-chamber models have no problems with overheating.

 

[Cyker]

All HDR is going to have that, HDR is by definition multi-exposure, even if the exposure times overlap. Starvis 2 HDR is better than Starvis 1, but definitely not perfect.

Well that was the big draw of the Starvis2 - It has a single-frame HDR mode!

That would have eliminated the multi-frame blur and the need to disable HDR in the daytime and enable it at night, but from what people have shown so far it seems Viofo have not taken advantage of it and just used the same conventional 2-frame HDR pretty much all sensors have. I am curious if there is some technical reason for this, as it removes one of the biggest advantages the Starvis2 has over the Starvis1.

 

[Cyker]

Of course, it is up to you to change or not to change, but Viofo single-chamber models have no problems with overheating.

I'm not so sure; I had an A129 Pro Duo, but returned it because it would instantly crash at power-on in high summer, even when I was running it *without* the rear camera attached, due to overheating. I'd have to unplug it, run the AC for 5 minutes to cool the car down, then plug it back in to make it work, which got old very quickly.

Thankfully Viofo's excellent customer service agreed to exchange it for the much more reliable A119v3, and even insisted on sending me 2 due to the difference in cost!

Their CS is one of the biggest reasons I stick with the brand.

 

[Nigel]

I am curious if there is some technical reason for this, as it removes one of the biggest advantages the Starvis2 has over the Starvis1.

Where did you hear that Starvis 2 can do HDR in a single exposure? Technically that does not make sense!

The advantage that Starvis 2 brought for HDR is that 2 exposures can be collected simultaneously, which can significantly reduce the movement between the exposures that we see from Starvis 1, however you still need to have 1 short exposure for the bright areas, which will be sharp, and one long exposure for the dark areas which during fast movement will be blurred. When combined you still get blur and sharp merged if traveling fast, but they now overlap whereas with Starvis 1 they were offset, making extra mess.

Another advantage of Starvis 2 is that the extra sensitivity of the sensor reduces the amount of blur on the dark (slow) exposure. So the speed at which things start to get blurred is greater. People can still find examples of blur, but that doesn't make the sensors equal.

 

[Cyker]

I can't find the post on here that I originally read about it, but according to https://www.sony-semicon.com/en/technology/security/index.html it's called ClearHDR.

I maybe misspoke when I said single exposure - I'm not an expert on the terminology like you guys are, but basically it's single-frame HDR, which would eliminate the 2 temporally different frames that existing sensors need to use, and thus the stutter/blur in the combined frame.

That's the improvement I was after in the Mini2, but from what you're all saying it doesn't do that 🙁

Note: I'm not talking about motion blur - That is a totally different aspect, and not something dashcams will be able to eliminate, esp. at low light levels, unless they develop moveable sensors that can track like our eyes!

 

[Nigel]

Note: I'm not talking about motion blur - That is a totally different aspect, and not something dashcams will be able to eliminate, esp. at low light levels, unless they develop moveable sensors that can track like our eyes!

But it is motion that is causing your blurring problem, keep the car still and there is no problem!

I can't find the post on here that I originally read about it, but according to https://www.sony-semicon.com/en/technology/security/index.html it's called ClearHDR.

Clear HDR has two exposures, captured simultaneously, one will be short and sharp, the other much slower and in the dark will show motion blur for faster movement.

"This method has the advantage of delivering images of a moving target without chromatic aberration and other artifacts because the two images are captured at the same time."

I'm not convinced that Sony's advertising is very accurate, I've not seen chromatic aberration problems caused by vehicle motion on a Starvis sensor, and can't see any way they would occur?

 

[Cyker]

Ugh I thought people would be more knowledgeable about these things on this forum.
Yes technically both are caused by 'motion', but they happen for different reasons and are absolutely not the same thing. The 2-frame 'blur', for want of a better term, with HDR isn't 'motion blur' in the normal sense of the term - The HDR 'blur' is literally 2 distinct and sharp frames captured at slightly different times superimposed over each other, whereas motion blur is smearing due to motion happening during the 'shutter' being open/active.

Motion blur is what we see from our dashcams at night, where the sensor 'shutter' has to be on longer per frame, in order to pick up enough light, and is why it's so hard to see number plates at night, as they get 'smeared' by the motion during that 'open' time.
This is also why in the day time, they are pin sharp even when passing at speed - The 'shutter speed' is much higher so it can pick out that exact moment in time before the vehicle has a chance to move more than a fraction while the shutter is 'open'.

If you use a camera to take pictures of e.g. a spinning propeller, you can make it freeze in place with a high shutter speed, or have it appear as a blurred circle with a slow one.

That is what motion blur is - What's happening with the 2-frame HDR is for a completely different reason as mentioned above.

As for not believing Sony's blurb, that's up to you, but that is what they claim the sensor is capable of and have demonstrated it - There is at least one action camera in development I've seen on some kickstarter-type website which takes advantage of this feature.

In fact, one of the biggest selling points of the Starvis2 over Starvis1 was this feature, and deservedly so because it is revolutionary. Yes the Starvis2 has some other improvements in low light gathering over Starvis1, but they are incremental; The new 'ClearHDR' feature is the big highlight. They even market it specifically for use in dashcams where capturing moving objects is required. I don't confess to knowing how it works - It could actually be a single exposure for all I know - It could be capturing different exposure light levels line-by-line, or just capturing a wider dynamic range, e.g. 48-bits of light, then doing image processing on it in real time down to the normal 24/32-bits.

The latter is what a lot of professional photographers do, and why they shoot in RAW and not JPG, so they can save the whole dynamic range rather the normal limited range we normally use, and then adjust the levels in post processing down to 24-bits or whatever is required. It's definitely possible and not new, just new for image sensors like this to do it in real time, which is what makes it exciting! 🙂

 

[Nigel]

or just capturing a wider dynamic range, e.g. 48-bits of light, then doing image processing on it in real time down to the normal 24/32-bits.

The latter is what a lot of professional photographers do, and why they shoot in RAW and not JPG, so they can save the whole dynamic range rather the normal limited range we normally use, and then adjust the levels in post processing down to 24-bits or whatever is required. It's definitely possible and not new, just new for image sensors like this to do it in real time, which is what makes it exciting! 🙂

In dashcams, that is called WDR and has been around for ages.

with HDR isn't 'motion blur' in the normal sense of the term - The HDR 'blur' is literally 2 distinct and sharp frames captured at slightly different times superimposed over each other, whereas motion blur is smearing due to motion happening during the 'shutter' being open/active.

Unfortunately that is not the case. To get the higher dynamic range it is necessary that one of the exposures is relatively slow in order to capture detail in the dark areas, and that exposure can suffer from motion blur in lower lighting. With Starvis 2 it is also fairly slow to allow the anti-flicker function to operate, to avoid flicker from 50/60Hz lamps and LED traffic lights, and at higher speeds this also results in some motion blurring.

 

[Cyker]

In dashcams, that is called WDR and has been around for ages.

Are you saying that's how it works then...?
Why don't all cameras do this already if it's been around for ages, instead of this inferior only-good-for-stationary-objects HDR?

Unfortunately that is not the case. To get the higher dynamic range it is necessary that one of the exposures is relatively slow in order to capture detail in the dark areas, and that exposure can suffer from motion blur in lower lighting. With Starvis 2 it is also fairly slow to allow the anti-flicker function to operate, to avoid flicker from 50/60Hz lamps and LED traffic lights, and at higher speeds this also results in some motion blurring.

While true, that's tangential to what we're talking about - i.e that the glitch/artifact/whatever you want to call it, is caused by 2 distinct frames being superimposed on each other, and not because of the movement smearing in a single frame. That might make it worse, because one of those superimposed frames is going to be smeared more than the other, but it isn't the cause.