Reviewing and Testing the new Vantrue E360 Ace Dashcam

[EricSan]

So here is a solution: do the hardwire with the hardwire kit, but tie the red and yellow wires together on the 12v side of the regulator box. This will bypass the low voltage cutoff and the camera will still go into parking mode once the gps unit sits still for 5mins.

 

[egonvdv]

cheers, this indeed seems to work
camera installed, testing next week

 

[EricSan]

Because I'm curious to learn more about the power supply characteristics of the E360 camera and what insights that might provide for the power cycling issues that people seem to be facing, I made some voltage measurements this morning. I connected the camera only (no GPS, no rear camera) to a USB-C cord that I cut up and connected to my bench top power supply. Here are the voltage and current measurements that I made:

5.40v 0.76A (4.1w power draw)
5.35v 0.75A
5.30v 0.76A
5.25v 0.76A
5.20v 0.78A
5.15v 0.79A
5.10v 0.80A
5.05v 0.81A
5.00v 0.81A
4.95v 0.81A
4.90v 0.82A
4.85v 0.83A
4.80v 0.83A
4.75v 0.84A
4.70v 0.84A
4.65v 0.86A (4.0w power draw)
4.60v 0.86A shut off after a few seconds, then began power cycling
4.55v 0.88A shut off after a few seconds, then began power cycling

The camera alone, when set to 5.2k Panoramic recording mode (no GPS, no rear camera) seems to draw a consistent 4.0w - 4.1w with a static camera view (it was just sitting on the bench). I didn't attempt to power it with anything more than 5.40v and I backed down the voltage by 0.05v with each step and let it set for a little while. The camera consistently worked without issue from 5.40v down to 4.65v. Predictably, the amperage draw increased as the voltage level of the power supply decreased, maintaining a pretty consistent power draw across the voltage range.

Below 4.65v, the camera enters a reboot cycle. I didn't measure the time span of the cycles, but it was consistent and happened about every 30-60 seconds. As the camera turns itself off due to low voltage, the voltage level from my power supply would rise a bit, going back up over the 4.65 voltage threshold which would then allow the camera to turn on again. This would then draw the voltage back down below 4.65 and it would turn off again after a few seconds. My bench power supply is an old Tektronics unit that is probably 30+ years old and is most definitely not a switched mode power supply.

EDIT: The 4.65v voltage cutoff for the E360 matches what I found with my Viofo A139Pro camera. My guess is that the voltage shut down level is driven by the Sony Starvis sensor that is common to both cameras. When I extended the power cable (over 15 feet) for my Viofo camera last year, I started experiencing rebooting issues when the voltage reaching the camera dropped due to excessive resistance in the wire.

 

[Sawyer]

With no gps, you mean no gps mount rigth?

More Amper translates directly into less efficiency and more heat?

I firstly thought the camera runs 12V When connected in the car but it's still 5V/2A.

 

[Nigel]

More Amper translates directly into less efficiency and more heat?

No, it is Watts that is the important figure, that is the amount of power used, and more or less the amount of heat produced.
More Amps as the Voltage drops is because at lower voltages it needs more Amps to get the same amount of power (Watts).

The fact that the Watts doesn't change as the voltage changes, indicates that the efficiency doesn't change.

 

[Nigel]

I firstly thought the camera runs 12V When connected in the car but it's still 5V/2A.

The car supplies 12V, but it is converted into 5V by either a cigarette lighter adaptor or a hardwire kit, or maybe an OBD adaptor.
If measured at 12V it will use less Amps, it is always best to specify power in Watts, then you know how much power it uses without also needing to know other figures, volts or amps.

 

[EricSan]

Yep, Nigel nailed it. This is from Ohm's Law which states that Power = Voltage x Current. The heat generated by any electrical device, in any situation, is dictated by the total Power consumed. The camera alone (no GPS, no rear camera) needs 4w in order to operate normally. On the 5v side of the voltage regulator, this means a typical 5.0v voltage source also needs to be capable of delivering 0.81A. Multiply these two numbers together reveals the power draw of the camera: 5.0v x 0.81A = 4.0w (with a pinch of rounding for minor inaccuracies).

The Power needs of the camera (or any other electrical device in normal circumstances) are constant (typically), it doesn't matter what the voltage levels are. So on the the 12v side of the voltage regulator box of the hard wire kit, the amperage draw is only 4w/12v = 0.33A. The voltage is higher (12v vs 5v), so the corresponding current is lower (0.33A instead of 0.81A). In both cases, power draw is 4.0w. This is called "conservation of power" and Power In always equals Power Out, less whatever power is consumed by the 12v to 5v regulator box itself (very small in this case). Power consumed by the 12v to 5v regulator is referred to as the efficiency of the converter box.

 

[Boston_Pilot]

What are we liking for SDCards for this unit. I’m eyeing a 512G.….tia

 

[EricSan]

Larger is typically better as all memory cards have a relatively finite number of times the same physical locations can be overwritten before they begin to fail. Larger cards will provide more time before this happens. On the other hand, if you don’t commute for 2-3hrs/day or leave your car in a parking lot for 9hrs/day, your recording needs will likely be less and a smaller card might work well. The main thing is that you don’t want an important file to be overwritten before you can download it. I’d feel comfortable with a card that was large enough for a few days of driving and parking. 256G will probably be fine for most people. If you drive a lot, go for 512G. I drive 2-3 days/week for 15 mins total. 128G is more than sufficient for me.

 

[kamkar]

ATM i feel, not least with my modest driving of on average 15 minutes daily that a 256 Gb card is just fine.
I would even argue it is also fine for people driving more

My test suite of 256 GB memory cards is 12 models strong, ATM i have not invested in 512 GB cards to test with, byt the moment someone send me a 4K X 2 system and my ass will be heading for the shops to buy a 512 Gb card.

 

[EricSan]

Here is some actual filesize data from the E360 camera:

Drive Mode with three cameras running, each at maximum resolution (I think it's 2592x1944) at 30fps, running on a 3-minute loop produces three files, each about 350MB. This totals about 1.05GB per 3 mins of camera time.

A 128G card has 117G of usable space on it. Dividing 117G/1.05G = 111 sets of 3 files (one from each camera) that are each 3 mins long. This results in 333 minutes of recordings, or 5.5hrs of drive mode recording.

For Parking Mode, I had the cameras set to 1920x1080 at 15fps which results in 337M for all three cameras together every 3 minutes. On a 128G card, there is enough space for 347 sets of files that are 3 mins long. This works out to 1,041 minutes or 17 hours of parking mode recording on an empty card.

Extend accordingly for 256G or 512G cards.

 

[EmailPJC]

I think the only drawback to a 512GB card is the price. In my experience, especially on holiday trips, when you are parking in unfamiliar places and perhaps for a long time, you need the maximum size card to try to avoid losing that moment you want to keep.

------------------
Me parece que el único inconveniente de una tarjeta de 512Gb es el precio. Por mi experiencia, sobre todo en viajes de vacaciones, que es cuando aparcas en sitios no conocidos y quizás lo hagas durante un tiempo prolongado, necesitas el máximo tamaño de tarjeta para intentar evitar perder ese momento que quisieras conservar.

 

[EricSan]

Curious to see how much our dog moves around the house at night after we go to bed as well as to see how long the ACE battery stick lasts, I set up the E360 on a table in the living room. The E360 was set to 360 degree panoramic mode and the IR lights on the front and back were also turned on. I set it to record with 10 minute loops. I made sure the batteries were fully charged before I started.

I started recording at 11:26p and the last timestamp in my set of video files was 4:14a, for a total of 4 hours and 48 minutes of runtime with all IR LEDs illuminated and a relatively static scene in both cameras. Each 10-min file is about 2.1GB in size. As it turns out, the dog didn't move around at all that night 🙂

The next morning, it took about 4 hours to recharge the batteries in the ACE handheld mount with the USB-A port on my Ecoflow Power Station. That's pretty nice runtime for the ACE handheld unit!

 

[EricSan]

Thanks to @egonvdv for highlighting the existence of the Vantrue fileviewer for Windows and Apple desktop OS. I had no idea that such an app existed...

It's pretty cool, you can play your video files and set various camera views for display, alongside a GPS map of where you are driving. These screen caps are from videos that I've already posted, but you get to see the different views that are available.

Note to @Jeff_Vantrue: it appears there is an error in the app shown in the last two images abvoe. Clicking on the "square box" display icon in the pop up window shows the 360 degree view and clicking on the 360 degree display icon shows a view of just the front facing camera. Unless there is some context that I don't understand, It appears these are mixed up with one another.

You can zoom in on various sections of the video as well as drag the viewing window within the video frame to focus on particular areas of the recording. This is super helpful if you are trying to identify smaller details in the more "normal" view that you get from using Windows Media Player or VLC or some other video app. This can also help you capture an image of details that are directly adjacent to your car, such as the car next to you in the other lane. You can also speed up (2X or 4X) or slow down (1/2X or 1/4X) the playback rate and pause if you want to make a screen capture from the video. The brightness, contrast, and color saturation can also be adjusted to help read difficult details. This is pretty cool!

 

[Jeff_Vantrue]

Thanks to @egonvdv for highlighting the existence of the Vantrue fileviewer for Windows and Apple desktop OS. I had no idea that such an app existed...



View attachment 76774

View attachment 76775

Note to @Jeff_Vantrue: it appears there is an error in the app shown in the last two images abvoe. Clicking on the "square box" display icon in the pop up window shows the 360 degree view and clicking on the 360 degree display icon shows a view of just the front facing camera. Unless there is some context that I don't understand, It appears these are mixed up with one another.

It’s not an error. Clicking on the "square box" display icon shows the stitched images, while clicking the 360 icon allows you to click and drag with your mouse to move the view and see the full panoramic image. Feel free to give it a try!

 

[EricSan]

Thanks for the clarification, Jeff! I understand what you are saying, the icons led me to expect the opposite. Either way, I really do like this drag and pan feature in the file viewer!

 

[Boston_Pilot]

I've finally made a few videos with the Vantrue E360 camera. I found a few blocks close to the office where I could drive the same loop over and over again, each time using a different resolution setting for comparison. I need to download some video editing software that will allow me to zoom in on some fine details in order to make some comparisons. I also had to create a YouTube account as I've never uploaded videos before. I kept getting warnings about my videos because YouTube was finding the music that I had playing in the car, so I told YouTube to mute the audio track. We'll see how that turned out...

I did not editing any of these videos, I uploaded them exactly as they came from the camera. I am unaware of what kind of alterations YouTube might perform when the videos are uploaded, though.

So far, here is what I have.

Vantrue E360 1080 Front Camera:

Vantrue E360 1080 Rear Window Camera:

Vantrue E360 1440 Front Camera:

Vantrue E360 1440 Rear Window Camera:

Vantrue E360 1944 Front Camera:

Vantrue E360 1944 Cabin Camera:

Vantrue E360 1994 Rear Window Camera:

Vantrue E360 Fisheye Front Camera:

Vantrue E360 Fisheye Cabin Camera:

Vantrue E360 Dual Fisheye Front + Cabin Cameras:

I have to say that I'm a fan of those wide-angle lenses! They provide much more periphery visual information than my Viofo camera. As for specialty purposes, if you are a taxi or Uber driver, this is an AWESOME camera because you get a nice interior view as well to document if something goes wrong with a passenger. I can also see the value after an accident of documenting the fact that you weren't on your phone at the time of the accident.

I made a nice little discovery while driving with the E360, the little green LED on the rear window camera is pretty easy to see (at least on an overcast day) in my rear view mirror. It is not obtrusive at all and it's nice to be able to confirm that the camera is powered up and functioning without any hassle.

Seems that I've hit my daily YouTube upload limit for now, more later...

Out of curiosity, why comments turned off? It’s unlisted so people would be coming from this community, no?

 

[EricSan]

Interesting, this wasn't a specific choice on my part- must have been some default setting somewhere.

You can always post your comments here…

 

[EricSan]

In his review thread, @Julian23 made a comment about the bitrate for the E360. I was curious about the bitrate/MPEG compression as well and I poked on this a little bit in one of my posts above. It seems that there is a pretty significant tradeoff being made in order to implement the fish-eye/360 degree view of this camera (which is pretty interesting feature) and still keep file sizes reasonable in order to make a 128GB or 256GB card usable with the E360. So here is a more detailed analysis and comparison that I made between the E360 and my Viofo A139Pro.

I fully acknowledge that this may not be the most ideal way to break this down, but I wanted some sort of "normalized" comparison between the two cameras. What I came up with is a measure of the "number of pixels per kilobyte over time." I obtain this measure by multiplying the vertical and horizontal resolution of the video frame to arrive at the total number of pixels that are encoded and divide this by the resulting filesize. Since both cameras are recording at 30FPS and with 3min video loops, these two parameters are ignored in my analysis. I did this for both cameras:

Vantrue: Single camera file at maximum resolution of 2592 x 1944 (5,038,848 pixels) at 30FPS = 358,436KB file for 3 mins of recording. Give or take a little bit on filesize.

Viofo: Single camera at maximum resolution of 3840 x 1600 (6,144,000 pixels) at 30FPS = 1,019,708KB for 3 mins of recording. Again, give or take a little bit on filesize depending on exactly what driving scene has been recorded.

Here are the results of using my somewhat arbitrary formula:
Vantrue E360: 14.05 pixels per kilobyte of filesize over a 3min recording at 30FPS.
Viofo A139Pro: 6.02 pixels per kilobyte of filesize over a 3min recording at 30FPS.

Comparing these two data points, it's pretty clear that the MPEG video compression of the Vantrue camera is more than 2x (14.05 / 6.02) the compression of the Viofo A139 Pro. I suspect the compression setting is intended to provide reasonable efficiency with 128GB and 256GB cards because the E360 captures SO much more visual information in it's field of view.

However, given the geometry of the E360 lens and the resulting video file size, the "actual" MPEG compression level is likely even greater as the Vantrue wide-angle lens captures a great deal of sky (top ~1/3 of the frame) and a great deal of my dashboard (bottom ~1/3 of the frame), as well as much more to the left and right sides of the frame that my Viofo cannot. These top and bottom "bands" in the video stream are relatively static in nature (compared to the greater level of activity in the middle ~1/3 of the frame that captures the road and surrounding traffic), so these bands likely compress even more from frame to frame in the video file.

The two images below show what I mean about the relatively static top and bottom bands in the video frame. They also highlight what my Viofo camera cannot capture that the Vantrue DOES capture. Cameras are mounted very close to one another on my front windshield. Comparing these two views also shows that the area inside of the dashed red rectangle in the Vantrue image contains (I'm rounding here) just a pinch more than 1,000,000 pixels (roughly 650 pixels high times roughly 1650 pixels wide). This same view in the Viofo camera is captured by a pinch more than 6,000,000 pixels (3840 wide * 1600 high). So, for the most critical area in the frame, the Viofo is recording at 6x the resolution as the Vantrue E360 does.

I'm wondering if there is a way to play with the geometry/spacing of the E360 lens in relationship to the sensor chip that would maximize the usefulness of the frame that is captured (as the top and bottom bands don't contribute very much that would help following an accident), yet still retain the excellent peripheral detail (all of the way to the A-pillars!) that other cameras cannot capture (while still enabling the 360 function). I'm guessing Jeff and his team have been through this in great detail while designing the E360. It's a classic case of that "no free lunch" thing that exists everywhere.

Vantrue E360 image, 2592 x 1944 resolution (5,038,848 pixels):

Viofo A139 Pro Image, 3840 x 1600 resolution (6,144,000 pixels), same approximate view as the red dashed line box above:

 

[Julian23]

There is absolutely a trade off. Either capture everything and lose a detail or capture a certain area in higher quality. The E360 is the first of its kind.
If Vantrue would be able to optimize the quality with a firmware update it would be nice. We have seen in the past that a "simple" update can have a big impact.