30 fps vs 60 fps

[kamkar]

I see video as a succession of still images, this is also why had i still been into PC gaming and been able to find games worth playing, the newfangled stuff Nvidia and AMD do with frame insertion is not really something i would like on the face of it ( CUZ i have not tried it )

When i ruled out 60 FPS in dashcams all those years ago, it was with me knowing that i could also loose out on some things.
I remember in school in photo class one of a few things that did not feel like a nightmare to me, we was told that if you want to photo something ( human ) in movement, you need at least 1:500 second exposure time to get a sharp image without motion blur.

Of course this was in the 70ties and B&W film in 400 ISO sensitivity, which is what we was provided with for free.

MY friends sister drive a Skoda, now with a somewhat " modified " front CUZ she hit a deer on the way home last week, she can not live without her car so she wait a open slot in the shop so she can have it fixed.
Most deer here are quite small, so the damage on the front is all together something else than say hitting a elk or a Moose.

 

[Vortex Radar]

@Vortex Radar

Very good video, but there are a few points that were overlooked on 30 FPS vs 60 FPS.

1. In your comparison, you acknowledge that larger objects are often more discernible (like a passing car) at 60 FPS vs 30 FPS. In the case of a hit and run, where the plates weren't captured, a description of the vehicle is relevant to police and insurance companies. If you can state it looked like a 2007 Volvo, that's still better than nothing.

Discussed starting at 8:24

2. Not all accidents involve car. Wild animals (Deer, Moose, etc), pedestrians, Objects fall from a vehicle, etc. In these cases, more frames create a smoother video day and night, which leads to better documentation.

The smoother video part, both for full speed and slowmo, is discussed starting at 0:48. Having 2x the frames can be helpful to give you a better chance to capture something that goes by quick, that's true.

Yes, 60 FPS isn't a magic fix for license plates because 1/60 vs 1/30 is generally not a quick enough exposure for high action. However, don't fully discount the secondary benefits of a higher frame rate.

Personally I figure the biggest benefits are simply aesthetic, like if you want the faster framerate on track or something. It's nice, but not necessary.

 

[jsmith]

Discussed starting at 8:24

I did hear you discuss better clarity with the vehicle (and not plate readability). The points I articulated were meant to emphasize that extra frames isn't always a gimmick. Clearer images can have still prove beneficial even without a plate.

The smoother video part, both for full speed and slowmo, is discussed starting at 0:48. Having 2x the frames can be helpful to give you a better chance to capture something that goes by quick, that's true.

Exactly. I don't think you touched on alternative scenarios (didn't hear that), so wanted to point out situations where 60 FPS would be useful. I've captured numerous unrelated incidences with my dashcams. Serious Criminal Activity (parking mode - low bitrate), my car being hit 2-3 times (parking and non parking mode), A person hitting an animal, etc.

I tell people Dashcams are all encompassing from driving to unrelated matters. They record and document everything you see and more.

Personally I figure the biggest benefits are simply aesthetic, like if you want the faster framerate on track or something. It's nice, but not necessary.

Not necessarily for reasons mentioned above. Sure, there's a lot of marketing hype here with little substance, but even your comparison videos proved there are moderate benefits to 60 FPS vs 30 FPS. Consumer choice is good. Some people are always willing to spend top dollar even for mild to moderate improvements.