A129 Focus and CPL Fitment?

yeah the player is always a lower res version

Figures. Didn't notice download link or I would have grabbed the 1080p file.

My first Viofo had to be replaced because it froze up randomly. Even with new microsd (non Sandisk Ultra Plus). It happens, but I it seems Viofo makes a solid product. I bought a 2nd camera and it works great. So guessing these quality control mishaps are more the exception than the rule.
 
Hmm.. Let me scroll up one thread to find the tin foil hat guy who went on a political rant about China and Privacy....O wait that was you!

The point was that depending upon the daily life of the person in China who received the video from @RavenManiac , it might not be as obvious to them that posting it on Facebook without permission could be perceived as a privacy issue to those of us living in other countries. You chose to interpret the statement as political in nature. I don't doubt that they will remove it upon request by @RavenManiac and even offer a polite apology.
 
The point was that depending upon the daily life of the person in China who received the video from @RavenManiac , it might not be as obvious to them that posting it on Facebook without permission could be perceived as a privacy issue to those of us living in other countries. You chose to interpret the statement as political in nature. I don't doubt that they will remove it upon request by @RavenManiac and even offer a polite apology.

Here's the thing. Raven might not have given Viofo permission to post the video, and I understand why he is upset. His intentions were to show us a clip and have the forum determine whether his camera was faulty or not. Unfortunately, anything you post or share online risks being used in manners outside the purpose of intent.

Facebook got sued for using photos from user's Facebook pages in their marketing campaigns. Unfortunately, these uses were unauthorized and without the users consent, hence the lawsuit.

I would hope Viofo removes Raven's Video and apologizes. But this demonstrates the general nature of posting stuff online. Once put into the wild, you lose control of content.
 
Here's the thing. Raven might not have given Viofo permission to post the video, and I understand why he is upset. His intentions were to show us a clip and have the forum determine whether his camera was faulty or not. Unfortunately, anything you post or share online risks being used in manners outside the purpose of intent.

Facebook got sued for using photos from user's Facebook pages in their marketing campaigns. Unfortunately, these uses were unauthorized and without the users consent, hence the lawsuit.

I would hope Viofo removes Raven's Video and apologizes. But this demonstrates the general nature of posting stuff online. Once put into the wild, you lose control of content.

@HonestReview - Martin Lewis is a consumer finance journalist in the UK, who is essentially a public figure there. The lawsuit that he filed against Facebook was because they were not being proactive nor even responsive to banning/removing marketing materials from advertisers who were paying Facebook to post ads including Lewis' image without his permission. Facebook was not using his photos directly, and nor is it likely that the images were taken from Facebook in the first place, as it was the well known public nature of his face and his trusted reputation in consumer finance which were being used by the illicit advertisers to instill trust in their wares by Lewis' implied/apparent sponsorship of them.

But what that lawsuit has to do with an out-of-focus dashcam, I have absolutely no idea.

@RavenManiac - Glad to hear that Viofo is sending you a replacement dashcam. I don't hesitate to point out when they fall short on some aspect of their products, but they really are trying hard. And eventually one day they will have a product that is absolutely fabulous -- especially if we keep on them, while simultaneously using their products simply because they are responsive to us -- their customers. For if they weren't, I think many of us would stop buying from them, as well as steer others away from them too. (I let my complaints be known, but in the end I'm still a Viofo customer.)
 
Last edited:
There's no reason to bring your politics into any discussion about dashcams.
You started on the politics, so why are you complaining? Or is only the one correct view allowed?!

FYI: UK uses License Plate Readers to catch people with warrants + no insurance...Nanny State has arrived everywhere...
With the full support of most of the population, even some of those that get caught!
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it isn't welcome in another country. Your country has some strange views from our point of view, especially when it comes to devices designed purely to kill humans.
 
I just wanted to update everyone. Bill from Viofo contacted me via the Viofo support system and he very graciously offered me an apology. Like @jokiin posted previously, I believe the posting of my dashcam video was a simple mistake. No harm, no foul. Bill even offered me some product compensation, which I refused because it was clear to me that the Facebook posting wasn't intentional.

In my opinion, Viofo is a good, upstanding company that makes great products and has outstanding customer support. Better yet, Viofo actually listens to its customers and is constantly trying to improve its products. Plus, every experience I've had with Bill and his team has been a positive one. I am extremely happy that I decided to purchase not one, but two Viofo A129 Duos. Like Apple, Honda, and Mazda, Viofo is now one of my favorite brands and I would highly recommend the Viofo brand to anyone considering a quality dashcam. :)
 
Last edited:
You started on the politics, so why are you complaining? Or is only the one correct view allowed?!

My earlier post was not political in any way, shape, or form. Any perceived political slant was simply an assumption by the reader.

Did I share my opinion about anything that happens there, or was the post simply a factual representation of current practices in some parts of China -- which could possibly explain why the person who posted RavenManiac's video on Facebook might not necessarily have even thought to consider if making it public could be perceived as a violation of privacy?
 
Last edited:
My earlier post was not political in any way, shape, or form. Any perceived political slant was simply an assumption by the reader.

Did I share my opinion about anything that happens there, or was the post simply a factual representation of current practices in some parts of China -- which could possibly explain why the person who posted RavenManiac's video on Facebook might not necessarily have even thought to consider if making it public could be perceived as a violation of privacy?
They're also a Chinese company and there is little to no privacy left in China. They use facial recognition systems to identify jaywalkers and for tenants to gain access into apartment buildings. And that's just what is being reported, so you can imagine what else facial recognition may be being used for. At the very least in China, someone, somewhere, can reconstruct large pieces on an individual's life simply by checking the automated logs. So posting a voluntarily submitted video may not even trigger any question of appropriateness..
Your comments on facial recognition systems by authorities do seem to imply disapproval, and presumably are based on political news stories you have heard recently. The subject of facial recognition has nothing to do with people posting videos on facebook so seems irrelevant except as a political comment.

Facial recognition systems are currently being discussed for the UK too, and I expect they will be approved for widespread use since there are some significant advantages to using them, just like the automatic number plate recognition. We have always had facial recognition whenever you go out in public, good for personalised service at the local stores or restaurants, for local policing, etc., nice to be recognised across the country rather than only in the local area :)

Many people would be delighted to have their videos posted, and there has never been an issue with removing them on request. Not everywhere has a culture of asking permission first for things like that when you have already shared it without instructions not to share it further. If you don't want something shared further then say so when you share it.
 
Your comments on facial recognition systems by authorities do seem to imply disapproval, and presumably are based on political news stories you have heard recently. The subject of facial recognition has nothing to do with people posting videos on facebook so seems irrelevant except as a political comment.

Facial recognition systems are currently being discussed for the UK too, and I expect they will be approved for widespread use since there are some significant advantages to using them, just like the automatic number plate recognition. We have always had facial recognition whenever you go out in public, good for personalised service at the local stores or restaurants, for local policing, etc., nice to be recognised across the country rather than only in the local area :)

I do have personal views on facial recognition systems, but I have not shared them here -- neither by statement nor implication. But you seem to have some need to continue making your own personal viewpoint on them known in a dashcam discussion focusing mostly on technical issues. The reason I have not shared my politics is because I really don't care what you think about them, and I seek no approval of my opinions by you. And also because this is not the right place!

As I mentioned before you chimed in, when one living in a constantly monitored society receives a video sent from @RavenManiac, and subsequently posts it to an online service with worldwide reach, it might just be because that person does not share the same conceptual understanding in the value of privacy as @RavenManiac does. THAT is the relevance of my statements.

Which you seem to agree with because you essentially preached my own idea back at me using different words, as if you were the first to consider it:
Many people would be delighted to have their videos posted, and there has never been an issue with removing them on request. Not everywhere has a culture of asking permission first for things like that when you have already shared it without instructions not to share it further. If you don't want something shared further then say so when you share it.

After:
The point was that depending upon the daily life of the person in China who received the video from @RavenManiac , it might not be as obvious to them that posting it on Facebook without permission could be perceived as a privacy issue to those of us living in other countries. (...) I don't doubt that they will remove it upon request by @RavenManiac and even offer a polite apology.

Now as arguing on the internet is a pointless endeavor with never any winners and only losers, I will withdraw from this thread but I don't doubt that you or the other guy will have more to say on this.
 
@HonestReview - Martin Lewis is a consumer finance journalist in the UK, who is essentially a public figure there. The lawsuit that he filed against Facebook was because they were not being proactive nor even responsive to banning/removing marketing materials from advertisers who were paying Facebook to post ads including Lewis' image without his permission. Facebook was not using his photos directly, and nor is it likely that the images were taken from Facebook in the first place, as it was the well known public nature of his face and his trusted reputation in consumer finance which were being used by the illicit advertisers to instill trust in their wares by Lewis' implied/apparent sponsorship of them.

But what that lawsuit has to do with an out-of-focus dashcam, I have absolutely no idea.

There have been many lawsuits... That's not the same one....https://fortune.com/2016/11/23/facebook-checks-sponsored-story-payout-advertising-class-action/

Back in 2011, five plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit against Facebook for hijacking their names and faces to use in “Sponsored Story” ads. The social media giant, the charge went, had cobbled together promotional material based on users “liking” companies’ pages or content, Quartz reports.
 
You started on the politics, so why are you complaining? Or is only the one correct view allowed?!


With the full support of most of the population, even some of those that get caught!
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it isn't welcome in another country. Your country has some strange views from our point of view, especially when it comes to devices designed purely to kill humans.

I guess the whole Nanny state argument is debatable. But generally, I don't buy into the "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about argument". Because the counterpoint here would be that these technologies can become very intrusive and used in ways that'll make your skin crawl.

The attack against Samsung smart TVs was developed in cooperation with the United Kingdom's MI5/BTSS. After infestation, Weeping Angel places the target TV in a 'Fake-Off' mode, so that the owner falsely believes the TV is off when it is on. In 'Fake-Off' mode the TV operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the Internet to a covert CIA server. Source: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/

The CIA's Mobile Devices Branch (MDB) developed numerous attacks to remotely hack and control popular smart phones. Infected phones can be instructed to send the CIA the user's geolocation, audio and text communications as well as covertly activate the phone's camera and microphone.

Etc etc.

As noted, these tool can be used againt and to silence Political Dissidents (Think China, Pussy Riots (Russia), etc). To run smear campaigns against individuals or political opponents (Hilary Clinton's Emails). For purposes of blackmail, etc. The list goes on and on. So becoming "adjusted or supportive" of these efforts is downright troubling. As the original intent versus implementation becomes a slippery slope of where do the intrusions cease.
 
I do have personal views on facial recognition systems, but I have not shared them here -- neither by statement nor implication. But you seem to have some need to continue making your own personal viewpoint on them known in a dashcam discussion focusing mostly on technical issues. The reason I have not shared my politics is because I really don't care what you think about them, and I seek no approval of my opinions by you. And also because this is not the right place!

Posting a video without permission had NOTHING to do with China what so ever. It was a poor decision or a cultural misunderstanding on the part of Viofo.."Not China" Instead, YOU DECIDED to turn this into a political rant about Facial Recognition, Privacy, and Chinese Culture... So give me a break.


They're also a Chinese company and there is little to no privacy left in China. They use facial recognition systems to identify jaywalkers and for tenants to gain access into apartment buildings. And that's just what is being reported, so you can imagine what else facial recognition may be being used for. At the very least in China, someone, somewhere, can reconstruct large pieces on an individual's life simply by checking the automated logs. So posting a voluntarily submitted video may not even trigger any question of appropriateness..
 
these technologies can become very intrusive and used in ways that'll make your skin crawl.
So can dashcams, but I'm not in favor of banning them because they are very useful for normal everyday use, I don't care what the terrorists and law enforcement can manage to do with them!

Your Samsung Phone example is no different to the tapping of land line phones, which as long as it is done legally has been accepted as desirable almost since it became possible to do. In general it is only ever used against serious criminals, and most people expect it to stay that way, and the security forces normally wouldn't dare to go beyond what the rules allow, it is not them that make the rules, it is the government that makes the rules, on behalf of the people. At least in most countries, including UK, China, etc., not sure about USA.
 
I started to have the same focusing issue. I contacted VIOFO and am waiting for a resolution....

Today I got contacted by VIOFO and they asked for another sample. Seems that both front and rear cams became very sensitive to the outside temperature. Waiting for their response.
 
Today I got contacted by VIOFO and they asked for another sample. Seems that both front and rear cams became very sensitive to the outside temperature. Waiting for their response.

I would be interested to find out how heat is affecting focus.

We're going through a heatwave on the east coast of the US as well. Temperatures during the day have approached, or even exceeded, 100 degrees. It would be nice if Viofo could figure out a way to keep its cameras cooler by using either a different material for the housing (i.e. aluminum, like airliners) or a different color. And yes, I realize we would be sacrificing stealth for lower operating temperatures.
 
I would be interested to find out how heat is affecting focus.

We're going through a heatwave on the east coast of the US as well. Temperatures during the day have approached, or even exceeded, 100 degrees. It would be nice if Viofo could figure out a way to keep its cameras cooler by using either a different material for the housing (i.e. aluminum, like airliners) or a different color. And yes, I realize we would be sacrificing stealth for lower operating temperatures.

I believe these cameras are rated for very high temperatures. So if someone is having an issue with heat disbursement, then they most likely have a faulty unit.

Operating Temperature of the A129 Duo = -10 C to 65C. Or in 14 Degrees Fahrenheit to 149 Degrees Fahrenheit. I honestly doubt the camera would have issues in temperatures below 14. Electronics tend to enjoy cold weather, as their components are kept cool.
 
Just to update on my case. I think I found the problem of the low clarity. While cleaning the windows from the inside, I took out the cameras and noticed both front and back CPLs and camera lenses accumulated some sort of film probably coming out of plastic parts exposed to the heat and most likely mixed with the air conditioning and breath. The same film accumulates on the window as well. Now the image quality is back to the way it was months ago.
By the way, I cleaned the lenses and CPLs using special lens cleaners for glasses and a microfiber cloth made for cleaning windows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gse
Just to update on my case. I think I found the problem of the low clarity. While cleaning the windows from the inside, I took out the cameras and noticed both front and back CPLs and camera lenses accumulated some sort of film probably coming out of plastic parts exposed to the heat and most likely mixed with the air conditioning and breath. The same film accumulates on the window as well. Now the image quality is back to the way it was months ago.
By the way, I cleaned the lenses and CPLs using special lens cleaners for glasses and a microfiber cloth made for cleaning windows.
Probably burnt fuel mixed with worn tires and other substances off the road. Quite likely the result varies with heat, especially if it is in little blobs on the lens that can expand and contract. Lenses in the car and the windscreen glass will always need cleaning occasionally, however good the car air filter is.

I normally use a LensPen for cleaning the lens, ideal for removing oil/grease/fingerprints from lenses. Costs a bit more than a microfibre cloth, but lasts a long time and doesn't need washing after use, which avoids getting grit in it which might then scratch the lens - almost inevitable with a microfibre cloth after a few uses and washes.
 
Probably burnt fuel mixed with worn tires and other substances off the road. Quite likely the result varies with heat, especially if it is in little blobs on the lens that can expand and contract. Lenses in the car and the windscreen glass will always need cleaning occasionally, however good the car air filter is.

I normally use a LensPen for cleaning the lens, ideal for removing oil/grease/fingerprints from lenses. Costs a bit more than a microfibre cloth, but lasts a long time and doesn't need washing after use, which avoids getting grit in it which might then scratch the lens - almost inevitable with a microfibre cloth after a few uses and washes.
Thanks for LensPen suggestion,just ordered one.Can I clean CPL filters too with this pen?
 
Back
Top