A129+ new user... finally

[ursamajor]

Judging by the released footage it look like SG cameras will get a significant boost in Image quality

Can you, please, give me a link to?

 

[kamkar]

There are some pics / frame grap ASO in some SG threads.

Initial work is being made on the GCX2 pro version, but will filter down to all SG cameras as i understand it

Street Guardian SGGCX2PROPlus, new firmware MOD

Changing my appearance to Russia i have watched the video :) If Denmark worked a cop would have pulled over that smoking truck and sent him to inspection, but Denmark dont work at the moment so if a cop saw a truck like that he would just look the other way. I think we Danes need to stop voting...

dashcamtalk.com

 

[ursamajor]

Maybe Viofo should be inspired by the work of those guys...
I also tested WDR in daylight and I found that it delivers nicer images than default, on some conditions, by adjusting the EV.

I watched several night videos on that SG FW mod thread, but, sicerely, I'm not so impressed by the quality in low light.

 

[kamkar]

Well i do prefer to look at my own footage, even raw footage from other people i dont feel are the same, even if the camera are.

 

[ursamajor]

Yes, each person with its own settings, then it matters what you shoot, the conditions, the environment, the lighting, etc.

 

[ursamajor]

WDR on, daylight video. RAW file in description.

 

[ursamajor]

... I also made some measurements and found that the real FOV of A129 Plus is about 120-125 degrees vs 140 declared.

 

[SawMaster]

Sounds about right for horizontal measurement (which is the important one here). Using a protractor I've measured from 110 deg. to 132 deg. with various cams, and I've seen but not measured narrower This Viofo might make 140 deg. diagonally, but that's a lot harder to measure with my set-up so I don't even try.

Phil

 

[ursamajor]

Yes, measurements are somehow close to those declared in this case, but in the case of V3, the difference between 95 deg. and 140 deg. is huge.

 

[jokiin]

but in the case of V3,

V3 lens is 100 degree horizontal

 

[ursamajor]

Still far, far away from 140... I took my figure from a user who said that he measured it... he's somewhere on the forum.

 

[jokiin]

Still far, far away from 140... I took my figure from a user who said that he measured it... he's somewhere on the forum.

have yet to see any camera with anything that wide, even the ones that promote themselves as using 170 degree lenses are typically no wider than 115 horizontal

 

[ursamajor]

What's the difference between saying 170 instead of 115 real and declaring 140 vs 95 in reality? It's same lie. I mean, at least manufacturer (so called "trusted" ones) shoulg declare the real values.

 

[jokiin]

What's the difference between saying 170 instead of 115 real and declaring 140 vs 95 in reality? It's same lie. I mean, at least manufacturer (so called "trusted" ones) shoulg declare the real values.

no difference, wrong is wrong no matter which way you twist it, unfortunately the market is full of incorrect spec and customers that don't know any different that fall into the trap of insisting that they need the widest view possible for whatever reason so there are sellers that advertise big numbers to try and get sales

that said though it is possible that a lens can be a 140 degree lens and have a 95 degree horizontal viewing angle, the 140 can be a maximum diagonal resolution but the achieved results will vary depending on which sensor is used, the horizontal viewing angle is more relevant to what people are looking for but it's a measurement that rarely gets quoted, the diagonal angle is always a larger value so that's what you will see used, sometimes it's actual based on which sensor is being used, most often though it's the lens max value that is quoted, it's not a good indication of the actual end result but technically speaking it can still be a real value, just a pointless one

 

[ursamajor]

have a 95 degree horizontal viewing angle, the 140 can be a maximum diagonal resolution but the achieved results will vary depending on which sensor is used

I'm sorry, but here you talk exactly like a manufacturer. When we refer to the FOV, we talk about a system: sensor-lens. About a finite product, not theoretical optics (how the sensor use or not the entire FOV of the lens). I really don't care what lens and sensor they use, I do care about the FOV of the camera, as finite product. And I doubt they don't know the real FOV of their camera. Explainations like yours (excusing the manufacturers) are good for people who have no idea about optics, sensors etc. You said it to the wrong guy.
That situatios (false specifications) is so because of permisive (chinese) laws, because of quick approval for sale (even if products are nonconforming)... and the absence of competition in the majority of countries. As a result, imports enter and are accepted as is, ie nonconforming, also with the tacit agreement of the importing countries. It's an invention of the chinese, from the time when they produced cheap fakes (not only DVR, but anything, they also produce currently) and they had flooded the market with them. I don't necessarily blame them, because they made possible the decrease of prices. For example, today I would still have bought telescopes (I'm passionate amateur astronomer) at 4000$ and not at 1000$... but at least in astro-optics specifications aren't false.

By the way, SG also use false advertising?

PS: and, by the way, a 95 deg. horizontal can't NEVER become 140 deg. diagonal.

 

[jokiin]

PS: and, by the way, a 95 deg. horizontal can't NEVER become 140 deg. diagonal.

that's a double negative so I'm not sure what you're trying to say, perhaps getting lost in translation, anyway lens spec and lens result with a given sensor (the same lens with different sensors can have a 10° or greater difference) are not the same thing, quoting either number could be technically correct, it's rarely ever specified which is being quoted though, if the spec doesn't list diagonal or horizontal then odds are they are just quoting the lens diagonal total, it's always the largest number and when the market is full of cameras quoting 170° lenses you can be sure they aren't quoting field of view numbers

 

[ursamajor]

Lol, yes, it is a big fault, I'm not the best english speaker, but for one who learnt it from TV, I'm satisfied.
I wanted to say that those 95 horizontal degrees FOV of V3 could never give a measured result of 140 diagonal degrees as you suggested, but 118,75 degrees at NATIVE resolution of the sensor (4/3 format). Period. Pure trigonometry.

the same lens with different sensors can have a 10° or greater difference

Again, we discuss about a given pair sensor-lens (V3's), not about optics theory. Yes, I agree that different sensors can use differently the FOV of a lens. But, in my opinion, it's a big stupidity to have a wide FOV lens and to pair it with a sensor who can't use its the entire FOV. And, personally, I don't think they do this way. I think they know exactly what lens they'll use. A wider lens is more difficult to produce and, consequently, more expensive. So they choose cheaper lens/narrower FOV to maximize profits and declared it, in a lying way, as much wider FOV. They relied on the fact that most could be fooled, but ... they can't do it to all.

 

[jokiin]

I wanted to say that those 95 horizontal degrees FOV of V3 could never give a measured result of 140 diagonal degrees as you suggested. Period.

I'm not suggesting anything about whatever lens you're talking about, just stating the lens spec from the manufacturer has a number of different specs listed, sellers will often choose to list the largest number which can be absolutely correct, but it can still be much different to the actual field of view measurement which they choose not to advertise, for the buyers it's very confusing as there's no standard that is used so comparing different cameras (on paper) is very difficult, as I have said many times in the past, it's better to look at the video and see if the field of view matches what you want, rather than rely on advertised numbers that have no reference

 

[ursamajor]

sellers will often choose to list the largest number which can be absolutely correct, but it can still be much different to the actual field of view measurement which they choose not to advertise,

It's not at all correct, as long as the real FOV is much different. We pretend we don't understand what we're talking about. FOV is the main feature in a camera specifications. How to ignore so easily that thing?

for the buyers it's very confusing as there's no standard that is used so comparing different cameras

Oh, but there is, the standard of truth. I suppose you produce SG in China. Did you refuse a lens because the REAL FOV is nonconforming with the advertised FOV? No, you preffered to sale the cameras with a false advertised FOV and make profit...

Because someone said a "wise" word, about so-called "trusted brands" Viofo or others... IMHO a REAL trusted brand would never take advantage of consumer ignorance and sell with false specifications. This is the habit of ghost companies who sell fake product.

 

[jokiin]

It's not at all correct

it's correct, just irrelevant

. Did you refuse a lens because the REAL FOV is nonconforming with the advertised FOV? No, you preffered to sale the cameras with a false advertised FOV and make profit...

we only advertise actual field of view numbers, the numbers from the lens manufacturer are much higher than anything we publish, we don't use those numbers, nor do we make choices based on price/profit