A139 Pro recording in h.265

[tchavei]

I wonder how big of a deal the h.265 playback concerns are in practice. I understand the potential issues in theory, but it’s 2023. Maybe some police officers here and there are using old computers, but if people are dealing with videos on a regular basis as a profession, they should be able to play back most any modern codec and video format.

There’s been some examples shared in this thread of where it has been an issue before and those are good examples. Knowing that you could submit the original h.265, a YouTube link, and a transcoded h.264 video if you like too.

In my experience I’ve been fine sending unlisted YouTube links to insurance companies, but obviously different people will want different things.

It’s good to have a frank discussion of the potential pros and cons for all the possibilities.

Well, each person will have different circumstances so needs might be different.

For me, h265 would indeed be to be able to store more footage since I'm shy of trying a 512gb card (reading the issues others have had with that size) and because I give more importance to parking mode. I have had acidents in the past but so far without issues. The other parties always assumed liability and when not, insurance has always given me reason (because I wasn't responsible).

Where I have been screwed over and over during the last 10 or 15 years has been with people backing into my car while parked and fleeing. Usually nothing major but over time as scratches and dings accumulate, one starts to get annoyed having to fix things that I'm not responsible for. A effective parking mode would have been marvelous but since this dashcam seems power hungry, the only option I see is time-lapse (3 frames sec?) which seems to be the one that uses less power of all modes. Hence my idea of using h265 to he able to store the max amount of footage.

I figure that most people will accept an unlisted YouTube video and if in doubt, can request the raw file.


That's something else I'm wondering about... Is it really a good idea to have embed speed? Not that I speed that much but would suck my case being thrown away if I happen to be 3km above the speed limit. Maybe I should turn that function off.

 

[naruhodo]

That's something else I'm wondering about... Is it really a good idea to have embed speed? Not that I speed that much but would suck my case being thrown away if I happen to be 3km above the speed limit. Maybe I should turn that function off.

I was also wondering about the speed display. I turned the speed display off in the Viofo app and it does not appear at the bottom with the other information displayed in the video. However, I've also been experimenting with the DashcamViewer app (dashcamviewer.com)... and found that even though I turned off the speed display in the Viofo app, apparently the GPS data captured in the video file includes vehicle speed info. When I use Dashcam Viewer to play back a video that has had the speed turned off, the viewer still tells me how fast the car is going moment-to-moment even though the speed display was off in the Viofo app. There is even a graph of the speeds over time. Also, as I understand the features of Dashcam Viewer, even if there were no speed data at all in the video file, Dashcam Viewer can infer the speed from the rate of change of the GPS location coordinates. I couldn't possibly know whether or not law enforcement or insurance companies would be using Dashcam Viewer to assess what the complete scenario of an event was. But, given the current technology, it seems to me that speed can't be hidden at this time if GPS coordinates are available. Food for thought.
-Bob

 

[tchavei]

I was also wondering about the speed display. I turned the speed display off in the Viofo app and it does not appear at the bottom with the other information displayed in the video. However, I've also been experimenting with the DashcamViewer app (dashcamviewer.com)... and found that even though I turned off the speed display in the Viofo app, apparently the GPS data captured in the video file includes vehicle speed info. When I use Dashcam Viewer to play back a video that has had the speed turned off, the viewer still tells me how fast the car is going moment-to-moment even though the speed display was off in the Viofo app. There is even a graph of the speeds over time. Also, as I understand the features of Dashcam Viewer, even if there were no speed data at all in the video file, Dashcam Viewer can infer the speed from the rate of change of the GPS location coordinates. I couldn't possibly know whether or not law enforcement or insurance companies would be using Dashcam Viewer to assess what the complete scenario of an event was. But, given the current technology, it seems to me that speed can't be hidden at this time if GPS coordinates are available. Food for thought.
-Bob

Yeah, there are several ways of measuring speed in a video. Doesn't even have to have coordinates. I was more thinking in not having it stamped like "look at me"

 

[Julian23]

Yeah, there are several ways of measuring speed in a video. Doesn't even have to have coordinates. I was more thinking in not having it stamped like "look at me"

There are 3 options to figure out your speed from the video.
The speed stamp, the GPS info, and then calculating it with the time it takes you to travel a certain distance in the video.
Keep in mind that the GPS is not calibrated officially or anything and has a delay.
I absolutely get your intention but if they want to, they could figure your speed out anyway.

 

[tchavei]

There are 3 options to figure out your speed from the video.
The speed stamp, the GPS info, and then calculating it with the time it takes you to travel a certain distance in the video.
Keep in mind that the GPS is not calibrated officially or anything and has a delay.
I absolutely get your intention but if they want to, they could figure your speed out anyway.

Yeah I get it. But there's a difference between taking the effort of calculating it: "If he's speeding, it will change the outcome" and "Oh look, he's 3km/h above speed limit, what did he expect anyway, close the vid and dismiss".

Now this sounds like I'm a speeder which I'm not (anymore) but going "slightly" over the limit, can happen to anyone of us I assume. Would suck one to incriminate himself because of a "technical" detail.

 

[Dashmellow]

I wonder how big of a deal the h.265 playback concerns are in practice. I understand the potential issues in theory, but it’s 2023. Maybe some police officers here and there are using old computers, but if people are dealing with videos on a regular basis as a profession, they should be able to play back most any modern codec and video format.

There’s been some examples shared in this thread of where it has been an issue before and those are good examples. Knowing that you could submit the original h.265, a YouTube link, and a transcoded h.264 video if you like too.

In my experience I’ve been fine sending unlisted YouTube links to insurance companies, but obviously different people will want different things.

It’s good to have a frank discussion of the potential pros and cons for all the possibilities.

I think it depends on the circumstances. If you experience a simple fender bender and you need to send a claim to your insurance company then putting a video up on Youtube and sending the link to your insurance agent should be fine.

On the other hand if you have a more serious matter it is a whole different situation. Let's say you are involved in a major car accident where there are serious injuries or fatalities. Whatever side of the matter you are on you suddenly have a very different situation on your hands. There will be police, fire and rescue services and probably a crash reconstruction team at the scene. After that there will be various insurance company entities and attorneys/law firms involved. Then, depending on the circumstances there could be prosecutor's offices, courtroom appearances and perhaps a criminal or civil trial. Many of these people will want or need to critically review your footage.

As for YouTube, or some other online method of viewing videos, forget it. For example, the State Police in my area informed me that they absolutely will not click on any links in an email for security reasons and that any and all videos or photos need to be submitted on digital media that can be scanned before viewing on their computer systems. They refuse to look at any online video submissions. They want hard evidence they can document, catalogue and store.

In a serious criminal or civil legal matter where fatalities or very serious injuries are involved you will probably be required to provide original video, not edited or transcoded video.

The bottom line is that as promising as H.265 may be it is still not the ubiquitous, universal video compression scheme that H.264 is. It is getting closer but we are still not there.

If you take the time to do the research you will find that even video production and publishing companies that are promoting H.265 such as in the link I posted yesterday do not recommend fully committing to H.265 just yet until it is more widely adopted.

Here are two quotes from the link comparing H.264 vs H.265.

"Yes, H.265 uses more CPU and requires more powerful hardware than H.264. On top of this, it is still not supported by as many devices and browsers as H.264"

"If you ask us, despite its slightly inferior performance, H.264 still reigns as the industry standard, and it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. That is why we at the Brid.TV video platform use this codec to ensure our publishers can save up on space without compromising the viewing experience of their audience."

The fact is that there are still many older computers and devices out there running older software, especially at certain corporations and municipal entities such as police departments, especially in today's economic environment where upgrade schedules can lag. You just don't know where your video will end up in the chain of custody once it is out of your hands.

The last thing you want in a serious claim or legal matter is for some key person not to be able to view your video all because you wanted to use the newest, latest, bestest technology to save 10% or so of extra space on your memory card. This seems counterproductive to me and in fact may turn out to be downright foolish.

I don't know what the actual percentage is but as a longtime member here one thing I have observed is that a vast majority of DCT members have never been in a position where they actually had to submit video to the authorities for any reason, much less a serious one. It is all theoretical and imaginary to most and many do not understand evidentiary procedures.

 

[rambodtm]

I think it depends on the circumstances. If you experience a simple fender bender and you need to send a claim to your insurance company then putting a video up on Youtube and sending the link to your insurance agent should be fine.

On the other hand if you have a more serious matter it is a whole different situation. Let's say you are involved in a major car accident where there are serious injuries or fatalities. Whatever side of the matter you are on you suddenly have a very different situation on your hands. There will be police, fire and rescue services and probably a crash reconstruction team at the scene. After that there will be various insurance company entities and attorneys/law firms involved. Then, depending on the circumstances there could be prosecutor's offices, courtroom appearances and perhaps a criminal or civil trial. Many of these people will want or need to critically review your footage.

As for YouTube, or some other online method of viewing videos, forget it. For example, the State Police in my area informed me that they absolutely will not click on any links in an email for security reasons and that any and all videos or photos need to be submitted on digital media that can be scanned before viewing on their computer systems. They refuse to look at any online video submissions. They want hard evidence they can document, catalogue and store.

In a serious criminal or civil legal matter where fatalities or very serious injuries are involved you will probably be required to provide original video, not edited or transcoded video.

The bottom line is that as promising as H.265 may be it is still not the ubiquitous, universal video compression scheme that H.264 is. It is getting closer but we are still not there.

If you take the time to do the research you will find that even video production and publishing companies that are promoting H.265 such as in the link I posted yesterday do not recommend fully committing to H.265 just yet until it is more widely adopted.

Here are two quotes from the link comparing H.264 vs H.265.

"Yes, H.265 uses more CPU and requires more powerful hardware than H.264. On top of this, it is still not supported by as many devices and browsers as H.264"

"If you ask us, despite its slightly inferior performance, H.264 still reigns as the industry standard, and it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. That is why we at the Brid.TV video platform use this codec to ensure our publishers can save up on space without compromising the viewing experience of their audience."

The fact is that there are still many older computers and devices out there running older software, especially at certain corporations and municipal entities such as police departments, especially in today's economic environment where upgrade schedules can lag. You just don't know where your video will end up in the chain of custody once it is out of your hands.

The last thing you want in a serious claim or legal matter is for some key person not to be able to view your video all because you wanted to use the newest, latest, bestest technology to save 10% or so of extra space on your memory card. This seems counterproductive to me and in fact may turn out to be downright foolish.

I don't know what the actual percentage is but as a longtime member here one thing I have observed is that a vast majority of DCT members have never been in a position where they actually had to submit video to the authorities for any reason, much less a serious one. It is all theoretical and imaginary to most and many do not understand evidentiary procedures.

I'm sorry, I do truly get your point, but I think you've beaten it to death now.

Definitely here in the UK (and I'm sure many other countries) h.265 wouldnt be a problem. If the judicial system in the USA is really that bad that they can't play h.265 in this day and age, then god help you.

In your example above, people have been killed, and the driver is looking at going to prison unless they provide video evidence. So they provide the evidence, but the court cannot open it because they have out of date computers. So at this point, a lawyer, a judge, the police, anyone..... doesnt think to provide a device that can play it, or provide a screen that can be linked to a device that can play it?? No, none of that happens, and the driver just goes to prison for killing someone??? IF that really can happen in the USA, then guns are not your biggest problem

 

[Dashmellow]

I'm sorry, I do truly get your point, but I think you've beaten it to death now.

Definitely here in the UK (and I'm sure many other countries) h.265 wouldnt be a problem. If the judicial system in the USA is really that bad that they can't play h.265 in this day and age, then god help you.

In your example above, people have been killed, and the driver is looking at going to prison unless they provide video evidence. So they provide the evidence, but the court cannot open it because they have out of date computers. So at this point, a lawyer, a judge, the police, anyone..... doesnt think to provide a device that can play it, or provide a screen that can be linked to a device that can play it?? No, none of that happens, and the driver just goes to prison for killing someone??? IF that really can happen in the USA, then guns are not your biggest problem

You've obviously missed the point by a wide margin but thank you for your so very British perspective.

 

[kamkar]

I absolutely get your intention but if they want to, they could figure your speed out anyway.

Indeed if you are worried about your own speed, you should absolutely not record video with any camera while driving, at least not if the footage of that camera can be used against you.
Just like if you break into a house, you should not use the PC there to check your facebook, and then forget to log out / clear browser history before you leave.

 

[rambodtm]

You've obviously missed the point by a wide margin but thank you for your so very British perspective.

By a wide margin? haha. So what is your point then? If now suddenly it's not about evidence, what else can it be lol?

Not quite sure why its a "very British perspective" though lol?? Are we not allowed PC's higher than Windows 95 or something?

 

[Dashmellow]

By a wide margin? haha. So what is your point then? If now suddenly it's not about evidence, what else can it be lol?

Not quite sure why its a "very British perspective" though lol?? Are we not allowed PC's higher than Windows 95 or something?

You seem to want to turn this into yet another national bashing session directed toward the USA rather than a discussion about the merits of whether to use H.265 or H. 264. For some reason many Brits here on the forum always seem to have a habit of going there. I'm tired of it. In fact, as far as I am concerned you are brushing up against rule #9 here on the forum with remarks like you've made.

As for the topic of video compression I have made myself quite clear. The point is not whether a video is ultimately viewable or not but that for a variety of reasons it is advisable to create videos that are as easy as possible for literally ANYONE within the chain of custody who needs to see your videos to view them without hassle or delay - or even view them at all. And the stakes are different depending upon whether it is an insurance matter, a civil matter or a criminal matter. Of course, these are distinctions that seem to elude you and your generalizations.

 

[rambodtm]

You seem to want to turn this into yet another national bashing session directed toward the USA rather than a discussion about the merits of whether to use H.265 or H. 264. For some reason many Brits here on the forum always seem to have a habit of going there. I'm tired of it. In fact, as far as I am concerned you are brushing up against rule #9 here on the forum with remarks like you've made.

As for the topic of video compression I have made myself quite clear. The point is not whether a video is ultimately viewable or not but that for a variety of reasons it is advisable to create videos that are as easy as possible for literally ANYONE within the chain of custody who needs to see your videos to view them without hassle or delay - or even view them at all. And the stakes are different depending upon whether it is an insurance matter, a civil matter or a criminal matter. Of course, these are distinctions that seem to elude you and your generalizations.

What planet are you on lol? National bashing session? WTF?

The original poster is from the UK, yet you constantly insist that h.265 will be a problem for him when needing evidence. YOU are the only one who has insisted that its a problem in the USA (which IF thats true, is pretty shocking in its own right, but whatever).

You were being arrogant to the original poster, and telling him that he is arguing with you etc bla bla. What you say is gospel, and no one should believe otherwise. Seeing as he IS a UK member, your points are not valid. Yes heat may be an issue (but again, not a huge issue in the UK). That's really the only downside for them.

Not quite sure what your attitude is about really, because I assumed the USA would have modern technology, and yet you insist that a lot of government or insurance departments etc DONT have modern tech. If me assuming the former makes me a USA basher, then jeez, strike me down......!!

 

[tchavei]

Indeed if you are worried about your own speed, you should absolutely not record video with any camera while driving, at least not if the footage of that camera can be used against you.
Just like if you break into a house, you should not use the PC there to check your facebook, and then forget to log out / clear browser history before you leave.

Fair point.

 

[Dashmellow]

What planet are you on lol? National bashing session? WTF?

The original poster is from the UK, yet you constantly insist that h.265 will be a problem for him when needing evidence. YOU are the only one who has insisted that its a problem in the USA (which IF thats true, is pretty shocking in its own right, but whatever).

You were being arrogant to the original poster, and telling him that he is arguing with you etc bla bla. What you say is gospel, and no one should believe otherwise. Seeing as he IS a UK member, your points are not valid. Yes heat may be an issue (but again, not a huge issue in the UK). That's really the only downside for them.

Not quite sure what your attitude is about really, because I assumed the USA would have modern technology, and yet you insist that a lot of government or insurance departments etc DONT have modern tech. If me assuming the former makes me a USA basher, then jeez, strike me down......!!

I am simply expressing my opinion but you feel the need to turn it into some sort of spat over the USA vs the UK full of innuendo and insults. Obviously, you showed up in this thread looking for an argument. If you want to argue about the merits of one video compression codec vs another, I'm game but If you are going to attack my character and start insulting me or attack the USA court systems and other entities, engage in nation bashing disparaging remarks like "I assumed the USA would have modern technology" or bring up irrelevant gun issues you are totally out of line and you need to cut it out forthwith. Of course, this is exactly the pattern I was talking about with some of our British member friends here on the forum because I've seen it so many times before. Indeed, you sound an awfull lot like Nigel. I often wonder where this mindset and attitude comes from, especially considering the current state of affairs in your country. NOTHING I've said in this thread ever mentioned the OP's nationality or had the slightest thing to do with the UK, but this is apparently the lens you see this through. The OP's nationality is irrelevant here as is mine.

If you don't agree with me that's fine. If you want to use H.265, go right ahead, it's your privilege, but leave off with your fractious, querulous attitude.

 

[rambodtm]

I am simply expressing my opinion but you feel the need to turn it into some sort of spat over the USA vs the UK full of innuendo and insults. Obviously, you showed up in this thread looking for an argument. If you want to argue about the merits of one video compression codec vs another, I'm game but If you are going to attack my character and start insulting me or attack the USA court systems and other entities, engage in nation bashing disparaging remarks like "I assumed the USA would have modern technology" or bring up irrelevant gun issues you are totally out of line and you need to cut it out forthwith. Of course, this is exactly the pattern I was talking about with some of our British member friends here on the forum because I've seen it so many times before. Indeed, you sound an awfull lot like Nigel. I often wonder where this mindset and attitude comes from, especially considering the current state of affairs in your country. NOTHING I've said in this thread ever mentioned the OP's nationality or had the slightest thing to do with the UK, but this is apparently the lens you see this through. The OP's nationality is irrelevant here as is mine.

If you don't agree with me that's fine. If you want to use H.265, go right ahead, it's your privilege, but leave off with your fractious, querulous attitude.

Wow, just wow haha.

 

[Dashmellow]

Wow, just wow haha.

I would suggest you try acting like a mature adult but I can see that is hard for you.

 

[rambodtm]

I would suggest you try acting like a mature adult but I can see that is hard for you.

ME???

I call this done then. There's obviously something else going on here. If you want to twist every word anyone ever says to you, and wont accept anything other than your own opinion, then its pointless.


To the OP, a heat increase is about the only real issue, but that will only be an issue depending on each individual person's circumstances. If the heat is not a problem for you, then there are no real disadvantages to h.265.

 

[Dashmellow]

ME???

I call this done then. There's obviously something else going on here. If you want to twist every word anyone ever says to you, and wont accept anything other than your own opinion, then its pointless.


To the OP, a heat increase is about the only real issue, but that will only be an issue depending on each individual person's circumstances. If the heat is not a problem for you, then there are no real disadvantages to h.265.

The OP never mentioned heat. He simply asked the reasonable and intelligent question about whether there were any downsides to using H.265 and acknowledged that some people might not have access to the codec.

What are the downsides, if any, with h.265? I can still play them on my iPhone and Windows laptop but might there be some platforms or people who don't have access to the codec?

I merely responded to his question, and offered an opinion based on prior experience, yet here you are attacking me, dishing out insults and making disparaging statements about the USA.

Please don't talk to me about "twisting every word". And while you are at it maybe try to get your facts straight instead of making things up.

 

[rambodtm]

The OP never mentioned heat. He simply asked the reasonable and intelligent question about whether there were any downsides to using H.265 and acknowledged that some people might not have access to the codec.



I merely responded to his question, and offered an opinion based on prior experience, yet here you are attacking me, dishing out insults and making disparaging statements about the USA.

Please don't talk to me about "twisting every word". And while you are at it maybe try to get your facts straight instead of making things up.

I never said that he mentioned heat? I was agreeing with others that the downside is more heat. And you literally had an argument with him, and you gave him arrogant replies. You're either trolling now, or something is seriously wrong??

 

[Dashmellow]

I never said that he mentioned heat?

To the OP, a heat increase is about the only real issue