A139 Pro Test & Review PP

It looks like the 2160 image has the chromatic aberration correction turned off, maybe the 35% more pixels resulted in too much work.
It does appear as though there is more to choosing 2160 vs 1600 than a simple crop, whether that be metering, CA, bitrate options.

So far I'm happy with 1600, although I notice that it doesn't show well in the App. The live preview is stretched vertically to fit into 16:9, rather than adding black bars.
 
Full disclosure, I'm not a pro tester like many folks here, just wanted to share my anecdotal observation that there is a difference in the actual image (2160 vs 1600)
Most of us are amateurs, and your observations are worth sharing (y)
Most of the customers are very amateur, so amateur testers are often the best!
We need some of both, and plenty of curiosity, since there are too many combinations of setup options for any one person to find all the issues/features.
Don't worry about making mistakes, we are all human, and somebody will probably be happy to correct you, unless everybody makes the same mistake!
 
Most of the customers are very amateur

Indeed, geeking out too much on dashcams i think will often not help the general public.
All i can say is i have used this and that camera, for a extended period of time, so i would not hesitate to recommend it, this is of course very hard to do with a brand new system, where you do not have many other peoples experience to lean on too.
 
I am running 3840x1600 in 1CH mode at 53Mbps and that seems plenty to me. It saves a little bit on memory card space and heat generation compared to 58Mbps.

Taking a quick look at the numbers, 1600/2560 = 0.625. So the 1600p video has 62.5% number of pixels compared to 3840x2560.

It looks like the Viofo engineers started with 44.8Mbps as the max bitrate they could run in combination with 16Mbps on the rear camera, then reduced the 1600p video bitrate in proportion to the change in pixel area: 0.625 x 44.8 = 28.0Mbps

I have tried the A139 Pro in 1CH, 2CH and 3CH configurations. Personally, I didn't like the effects of the reduction in bitrate, but then I am used to having 4K cameras at around 60Mbps.
I think you made a mistake somewhere in your calculation?

3840x2100 = 8,064,000 pixels
3840x1600 = 6,144,000 pixels
The difference between both resolutions is a ratio of 1.3125:1. (meaning 2100P has 31.25% more pixels than 1600P)

The bitrate posted by @rcg530 for the front camera recording of the 2CH version (front/rear) version (unless if he mistakenly transposed one of the numbers somewhere which I doubt because I see the same thing when I compare front/interior?):
3840x2100 = 44.86Mbps bitrate
3840x1600 = 28.06Mbps bitrate
The difference between both bitrates is a ratio of 1.5987:1. (meaning 2100P has 59.87% more bitrate than 1600P)

It is better for power use, yes it is better...but the image/video quality seems to be less per usable area because there is a major reduction in bitrate to accompany the stepdown to 1600P resolution.
In this case, there is a 23.81% reduction in resolution (going from 2100P to 1600P), but there is a 37.45% reduction in bitrate (going from 44.86Mbps to 28.06Mbps) to accompany this resolution reduction.

Or to explain it another way...
There is a 31.25% increase in resolution (going from 1600P to 2100P), but there is a 59.87% increase in bitrate (going from 44.86Mbps to 28.06Mbps) to accompany this resolution increase.

Conclusion: In 2CH mode, 2100P has more bitrate per pixel area than 1600P and therefore will result in higher image quality.

The 16:9 has 35% more pixels, so needs 35% more bitrate to achieve the same image quality.

The only reason to run the 1600 at the same or higher bitrate is to achieve significantly higher image quality, but the engineers were not necessarily choosing the bitrates for maximum quality. There is always a compromise between image quality and other things, such as temperature, reliability, hours of video per card, power consumption (especially if running on battery in parking mode), etc.
2100P (AKA 16:9) has 31.25% more pixels, so needs 31.25% more bitrate to achieve the same quality in 2CH mode...but Viofo gave it a whopping 59.87% increase in bitrate.

The interesting thing is if you do the same exact calculations that I did, except in 3CH mode; the equation goes the other way on the other side of the spectrum (running at 1600P in 3CH mode is much more superior to running at 2100P in 3CH mode)
3840x2100 = 8,064,000 pixels
3840x1600 = 6,144,000 pixels

3840x2100 = 26.74Mbps bitrate
3840x1600 = 26.46Mbps bitrate

There is a 31.25% increase in resolution (going from 1600P to 2100P), but there is only a 1.06% increase in bitrate (going from 26.46Mbps to 26.74Mbps) to accompany this resolution increase.
There is practically almost zero benefit at all of running 2100P in 3CH mode configuration.

Conclusion: In 3CH mode, 2100P has less bitrate per pixel area than 1600P and therefore will result in lower image quality.

The question for Viofo engineers is what exactly are they optimizing? and why does it seem like they are optimizing one thing in 2CH 1600P mode and the complete opposite of that in 3CH 1600P mode?

Consumption during parking mode is not as relevant because in low bitrate recording, the camera will not record anywhere near that bitrate regardless of the number of channels.
Low bitrate parking mode bitrate is 4.06Mbps (front) and 3.90Mbps (rear).
 
I think you made a mistake somewhere in your calculation?
Yes, I admitted that I used erroneous numbers (2560 rather than 2160)
 
Yes, I admitted that I used erroneous numbers (2560 rather than 2160)
Didn't see that earlier.
I initially started typing my response earlier this morning and did not finish responding to hit the "Post reply" button so I just continued when I left off after I came back home from work.
 
Hey guys,
I just got done mounting the A139 Pro, and A129 Pro on my windshield.
Since the A229 was already mounted, I moved the A119 Mini to the front windshield for a quick audio test of all four with their INTERNAL microphones.

The A139 Pro sounds too quiet for my taste, and is really noticeable compared with the A229. Have a listen.
-Chuck
 
The question for Viofo engineers is what exactly are they optimizing? and why does it seem like they are optimizing one thing in 2CH 1600P mode and the complete opposite of that in 3CH 1600P mode?
Maybe they hit a heat limit in 3ch mode, but in 2ch mode they were able to optimise for something else?

I don't think you are going to get a detailed explanation of the calculations they used to set the bitrates, and I suspect they were only estimated rather than calculated anyway, so there is no point looking at this too closely, but if you think they have it wrong in some configurations, report it, and maybe they will be able to improve it, depending on the reasons for it being limited.

2100P (AKA 16:9) has 31.25% more pixels,
I got 35% because I used 3840 x 2160, not 2100.
I don't know why you are using 2100, that doesn't seem to be an option?
 
Maybe they hit a heat limit in 3ch mode, but in 2ch mode they were able to optimise for something else?

I don't think you are going to get a detailed explanation of the calculations they used to set the bitrates, and I suspect they were only estimated rather than calculated anyway, so there is no point looking at this too closely, but if you think they have it wrong in some configurations, report it, and maybe they will be able to improve it, depending on the reasons for it being limited.
I guess maybe I should have reworded my earlier phrase.
In 2CH 1600P mode they seem to be optimizing for something, but in 2CH 2160P mode they seem to be optimizing for something different. I don't think heat plays an issue into why the bitrates in 1600P are much lower than 2160P mode when running the 2CH configuration.

I don't have the dashcam (I plan to skip this model entirely and see what the future holds with the A229 Pro or any Starvis 2/telephoto lens combo), but if I did I definitely would report this issue or at least request a firmware version with the updated change.

I got 35% because I used 3840 x 2160, not 2100.
I don't know why you are using 2100, that doesn't seem to be an option?
Yeah, I don't know why either.
I've gone back to edit my post and fixed the bad math issues.
 
A139 Pro HDR Comparison - A229 / A119 Mini / A129 Pro

Since I had all four dash cams on the front windshield for the audio test of the INTERNAL microphones. I decided to do another HDR comparison with the A229 & A119 Mini. It looks like the A119 Mini is a distance second place, and the A229 & A129 Pro are tied for last when it comes to reading the plate.
-Chuck
 

Attachments

  • A119 Mini .png
    A119 Mini .png
    1.2 MB · Views: 29
  • A129 Pro .png
    A129 Pro .png
    1.2 MB · Views: 29
  • A139 Pro .png
    A139 Pro .png
    1.2 MB · Views: 27
  • A229 .png
    A229 .png
    1.2 MB · Views: 27
City Test Footage

Since 2019 whenever I get a new dash cam the first test footage I film is the same designated test loop. In my small town population 12,000 it’s the busiest intersection to catch the most cars during “rush hour”. This was filmed off peak at 2:00AM. So this footage will most likely be of no use to you guys, but because I’m used to seeing the same test loop of scenery I can quickly compare with test samples of past cameras to get a good impression on overall camera performance.

Along with the A139 Pro, I also had the A129 Pro, and A229 on the windshield.
Keep in mind my car, (2004 Ford Crown Victoria) is 19 years old with the original windshield so the highway has taken a toll with rock chips, etc. The artifacts are really noticeable whenever I pass under a street lamp.

A139 Pro;
Firmware: V1.0_1115
Resolution: (3840 x 2160P) 30fps
Bitrate: Maximum
HDR: ON (default)
CPL Filter: OFF

A129 Pro;
Firmware: V2.9 20220902
Resolution: (3840 x 2160P) 30fps
Bitrate: Maximum
WDR: OFF (default)
CPL Filter: OFF

A229;
Firmware: V1.1_1010
Resolution: (2560 x 1440P) 30fps
Bitrate: Maximum
WDR: OFF (default)
CPL Filter: OFF

I adjusted the horizon around 60% sky 40% road because tonight’s moon phase was Waxing Gibbous 98.3%, (tomorrow night is full moon 100%). The moon wasn’t visible yet at 2:00AM. However I got a good shot of it at 3:15AM in my Highway Test Footage. I’ll post that next as soon as it finishes rendering in 4K.
When I take daytime test footage I’ll adjust the horizon 50/50.
-Chuck
 

Attachments

  • Moon Phase .png
    Moon Phase .png
    125.9 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
Here is my first Highway test footage, this was filmed an hour after the city test footage.
Check out the Waxing Gibbous 98.3% moon in the last 2 minutes of the videos.
-Chuck
 
Last edited:
Here is my first Highway test footage, this was filmed an hour after the city test footage.
Check out the Waxing Gibbous 98.3% moon in the last 2 minutes of the videos.
-Chuck
The telling difference to me was when you drove through the gas station. The details on the gas pumps are significantly clearer on the A139 Pro.

Screen Shot 2022-12-07 at 5.03.20 PM.png
 
The telling difference to me was when you drove through the gas station. The details on the gas pumps are significantly clearer on the A139 Pro.
Why thank you Curious George.
You are making my job a little easier.
I just got back from filming daytime city, and highway test footage.
I'm uploading it now.
-Chuck
 
Here is my first City test footage. This was filmed at 2:10PM today, and the sun was annoyingly low in the winter sky. I guess that will be good to show the HDR of the A139 pro. I tried my darndest to get all three cameras lined up on the horizon at 50/50. But I screwed up, you can clearly see the position of the sun in the opening shot of the video.

A139 Pro;
Firmware: V1.0_1115
Resolution: (3840 x 2160P) 30fps
Bitrate: Maximum
HDR: ON (default)
CPL Filter: ON

A129 Pro;
Firmware: V2.9 20220902
Resolution: (3840 x 2160P) 30fps
Bitrate: Maximum
WDR: OFF (default)
CPL Filter: ON

A229;
Firmware: V1.1_1010
Resolution: (2560 x 1440P) 30fps
Bitrate: Maximum
WDR: OFF (default)
CPL Filter: ON

 

Attachments

  • A139 Pro .png
    A139 Pro .png
    1.3 MB · Views: 16
  • A229 Pro .png
    A229 Pro .png
    1.2 MB · Views: 16
  • A129 Pro .png
    A129 Pro .png
    1.2 MB · Views: 16
Here is my first Daytime Highway test footage.

A139 Pro;
Firmware: V1.0_1115
Resolution: (3840 x 2160P) 30fps
Bitrate: Maximum
HDR: ON (default)
CPL Filter: ON

A129 Pro;
Firmware: V2.9 20220902
Resolution: (3840 x 2160P) 30fps
Bitrate: Maximum
WDR: OFF (default)
CPL Filter: ON

A229;
Firmware: V1.1_1010
Resolution: (2560 x 1440P) 30fps
Bitrate: Maximum
WDR: OFF (default)
CPL Filter: ON

 
Panzer, thanks for the videos. Again the A139 Pro looks like a winner!

I compared 2 scenes. The result seems obvious which camera is better.

First scene @0:19.
The low sun is directly behind, which is challenging enough to see a plate, but there is also a significant speed difference and the pickup truck in the left lane, which is outside of the sweet spot of all 3 lenses. The snapshot is captured at the earliest point that the A139 Pro could clearly see the plate. The other 2 had challenges at this same distance. To be fair, the plate does come into focus for the other 2 cameras, but only when the white pickup is closer. To prove this is the same spot, I included the bush that is overhanging from the center median.
My conclusion: The A139 Pro captures the plate clearly much sooner.

A139 Pro

A139 Pro White Pickup.png



A229
A229 White Pickup.png

A129 Pro
A129 Pro White Pickup.png



Scene #2 @ 1:26
Another challenging day situation for capturing a plate. The low sun is in front, and so the plate is in the shade. To make this more challenging the white subcompact is accelerating away from the camera and turning right which are 2 changes in directions, not linear. The 3rd challenging point is the car is off center, not in the sweet spot of the lenses at this point. To prove this is exactly the same spot, the rear left wheel is on the white crosswalk line.
My Conclusion: the A139 Pro is much clearer than the other 2. The plate is still legible with the A129 Pro. but not as clear. The A229 came in 3rd place.



A139 Pro
A139 Pro White Sub Compact.png

A229
A229 White Sub Compact.png

A129 Pro
A129 Pro White Sub Compact.png
 
Right on George,
My friends call me Chuck, (you can call me Chuck).
Thank you for the John Madden play by play. lol
-Chuck
 
I tried another HDR test with the A139 Pro in “controlled conditions” with my car’s headlights instead of my flashlight. First I parked my 2010 Mercury Grand Marquis directly under a streetlamp to provide ambient light. Next I parked my 2004 Ford Crown Victoria behind my MGM. The video shows my low beam headlights wash out the license plate on the A129 Pro, and A229. However it is readable on the A139 Pro. But when I turn on the high beams it all goes to heck. Lol

A139 Pro;
Firmware: V1.0_1115
Resolution: (3840 x 2160P) 30fps
Bitrate: Maximum
HDR: ON (default)
CPL Filter: OFF

A129 Pro;
Firmware: V2.9 20220902
Resolution: (3840 x 2160P) 30fps
Bitrate: Maximum
WDR: OFF (default)
CPL Filter: OFF

A229;
Firmware: V1.1_1010
Resolution: (2560 x 1440P) 30fps
Bitrate: Maximum
WDR: OFF (default)
CPL Filter: OFF

 

Attachments

  • A229 .png
    A229 .png
    1.9 MB · Views: 20
  • A139 Pro .png
    A139 Pro .png
    1.6 MB · Views: 20
  • A129 Pro .png
    A129 Pro .png
    1.3 MB · Views: 20
Back
Top