A229 Plus Test & Review PP

VVondervvall said:
Maybe the lens manufacturer spec it for a specific sensor size (but not clearly so?), which seems to be correct for 1/2.8" in this case?
Click to expand...
They need to specify the size of the image circle, don't need to specify a particular sensor, sensor size, or sensor aspect ratio.
They often do make lenses for specific sensors, and I guess normally do with the lenses that Viofo use, but for cheaper dashcams that is far less likely.
 
Nigel said:
They need to specify the size of the image circle, don't need to specify a particular sensor, sensor size, or sensor aspect ratio.
They often do make lenses for specific sensors, and I guess normally do with the lenses that Viofo use, but for cheaper dashcams that is far less likely.
Click to expand...
You won the more technical detail award ;)
Remains that the IMX678 from the Pro is significantly bigger than/lies outside of the image circle that was intended when the 140° FoV was specified.
 
Here’s another example of the A229 Pro’s improved clarity & low light sensitivity.
I don’t know how to explain this, usually the A119 Mini 2 has better low light sensitivity.
It must be something how the A229 Pro’s firmware is working to resolve these specific lighting conditions.
Where is @Nigel when I need him most to explain what is going on here?

Cameras on the rig;
A229 Pro 3-CH ..(IMX678)
A139 Pro 1-CH ..(IMX678)
A229 Plus 3-CH.(IMX678)
A119 Mini 2 ……(IMX675)

Camera Settings;
Bitrate: …..Maximum
HDR: ……..On
IR LEDs: …Off
CPL Filter: Off

Camera Firmware;
A229 Pro Front: ...V1.0 0925
A139 Pro: ………..V1.1 0629
A229 Plus Front…V1.0 0922
A119 Mini 2: ……..V1.0 0605

1.) A229 Pro Front vs. A139 Pro 1-CH
1a.) Take note of the wild grass in the foreground, it looks like a completely different species.
1b.) Take note of the headlights, and yellow clearance lights on the fuel tanker in the background, thay are sharp as a tack compared to the A139 Pro.
1.c) Take note of the written text on the illuminated sign.
1d.) Take note of my car parked at the fuel pumps.
This is a fantastic example of the A229 Pro’s potential.
2.) The A229 Plus Front is brighter than the A229 Pro, but it’s also overexposed.
3.) What happened to the Might Mini 2?
Everything is legible, but it’s just too darn dark.

1.) A229 Pro Front .png
2.) A139 Pro 1-CH .png
3.) A229 Plus Front .png
4.) A119 Mini 2 .png

Here’s the test footage I took the screenshots from;

A229 Pro Front;
A139 Pro 1-CH;
A229 Plus Front;
A119 Mini 2;
 
Panzer Platform said:
1.) A229 Pro Front vs. A139 Pro 1-CH
1a.) Take note of the wild grass in the foreground, it looks like a completely different species.
1b.) Take note of the headlights, and yellow clearance lights on the fuel tanker in the background, thay are sharp as a tack compared to the A139 Pro.
1.c) Take note of the written text on the illuminated sign.
1d.) Take note of my car parked at the fuel pumps.
This is a fantastic example of the A229 Pro’s potential.
2.) The A229 Plus Front is brighter than the A229 Pro, but it’s also overexposed.
3.) What happened to the Might Mini 2?
Everything is legible, but it’s just too darn dark.
Click to expand...
I suspect a lot of the difference in brightness / exposure is due to differences in metering between the cameras.

I think the A229 Pro has better denoise processing compared to the A139 Pro, resulting in sharper details without excessive noise. I was wondering whether Viofo can 'copy & paste' some of the A229 Pro image processing into the A139 Pro firmware??? Perhaps the newer Novatek DSP is the difference?
 
Last edited:
Panzer Platform said:
3.) What happened to the Might Mini 2?
Everything is legible, but it’s just too darn dark.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what the EV settings in the menu are for, but as I recall, you've stated that changing a camera's menu settings is "over-complicating things".
 
TonyM said:
I suspect a lot of the difference in brightness / exposure is due to differences in metering between the cameras.
Click to expand...
It was explained to me each camera is using a different part of the image to base adjustments off.
I think that makes sense.
TonyM said:
I was wondering whether Viofo can 'copy & paste' some of the A229 Pro image processing into the A139 Pro firmware??? Perhaps the newer Novatek DSP is the difference?
Click to expand...
My gosh, if that were possible I would like them to copy & paste the HDR from the A119 Mini 2 into the A229 Pro & A229 Plus. lol
But something tells me that's not possible.
My money is on the newer / upgraded processor, and different from the ground up firmware on the A229 Pro.
 
IR INTERIOR CAMERA - DIFFERENCES & IMPROVEMENTS
Keep in mind the IR Interior camera of the A229 Plus is identical in hardware & image quality for the A229 Pro.
In this post I would like to talk about the differences, and improvements of the IR Interior camera compared to the IR Interior camera of the A139 Pro.
Long story short I like all they’ve done hardware wise, but I can see why @rcg530 said; “He’s not a fan of the interior nighttime image quality”.
I’m hopeful some fine tuning with it’s firmware can fix this.

I’ve found the A229 Pro & A229 Plus IR Interior camera to be much improved over the A139 Pro’s IR Interior camera for three reasons.
1.) Image Sensor upgraded from STARVIS IMX291 to STARVIS IMX307
2.) HDR Support
3.) Built-in Light Sensor with IR Cut Filter
They reduced the number of IR LED emitters from 6 to 4 to make room for the light sensor & IR cut filter.
It appears to be a good trade off because the upgraded sensor has better low light sensitivity so it can maintain full color until lighting conditions drop so low that it illuminates the IR LED Emitters, and switches to black & white.
The HDR works fantastic.
The built-in light sensor is more accurate, and quicker to respond to changes in ambient lighting conditions, (switching back and forth between color & black and white).
And the IR Cut Filter has gotten rid of that annoying purple hue on dark colored objects during daytime recordings.

Camera Settings & Firmware;
Bitrate: …..Maximum
HDR: ……..On (A229 Pro)
IR LED: ..…Auto
A229 Pro ...V1.0 0915
A139 Pro: ..V1.1 0629

1.) Take note of the HDR performance of the A229 Pro in the dome light, and door panel courtesy lights.
2.) Take note the IR LED’s are set to AUTO, but only the A139 Pro has them illuminated.
Even under these “bright” conditions with the dome light, and my garage lighting it still thinks its dark enough that it has to illuminate the IR LED emitters.
You can see the the purple glow of the emitters on the sun visor in the image recorded by the A139 Pro, and you can also see the IR LED’s are illuminated in the image recorded by the A229 Pro by looking across the passenger compartment.
At the same time you can see the IR LED’s are not illuminated on the A229 Pro.
3.) I do like the more natural appearance of the A139 Pro, however it’s been explained to me the buzzy appearance of the A229 Pro is designed for better low light performance.
Maybe that needs more fine tuning, not sure.
4.) Unrelated note: my car is a 2004 Ford Crown Victoria with 162K Miles, and I’ve been able to keep the interior in somewhat good condition for this almost 20 year old car. Lol
In the next post I’ll present some test footage of a mock traffic stop.

A139 Pro IR Interior .png
A229 Pro IR Interior .png
 
IR INTERIOR CAMERA - MOCK TRAFFIC STOP
Keep in mind the A229 Plus IR Interior camera is identical to the A229 Pro.
I wanted to see how the IR Interior camera would perform in the different lighting conditions of a potential traffic stop.
After filming this, and watching the footage I realized I should have filmed these two clips consecutively, not simultaneously because there are times when both cameras have their IR LED emitters illuminated providing “double” the IR illumination.
I’ll refilm this separately for my final review, however it’s still nice to see how the cameras react / adjust to the change in lighting conditions.

Camera Settings & Firmware;
Bitrate: …..Maximum
HDR: ……..On (A229 Pro)
IR LED: ..…Auto
A229 Pro ...V1.0 0915
A139 Pro: ..V1.1 0629

1.) Take note the A139 Pro is never able to achieve full color mode, and the IR LEDs are always illuminated.
Conversely the A229 Pro’s camera switches between full color, and black & white when the dome light is illuminated on/off.
2.) Take note of the difference in audio volume level from the A139 Pro vs, A229 Pro.
Both cameras are using the built-in microphones.
I’m pleased to report it sounds like the audio quality, and volume level of the original A229 Duo has carried over to the A229 Pro.
3.) Bonus points if you can name the movie quote.

 
BOOT UP TIME
While gathering test footage with 5 different cameras on my test rig I found it annoying some cameras booted up, and started recording much faster than others.
While taking screenshots I noticed that some cameras started recording around 20 seconds faster than the slowest one.
I remember reading a post about a user thought his camera was defective because it took much longer to start recording than his previous camera.
Since I had the cameras on my desk I figured why not have a race.
I spent over an hour conducting speed tests in different channel configurations, and different capacity SD Cards.
I learned some useless, but interesting things I never thought about.
I won’t bore you with what I did for over an hour, so I will boil it down as much as I can.
I will limit this post to the original A229, A229 Plus, and A229 Pro, (all 1-CH configuration).
I used the same Viofo 64GB SD Card, (formatted in each camera before performing test), and the same power cable & power supply in an effort to reduce inconsistencies.
I performed this test by pointing the camera at a clock, and turning on the power supply at the top of the minute, (see attached screenshots).
Here are the boot up times;
A229 1-CH……………9.4 Seconds
A229 Plus 1-CH……..15.1 Seconds
A229 Pro 1-CH………15.0 Seconds

Interesting note: When I put the A229 Pro & A229 Plus in 3-CH configuration, and used a Viofo 512GB SD Card the boot up time increased to approximately 33 seconds.
 

Attachments

  • A229 1-CH .png
    A229 1-CH .png
    1.6 MB · Views: 2
  • A229 Pro 1-CH .png
    A229 Pro 1-CH .png
    1.7 MB · Views: 2
  • A229 Plus 1-CH .png
    A229 Plus 1-CH .png
    1.5 MB · Views: 2
BOOT UP TIME - PART 2
I figured I better confirm & verify in 3-CH configuration with Viofo 512GB SD Card.
I used the same Viofo 512GB SD Card, (formatted in each camera before performing test), and the same power cable & power supply in an effort to reduce inconsistencies.
I performed this test by pointing the camera at a clock, and turning on the power supply at the top of the minute, (see attached screenshots).
Here are the boot up times;
A229 Plus 3-CH……..23.5 Seconds
A229 Pro 3-CH………22.0 Seconds
 

Attachments

  • A229 Plus 3-CH 512GB SD Card .png
    A229 Plus 3-CH 512GB SD Card .png
    1.5 MB · Views: 1
  • A229 Pro 3-CH 512GB SD Card .png
    A229 Pro 3-CH 512GB SD Card .png
    1.7 MB · Views: 1
Panzer Platform said:
BOOT UP TIME - PART 2
I figured I better confirm & verify in 3-CH configuration with Viofo 512GB SD Card.
I used the same Viofo 512GB SD Card, (formatted in each camera before performing test), and the same power cable & power supply in an effort to reduce inconsistencies.
I performed this test by pointing the camera at a clock, and turning on the power supply at the top of the minute, (see attached screenshots).
Here are the boot up times;
A229 Plus 3-CH……..23.5 Seconds
A229 Pro 3-CH………22.0 Seconds
Click to expand...
Ok so my guesstimate previously wasn't correct, but can independently validate your claims. 22.4 seconds for moi on A229 Pro from turning the key to it showing that it's started recording.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2023-10-07-14-58-43-218_com.android.deskclock.jpg
    Screenshot_2023-10-07-14-58-43-218_com.android.deskclock.jpg
    36.3 KB · Views: 3
Panzer Platform said:
A229 Plus 3-CH……..23.5 Seconds
A229 Pro 3-CH………22.0 Seconds
Click to expand...
Far too slow, I can drive a long way in that time, I'll stick with the A139 Pro!

Can you also test the Parking Mode to Normal Recording time, because for many people that is the more important time.
 
Panzer Platform said:
Here are the boot up times;
A229 1-CH……………9.4 Seconds
A229 Plus 1-CH……..15.1 Seconds
A229 Pro 1-CH………15.0 Seconds
Click to expand...
Just for clarity, do you have boot delay set to 0 seconds on all cameras?
 
Panzer Platform said:
I performed this test by pointing the camera at a clock, and turning on the power supply at the top of the minute, (see attached screenshots).
Here are the boot up times;
A229 1-CH……………9.4 Seconds
A229 Plus 1-CH……..15.1 Seconds
A229 Pro 1-CH………15.0 Seconds
Click to expand...
Out of interest, I tested my very simple Mobius 1 in the same way. I have often regarded the boot up time to be rather short. The result was 7.4 seconds, not much less than the A229 1-CH.

1696674800447.png
 
Panzer Platform said:
@LateralNW
First off these thermal photographs were taken 14 days apart, so I will have to perform this “test” again to make sure the cameras are both tested in identical ambient temperature conditions.
But it looks like the A229 Plus runs approximately 10℉ (5℃) cooler than the A229 Pro.

View attachment 67821
View attachment 67822
Click to expand...
Sorry didn't realise you pinged me.
I don't seem to get notifications every time.

I doubt measuring again will show any difference.
Great images and good info like usual :)
 
Panzer Platform said:
I tested the A139 Pro 1-CH = 14.6 Seconds. lol
Click to expand...
Yes, that was one of my few complaints about the A139.
I do sometimes start the engine and start moving within 1 second, so I want sub-1 second startup times.

Panzer Platform said:
Yes, but only Low Bitrate Parking Mode.
Click to expand...
That is OK, it is what I use, and the time is likely to be very similar for all parking modes anyway. Could be very different between cameras though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top