A229 Pro Test & Review PP

[Nigel]

Q: Why do we need HDR on the Interior camera anyways?

Most important reason is so that during daylight, the interior camera can record both the dark interior of the vehicle and the sunny outside view through the side and rear windows simultaneously, without huge overexposure on the external view.

Looking at your framegrabs, it seems the best images of the illuminated sign, as far as reading the illuminated digits is concerned, come from the two interior cameras, and they are pretty good at reading the number plates too!

 

[ogzogz]

I haven't had a chance to review the a229 pro or plus yet.
I have witnessed that HDR supported cameras are not very useful in the rear when driving at night.
Of course, this is valid on roads with low lighting.
Because on a well-lit road, pure image is sufficient.

A setting is required to disable HDR for the rear camera. (@viofo @VIOFO-Support )
In general, HDR is needed to read license plates at night. However, unless there is a light coming from the camera, we can only see the license plates of the vehicles coming from behind when we press the brakes.
This means that HDR should be deactivated on the rear cameras. In my opinion, the rear camera and inside camera should support WDR or be pure image. This can also prevent overheating.

 

[Nigel]

I have witnessed that HDR supported cameras are not very useful in the rear when driving at night.

In general, HDR is needed to read license plates at night. However, unless there is a light coming from the camera, we can only see the license plates of the vehicles coming from behind when we press the brakes.

That is true for reading the plate of the vehicle behind you.

This means that HDR should be deactivated on the rear cameras.

If you do that then the HDR can not help read the rear plates of cars passing you in the opposite direction, which may be brightly illuminated by the headlamps of the car following them. These plates can be important to read if the front camera has failed to read the front plate of that car, especially in places that don't have front plates.

To deactivate HDR on the rear camera, there must be a good reason to want to deactivate it, such as it decreasing image quality, but I don't think there is any good reason to deactivate it. Overheating is not a good reason, we do not see many rear cameras overheating. Maybe deactivating it in parking mode to reduce power consumption may make sense, but that is the same for the front cameras.

 

[ogzogz]

That is true for reading the plate of the vehicle behind you.

If you do that then the HDR can not help read the rear plates of cars passing you in the opposite direction, which may be brightly illuminated by the headlamps of the car following them. These plates can be important to read if the front camera has failed to read the front plate of that car, especially in places that don't have front plates.

To deactivate HDR on the rear camera, there must be a good reason to want to deactivate it, such as it decreasing image quality, but I don't think there is any good reason to deactivate it. Overheating is not a good reason, we do not see many rear cameras overheating. Maybe deactivating it in parking mode to reduce power consumption may make sense, but that is the same for the front cameras.

License plate brightness is usually caused by the camera and our vehicle being in the same alignment. HDR would be the solution to this. However, since my vehicle has projector headlights, the license plates above the headlight line cannot be read. In other words, the plates on the bumper are read, but the high-positioned plates on the trunk lid are not. Even though a vehicle goes behind the vehicle going in the opposite direction diagonally and its light reflects its license plate, it is better to read it without HDR since there is no headlight light from the camera level.

Saving power means, in a way, reducing heat.

 

[Panzer Platform]

Is HDR enabled on the rear cameras?

Thank you for bringing this up.
This is one of the first things I noticed with the text overlay at the bottom of the screen.
HDR is supported on all 3 cameras.
When HDR is enabled, it’s enabled for all 3 cameras.
When disabled, all 3 cameras are disabled.
However, only the Front camera displays HDR in the text overlay at the bottom of the screen.
The Rear & Interior cameras do not display HDR in their text overlay when HDR is enabled.
I informed Alex (Viofo) this will confuse / mislead consumers to think HDR is only supported on the Front camera, and requested HDR be added to the Rear & Interior text overlay.
He said they would take it under advisement.

I also requested independent / separate HDR controls for the Front / Rear / Interior cameras just like how there are separate controls for EV Exposure Value.
He said they would take it under advisement.

A229 Pro - Improvement Wish List (Part 1) | Page 2 | DashCamTalk

I think you're being a bit harsh on the A229 Plus

I agree my criticism of HDR performance on the A229 Plus is heavy handed.
This is my attempt to expedite a firmware solution.
This should have been completed before releasing the camera to the public.

 

[Panzer Platform]

the best images of the illuminated sign, as far as reading the illuminated digits is concerned, come from the two interior cameras

5.) The A229 Pro & A229 Plus Interior camera’s have far superior HDR performance resolving the digits of the sign over the Front & Rear cameras.
It’s been explained to me by Alex (Viofo) I should not compare the Interior camera with the Front & Rear because the Interior has been designed / engineered with a focal length of 1 meter appropriate for passenger compartments.
I agree, but at the same time I’m amazed how well the HDR works.
I included the Interior cameras in this post because I wanted to show Viofo is capable of “programming” properly functioning HDR.
They just need to replicate that for the Front & Rear, and this camera will be good to go.

 

[Panzer Platform]

A setting is required to disable HDR for the rear camera.

I agree.
I requested independent / separate HDR controls for the Front / Rear / Interior cameras just like how there are separate controls for EV Exposure Value.
He said they would take it under advisement.

A229 Pro - Improvement Wish List (Part 1) | Page 2 | DashCamTalk

 

[Panzer Platform]

To deactivate HDR on the rear camera, there must be a good reason to want to deactivate it,

I requested independent / separate HDR controls for the Front / Rear / Interior cameras just like how there are separate controls for EV Exposure Value.
He said they would take it under advisement.

A229 Pro - Improvement Wish List (Part 1) | Page 2 | DashCamTalk

 

[Panzer Platform]

FOV COMPARISON - CONFIRM & VERIFY
In this post I would like to call attention to the false & misleading FOV specifications of the A229 Pro & A229 Plus.
Q: What is FOV, and why is it important?
A: FOV or technically AOV, or “viewing angle” is a specification consumers use to make an informed decision.
Narrow FOV’s are usually around 120°-140°.
Wider FOV’s are usually 170° or greater.
Narrow FOV’s make the center of the image appear larger, and it’s easier to see fine details like license plates.
Wider FOV’s provide overall more information in a given scene, however objects appear smaller, and warpage / barrel distortion is greater on the edges of the image.
I prefer 120°-140° FOV because it’s easier to make out fine details like license plates, and anything missed outside of view can be captured by auxiliary left & right cameras.
Because, why not add more cameras to cover all blind spots? lol

Both the A229 Pro & A229 Plus 3-CH have listed specifications of;
140° Front + 160° Rear + 150° Interior Viewing Angle.
Based on these screenshots the true FOV is closer to;
A229 Pro: 160° Front + 160° Rear + 170° Interior
A229 Plus: 145° Front + 160° Rear + 170° Interior
It’s been explained to me the FOV specifications are provided by the lens manufacturer to Viofo.
If Viofo fails to confirm & verify actual FOV of their dash cams after final assembly this is a deficiency of minimum standards for quality control in my opinion.
The name on the dash cam is Viofo, and they are ultimately responsible for providing true & correct specifications to consumers.












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

A229 Pro Front;

A139 Pro 1-CH;

A229 Plus Front;

A119 Mini 2;

A229 Pro Rear;

A229 Plus Rear;

A229 Pro Interior;

A229 Plus Interior;

 

[Nigel]

It’s been explained to me the FOV specifications are provided by the lens manufacturer to Viofo.

The specification should say something like "140 degree wide angle lens", which would be correct. They seem to have left off "lens" in recent specifications, implying that the camera is 140 degree, which is incorrect. The specification should be corrected.

The useful figure is really the horizontal field of view of the camera, not the diagonal field of view of the lens. You could measure and give the actual horizontal FoV of the recorded video in your reviews, so that people could actually compare cameras, if you were dedicated enough to measure it, but it is not all that easy.

 

[Nigel]

However, since my vehicle has projector headlights, the license plates above the headlight line cannot be read. In other words, the plates on the bumper are read, but the high-positioned plates on the trunk lid are not. Even though a vehicle goes behind the vehicle going in the opposite direction diagonally and its light reflects its license plate, it is better to read it without HDR since there is no headlight light from the camera level.

Yes, current HDR has difficulties with high level plates, and plates that are not illuminated by our own headlights. Other people's headlights are at the wrong angle for retroreflective plates to return the light to the camera lens. Next year we may have three exposure HDR, which may help with this problem.

 

[Panzer Platform]

The useful figure is really the horizontal field of view of the camera

Correct.

You could measure and give the actual horizontal FoV of the recorded video in your reviews, so that people could actually compare cameras, if you were dedicated enough to measure it, but it is not all that easy.

Correct.

 

[Panzer Platform]

One of the ongoing issues of the A139 Pro is when lighting condition get extremely poor the camera produces a flickering effect that appears to go from purplish to brownish.
It appears the A229 Pro fixed this issue.

 

[Nigel]

One of the ongoing issues of the A139 Pro is when lighting condition get extremely poor the camera produces a flickering effect that appears to go from purplish to brownish.
It appears the A229 Pro fixed this issue.

That is partly because the A139 Pro has a brighter image so that it is easier to see the noise.
I don't know when your A139 Pro was built, but I suspect the main flicker issue has actually been fixed in the A139 Pro too, it is not a firmware fix.

 

[Panzer Platform]

I don't know when your A139 Pro was built, but I suspect the main flicker issue has actually been fixed

I knew you were going to play Johnny Appleseed of doubt. lol
My A139 Pro is a retail / production model that was delivered November 29, 2022.
S/N: A139P222400070
Ariel talks about the flickering issue here;

 

[Nigel]

That is an early one, would be good to hear from someone with a more recent A139 Pro...

 

[Panzer Platform]

Here’s an example of the A229 Pro’s improved 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.
Yes, I know objects under direct illumination at the fuel pumps are a bit over exposed, but I think it’s kind of worth it for how much information we’re getting in the foreground.
What is going on here @Nigel ?
Actually Nigel you hang back for a few hours, and let someone else have a chance.
You can still come back later, and explain why everyone is incorrect. lol

Cameras on the rig;
A229 Pro 1-CH ..(IMX678)
A139 Pro 1-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 0912
A139 Pro: ………..V1.1 0629
A119 Mini 2: ……..V1.0 0605





Here is the test footage I took the screenshots from;

 

[coocoocoocoo]

Let’s talk about Bitrate for a minute.
What is Bitrate, and why is it important?
The more Bitrate, the more fine detail in the recorded footage.
Running high Bitrates is Viofo’s secret sauce.
Based on my experience Viofo usually runs double, or triple the Bitrate of a competitor’s camera.
It’s part of the reason they are continually beating their competitor’s cameras in overall image quality.
This comes at an expense though, (extra heat).

The maximum file size for a 1-Minute clip from the A229 Pro in 1-CH configuration is 430 MB.
430 MB ⨸ 7.5 = Approximately 57 Mbps

View attachment 67954

The maximum file size for a 1-Minute clip from the A229 Pro in 2-CH Rear configuration is;
Front 430 MB ⨸ 7.5 = Approximately 57 Mbps
Rear 174 MB ⨸ 7.5 = Approximately 23 Mbps
This is a big deal the front camera can maintain its full quality Bitrate.
This is because they stuffed an extra processor inside the Rear camera.
I haven’t seen this tactic since the A129 Plus Duo.
Having an additional processor just for the Rear camera reduces the work load, and heat generation the for the main processor located in the Front camera.
This is a major advantage the A229 Pro has over the A139 Pro.

View attachment 67955

The maximum file size for a 1-Minute clip from the A229 Pro in 2-CH Interior configuration is;
Front 260 MB ⨸ 7.5 = Approximately 35 Mbps
Interior 114 MB ⨸ 7.5 = Approximately 15 Mbps
This is where the A229 Pro goes south.
Chopping the Front camera’s Bitrate almost in half is unacceptable.
And it’s a shame, because the IR Interior camera is much improved over the A139 Pro’s IR Interior camera.

View attachment 67956

The maximum file size for a 1-Minute clip from the A229 Pro in 3-CH configuration is;
Front 260 MB ⨸ 7.5 = Approximately 35 Mbps
Rear 172 MB ⨸ 7.5 = Approximately 23 Mbps
Interior 114 MB ⨸ 7.5 = Approximately 15 Mbps

View attachment 67957

Based on these Bitrate configurations I will only be able to recommend the A229 Pro in 1-CH, and 2-CH REAR configuration.
I will not recommend the A229 Pro in 2-CH INTERIOR, or 3-CH configuration.

Hi Panzer, a question about the bitrate. I have ordered a 3-CH configuration.
If I do not connect the Interior camera, will the front-side camera bitrate return to 57 Mbps?
Or has the 3-CH option been "programmed" or "configured" to always run at 35 Mbps on the front camera, regardless of whether the Interior camera is connected or not?

It probably sounds like a stupid question, but I would like to know if I should cancel my 3-CH order and get the 2-CH Rear configuration

 

[Panzer Platform]

Hi Panzer, a question about the bitrate. I have ordered a 3-CH configuration.
If I do not connect the Interior camera, will the front-side camera bitrate return to 57 Mbps?
Or has the 3-CH option been "programmed" or "configured" to always run at 35 Mbps on the front camera, regardless of whether the Interior camera is connected or not?

It probably sounds like a stupid question, but I would like to know if I should cancel my 3-CH order and get the 2-CH Rear configuration

Not a stupid question.
This is the whole reason I made the Bitrate post.
The A229 Pro will maintain the full quality 57 Mbps Bitrate in 2-CH REAR configuration.
This is due to the additional processor in the REAR camera.

Unfortunately the 2-CH INTERIOR configuration, and the Front camera Bitrate drops to only 35 Mbps.
If you want to maintain “maximum” image quality do not connect the Interior camera.
However, the the current price difference between the A229 Pro 3-CH vs. A229 Pro 2-CH is only $30, ($330 vs. $300).
So it might be nice to have the 3-CH version, play with it, and see the difference yourself.

 

[Panzer Platform]

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.






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

A229 Pro Front;

A139 Pro 1-CH;

A229 Plus Front;

A119 Mini 2;