Battle of the frames: 30fps vs HDR (30) vs 60fps

[Alexcrist]

From the start: I don't want to change anyone's opinions on anything. In general I think the more available options/settings in a system, the better, and everyone can decide for himself what he wants to use to better suit his most common scenarios.

I want to post a simple, real-world, no-controlled-conditions comparison between different modes on the A229 Plus, starting with night shots (not sure if I'll ever want to or have time to do for other moments of the day, anyone feel free to do it).
I would have loved to see this kind of footage before buying, but most reviewers just quickly test it in a well-lit city, show off a couple things that favor a few settings (in particular HDR) and call it a day. Not that useful for someone who wants more than the default settings.

Firmware: V1.1_231208 (latest as of today)
Scene: night time, headlights only, no (or very low) street lighting

Cars on the opposite lane
30

HDR30

60

Results:

• ”Pokemon, collect-them-all” license plates: exactly none. Even with street lights, the chances of understanding a number plate are slim. Very slim.
• other relevant details:
  • HDR30: all cars look like Enterprise is entering hyperspace, so no relevant details available. At best, you can distinguish between a light color (maybe white) and everything else, also you may distinguish between a crossover/SUV and a smaller car
  • 30 and 60: color and shape of the cars are clearly visible (better on 60). If you know your cars, even the brand/model can be easily determined most of the times (not always, though)

Overtaking
30

HDR30

60

Results:

• ”Pokemon, collect-them-all” license plates: In some cases, license plates are barely distinguishable with both HDR30 and 60.
• other relevant details: 60 looks sharp, clear and natural. HDR30 has significant ghosting effect around the lights. Either way, the level of details are similar

Low speed (with dim streetlights)
30

HDR30

60

Results:

• ”Pokemon, collect-them-all” license plates: pretty clear in both HDR30 and 60

 

[Alexcrist]

Street signs
30

HDR30

60

Results:

• Details are there on signs on both the right and left sides of the road on HDR30 and 60. But 60 looks a lot more natural
• Bonus: in the video, reflective surfaces (including road signs) somehow flicker on HDR30, as if they are electrically lit. Weird effect

City limits
30

HDR30

60

Results:

• Details are there on signs on both the right and left sides of the road on HDR30 and 60. But 60 looks a lot more natural
• Signs that are less reflective (or outside the light focus, such as above the dipped lights) are still visible with 60, but not with HDR30
• Bonus: same weird flickering on HDR30

Other details
30

HDR30

60

Results:

• 30 is usually correctly exposed, but has moments when it's a bit underexposed (when there are opposite lights, for instance)
• HDR30 is hugely and over-aggressively denoised. So much that objects literally disappear from the image (see circled poles in the image).
• 60 has a wild and uncontrolled exposure, it continuously varies from under-exposed to hugely over-exposed. Noise levels are acceptable when the exposure happens to be correct, but many times details are lost in the noise caused by pointless over exposure.

Daylight (cloudy)
HDR30

60

Results:

• HDR30 is about as clear as plain 30. All details (and pokemon number plates) are sharp and clear with 60.

Overall, the level of details between HDR30 and 60 is similar at night, both having strengths and weaknesses. Personally I prefer a clearer global capture of details, and I always wished (still do) for a camera that handles 60fps correctly. But for whoever wishes to collect all license plates, regardless of anything else, HDR may be the way to go.
On daylight, 60 beats 30 (HDR or not) hands down. And since the ”Timed HDR” option in the camera is effectively pointless (it can only switch between HDR30 and 30, according to Viofo - exactly why do we need in the menu options that effectively do nothing?!), then basically using HDR means losing sharp details during daylight. Probably during full sunshine HDR comes closer to 60, but sunshine is a small part of overall conditions over a year.

30 seems the most stable overall. Not the clearest (because it's 30...), but at least it's more consistent, correctly exposed and not that aggressively post-processed. But if 30 is your cup of tea, then there are cheaper options that perform just as well (Viofo or other brands).

However, with the current state of the firmware, in my opinion neither HDR30 nor 60 are what they could and should be. I suspect the hardware is capable of much more if it's controlled correctly. No offense, but the current firmware looks very much as a beta release at best and I seriously regret buying this camera. Unfortunately, since it's too late to return it, I'm just left hoping that Viofo will finally finish implementing the options in a meaningful manner.

Again: not trying to convince anyone of anything, just a couple of real-world comparison for anyone looking to buy this camera.

P.S.: If my other topic tells me anything, I'm expecting a lot of criticism and aggressive replies (e.g. ”I don't know how cameras work” and such) just because I go against the flow and I don't praise HDR by default. So just be notified that I won't reply to anything like this. I'm still hoping for a productive discussion with more examples and less sterile theory.

 

[Alexcrist]

Forgot the videos:

 

[Dex_]

Nice comparison, thank`s. HDR do not try to do best cinematic images but force light objects readability like road signs or plate numbers. Any other objects will be blurred (have 2nd shade image) due DOL HDR. 60fps image sometimes has less blurred image than HDR because has less exposure time but same time has more dark scene and dashcam algorithms level up frames brightness to same level as for 30fps and it cause noise image in dark areas.

 

[Alexcrist]

60fps image sometimes has less blurred image than HDR

60fps image always has less blur. No exceptions, all day long. It may have more noise, yes. But always less blur.

has more dark scene and dashcam algorithms level up frames brightness to same level as for 30fps and it cause noise image in dark areas.

HDR30 has less noise not because of better capture, but because of very aggressive noise reduction. Which, as I've shown, is... far from ideal, to put it lightly. I'm guessing that raw noise levels for HDR30 are similar to 60. But since everyone's focusing on HDR, they wanted to make it look pretty and removed every single spot on it in post-processing. Noise and objects...

HDR do not try to do best cinematic images

"Cinematic images" means having nice contrast, saturation, color accuracy, nice/cinematic/controlled motion blur and so on.

Sharpness and object definition (even vague) is NOT part of cinematic images. Not from my point of view anyway. When I buy a camera, especially an above average (price-wise) one with latest-greatest state of the art technology (Starvis 2 & co), I expect to capture with it everything that's happening on the road. I don't expect crystal clear details, but I expect the details to be there, even vaguely. Because any type of obstacle (alive or not) can result in damages and insurance claims. That means:

Potholes:

Animals (from the smallest rabbits, cats, foxes, to the larger deer and bears - yes, we have those around roaming in the dark )

Drunk guys roaming freely in the dark (on foot or on bikes with no lights - obviously )

(this is an older example with an older camera)

Maybe even large puddles on the street during heavy rain - when even plain 30 fps is struggling with exposure on 7+ year old camera technology (but I expect a bit more from the latest state of the art, not less)

None of these have bright surfaces, shiny parts or license plates. And I'm guessing at least part of them (pothole, puddle, maybe even the rabbit in the first frames) would be considered "noise" and completely removed by the current A229 Plus HDR implementation. And, I'm sorry again, but that's not acceptable for me, especially since 7 years old technology captured these things with no problems. And we can all agree that none of the above are "cinematic" images. But they contain the necessary details in case of whatever, and that's exactly the point of the dashcam.

 

[JardaB]

The dashcam requirements are extreme:

- on the one hand, the range of differences in lighting conditions and contrast in the scene (sun, city, open road in the dark and headlights of oncoming cars , sunlight contrasted with shadows)
- at the same time, the scene is not static (as is usual in photography), but the objects in the image are moving at high angular speed (landscape and oncoming cars)
- the advantage of temperature resistance, continuous operation and small size of the device

On the other hand, an acceptable price and low power consumption are required.

Requirement of short exposure time (definitely less than 1/100 and more likely 1/1000 sec.) in low light conditions, image noise if the instrument helps itself by increasing the ISO sensitivity and moving scene never gives a good result in extreme conditions !!!.

A device that would partially meet your requirements could be constructed, but it would require an APS-C or full frame sensor, and only a piece production and a probable number of buyers, and its price would be comparable to high-end cameras priced over $5,000 . The requirements you have outlined would be liked by everyone. But no one would pay for such a device.

Otherwise, I commend the time and effort you took to compare results for different settings.
====
It wouldn't hurt to record the same day and night shots "for comparison" with a high-end full frame camera costing $5,000 .

 

[Alexcrist]

Umm... what? I just showed and said that a 7 year old dashcam offers decent results, while the latest more expensive one doesn't. I have no idea what you point with thousands of <whatever_currency> gear is. I specifically said I don't expect crystal clear images, I just want best-effort results, which the old camera does, the new one doesn't. Not for the requested price at least.

But if you understood that I want IMAX quality from that, then ok, be it like you said.

 

[JardaB]

Apparently I missed something and only see shots of the Viofo A229 Plus.

Just to clarify - is the max bitrate set and is it a single, 2CH or 3CH model ???

 

[Alexcrist]

All videos (with one exception) in post #5 are captured with A129 Duo (actually 2 different units, same model, same settings).

All videos (old and new cameras) are with max bitrate and 2ch. That's my normal setup.

 

[JardaB]

Which "great" video is the 7 year old camera ?

Post #3 is A229 - the night shots have street lights
Post #5 is A129 - complete in the dark

Each night video is in different conditions, one is foggy, one is raining. Youtube quality doesn't add either .

I don't understand at all what we are comparing -- in total darkness the video will always be substandard. I'm some kind of dumbass.

 

[Alexcrist]

Well, if you read carefully and slowly everything that I wrote, I'm sure you can understand. Don't worry, you can even read it multiple times.

If you still don't understand, I can explain again. But if we get here, do me a favor and stop throwing around words that you don't understand, like theories about video capturing. I don't mind telling you how a video's quality can be judged (even if it's not the exact same scene), but I do mind wasting time repearing myself for people who don't care what I have to say.

Thanks for understanding!

 

[JardaB]

I wish you success in your endeavors