Discrete two piece dashcam with covert Remote lens (for maximum stealth)

[Dashmellow]

There's a few possible approaches, dealing with multiple functions and not having them interfere with digital video signals is a challenge, as is the number of wires needed and the method to transmit without loss over distance, much easier in an analogue SD video environment than it is when dealing with full HD let alone all the other functions

This is a very interesting discussion. It is apparent that the solution to these issues is digital. If you stop to think about it, dash cam technology is essentially digital but is still weighed down by some obsolete analogue hardware. So, if you have a remote lens module, you need to still to be "dealing with multiple functions and not having them interfere with digital video signals", and you need a way to transmit signals without loss. As a guy who has been involved with traditional CCTV technology and who has watched the rapid evolution from analogue to digital, it is clear that the same thing needs to happen with dash cams. Remote dash cam lens modules will need to become miniature IP cameras via Ethernet connections. This will solve many, if not most of the interference and all the transmission length problems inherent with analogue "wires". It will also provide all kinds of new capabilities as well. Ultimately, a stand alone dash cam will need to become a true DVR, just like a full scale DVR with remote IP cameras connected digitally via ethernet. That's how this needs to be done in my opinion. The technology basically already exists but it hasn't yet been deployed in this miniaturized way.

 

[Sungmoon Jang]

Hi, you are wrong, ethernet can not do it.
Even can do the cable thickness problem.
I have a board from last year. So do not need to worry technical point.
The issue is how can make nice shape front camera. The other thing is wifi.
To control easily, I think wifi is best.
I just do remote control ways.
The connection cable was done by mico usb. Cable also very slim.

This is a very interesting discussion. It is apparent that the solution to these issues is digital. If you stop to think about it, dash cam technology is essentially digital but is still weighed down by some obsolete analogue hardware. So, if you have a remote lens module, you need to still to be "dealing with multiple functions and not having them interfere with digital video signals", and you need a way to transmit signals without loss. As a guy who has been involved with traditional CCTV technology and who has watched the rapid evolution from analogue to digital, it is clear that the same thing needs to happen with dash cams. Remote dash cam lens modules will need to become miniature IP cameras via Ethernet connections. This will solve many, if not most of the interference and all the transmission length problems inherent with analogue "wires". It will also provide all kinds of new capabilities as well. Ultimately, a stand alone dash cam will need to become a true DVR, just like a full scale DVR with remote IP cameras connected digitally via ethernet. That's how this needs to be done in my opinion. The technology basically already exists but it hasn't yet been deployed in this miniaturized way.

 

[Dashmellow]

Wifi seems good for controlling but what about bandwidth issues with transmitting video fast enough to the base DVR?

 

[niko]

I am glad we having here a discussion and we all can learn something new from it !

 

[jokiin]

We have two digital solutions available for the cameras already, the other functions need some work still though, nothing insurmountable but for me I'd either need an investor or partner to be able to do it any sooner, otherwise it's just going to have to wait

 

[jokiin]

Wifi seems good for controlling but what about bandwidth issues with transmitting video fast enough to the base DVR?

Stability is a big issue

 

[Dashmellow]

Stability is a big issue

I think you are saying that WiFi may not be stable enough for camera/dvr control "on the fly". That's why I mentioned the possibility of using ethernet. It could be the solution for both bandwidth, control and interference rejection. Sungmoon says ethernet "can not do it" but I would appreciate hearing a more complete explanation as to why.

 

[jokiin]

There are two digital solutions available to us now, the signal needs to be encoded and decoded either end by a companion chipset, can be done over HDMI or Cat5 depending which solution is used, we can get cameras 8 meters from the DVR reliably, that's not the issue (for me at least)

It does need to be a digital solution, it's the only practical solution at this stage

 

[Dashmellow]

It does need to be a digital solution, it's the only practical solution at this stage

Yes.

 

[niko]

At present time and affordable for consumer technology I see only drawback in using full data streaming-recording wireless. Yes, we have b/g/n and other more advanced speeds / ratings, but it all takes a lot of power ( @ car battery ), transmitting / receiving / encrypting / decoding etc.
Why invent the wheel ? Why not just take 2ch standalone fully wired system where regular everyday recording from cameras to main hidden unit ( brain ) is via wires and only emergency files ( g-sensor / motion detection ) are recorder via wireless ( WiFi or 3G ) to remote location / hard-drive, something like one chinese cheap dashcamera already uses ( HERE )
Also wireless communication can be used ONLY between smartphone and main hidden unit ( brain ) for set-up and file transfer like already many WiFi-based dashcams using ( @ Vico WF1, Cowon AW1, Blackvue 550, etc ).

 

[jokiin]

Wifi for config or casual access is no issue and possibly a necessity when considering a hideaway DVR, for storage or constant data streaming it's not practical at all I feel

 

[niko]

Wifi ... for storage or constant data streaming it's not practical at all I feel

Glad I understand same way

 

[Dashmellow]

At present time and affordable for consumer technology I see only drawback in using full data streaming-recording wireless. Yes, we have b/g/n and other more advanced speeds / ratings, but it all takes a lot of power ( @ car battery ), transmitting / receiving / encrypting / decoding etc.
Why invent the wheel ? Why not just take 2ch standalone fully wired system where regular everyday recording from cameras to main hidden unit ( brain ) is via wires and only emergency files ( g-sensor / motion detection ) are recorder via wireless ( WiFi or 3G ) to remote location / hard-drive, something like one chinese cheap dashcamera already uses ( HERE )
Also wireless communication can be used ONLY between smartphone and main hidden unit ( brain ) for set-up and file transfer like already many WiFi-based dashcams using ( @ Vico WF1, Cowon AW1, Blackvue 550, etc ).

Well, yes you are absolutely right. Plus you need to power the remote cameras! Ethernet seems to accomplish all the needed objectives and is really quite inexpensive at this point, even if it does need to be configured and miniaturized for dash cam purposes.

 

[Street Guardian USA]

I'm not sure standalone is the best description
Discrete two piece dashcam with covert Remote lens (for maximum stealth)

The guts are out of site, so it's not smash and grab friendly. Less heat effect on electronics.

Does it have to be clunky HDMI? (thick cables, bad connections) I know they have redmere and hyperthin cables though.

How about BNC locked HD-SDI?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_digital_interface

 

[jokiin]

HDMI comes in mini and micro versions so I wouldn't say clunky necessarily, you do generally need the multiple wires offered by HDMI or Ethernet cables though to support the functionality needed

 

[Street Guardian USA]

Hey by clunky, I meant connection is easily pulled out. potential for being disconnected is a better description. I edited my reply right before your response, added I know they have redmere and hyperthin hdmi cables though. (with mini/micro HDMI connections, still no locking)

Ethernet offers easier options for pulling the wire through tight spots, and then adding the RJ45 connector manually. (I have tools for that, easy, have done 1000's)

 

[jokiin]

HDMI cables are better, shielded against video crosstalk etc and the connectors are much smaller, the cat 5 solution is newer though and still needs a bit of sorting, connector size is a negative for the cat 5 solution

 

[niko]

I'm not sure standalone is the best description
Discrete two piece dashcam with covert Remote lens (for maximum stealth)

The guts are out of site, so it's not smash and grab friendly. Less heat effect on electronics.

Does it have to be clunky HDMI? (thick cables, bad connections) I know they have redmere and hyperthin cables though.

How about BNC locked HD-SDI?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_digital_interface

I just changed title to more correct one as you recommended @ Discrete two piece dashcam with covert Remote lens (for maximum stealth).
My English is not that great, so thank you for advice

 

[niko]

HDMI comes in mini and micro versions so I wouldn't say clunky necessarily, you do generally need the multiple wires offered by HDMI or Ethernet cables though to support the functionality needed

I have tested Urive Albatross II, it use micro-usb to connect rear camera to the main unit.
Also Blacksys CF-100 uses mini-usb for rear camera.
Finevu CR-2000s uses also mini-usb for rear camera 1080p / 30fps.

I wonder if there is a data transfer or operational functions limitations if using mini- vs micro usb ?

 

[jokiin]

Just a connection type, for this purpose I don't think there would be any difference to performance offered