Again I'm seeing noticeable differences. Look art the sidewalk to the left of the SUV and the back of the car on the far right. The blockiness of 720 is clear there. Sharpness is most visible where there's a line between darker and lighter colors, in tree limbs, signposts, number plates, etc. Windshield cleanliness is mandatory before any real comparisons or evaluations can be made- think of it as a lens element. You wouldn't use a smudged or dirty lens expecting good results would you?
You're free to try whatever you wish, but my approach is to begin with default settings, with bitrates and resolution middle or mid-high, then go upward from there. If you start anything on the highest settings it makes it hard to have anything to compare the losses or gains to. So if you're looking to see what 120FPS can do, first get everything set best at 60FPS , then bump the shutter speed up from there. Once you've done that, play with the other settings one at a time and in smallish increments to see what happens. And don't forget to check again at night, as you might need a compromise setting to get good vids both ways.
I also agree with Nigel- 60FPS is probably all you need and with many cams it often doesn't work as good as 30FPS does. It gives the pixels less time to gather light when you raise FPS, so you can get darker images or oversharpened ones. Adjustinmg exposure to compensate can make things look worse in shadows and at night. And TBH, these kinds of cams just aren't made for such high-performance work- they're not high-cost DSLR's even though the principles may be the same. Once you pass the optimum point of any cam component things get worse. That's why many of us are running lower resolutions and shutter-speeds than the highest settings we have available to us. About the only thing which works better when 'run hard' is bitrates, and even that can lead to cam overheating and unreliable recording when pushed too hard.
Phil
