low cost dash cams with H.265?

[M A R K]

I certainly don't disagree with anything you've said here but you are missing the point. The ongoing discussion in this thread is not at all about the laws in different countries and states or the capabilities of major law enforcement entities. It's about the necessity of providing dash cam footage to literally anyone involved in adjudicating your matter, whether legally or for insurance purposes, with files they can easily open and view using the skills, equipment and software they normally have available to them. And this applies to whatever format you supply initially as well as the raw original files you may be demanded to provide in the event your matter comes under legal dispute. So, going back to the OP's request, H.265 files are a poor choice.

So where do you draw the line?
H264 was had no native support in Windows XP or Windows 95 etc and there are certainty still Windows XP machines out there.
So by your argument if you insist on pandering to the lowest common denominator, you would need a dashcam that records in AVI format I guess or how about RealMedia?
In the real world you record in whatever works for you safe in the knowledge that somebody qualified to perform digital forensics on such a file to validate its authenticity would be able to play it no problem where as for those that are not qualified to validate the integrity of the file, just making them a copy in a format that works for them (how about QuickTime) is perfectly fine.

 

[Dashmellow]

So record them in whatever format you want and supply them to others in H264 on USB stick if that is what they can cope with. In the UK, any legal dispute will not involve the format of the original video recording, only the content or quite likely the witness (you). Having the video in the original recording format is no more important than having the video in the format it came out of the image sensor, which none of us have since dashcams never record raw video.

Nobody outside the UK particularly cares about how the UK legal system works according to you. You seem to be trying to confuse the issue with your definition of "raw video" which is a file format that conatins minimally processed data from the image sensor. However, for as long as I've b on this for refers to "raw" video as simply unprocess footage direct from the camera. And obviously you've never been involved in a major legal action where such things as device embedded metadata are demanded by sharp attorneys for authentication and verification.

 

[M A R K]

Nobody outside the UK particularly cares about how the UK legal system works according to you. You seem to be trying to confuse the issue with your definition of "raw video" which is a file format that conatins minimally processed data from the image sensor. However, for as long as I've b on this for refers to "raw" video as simply unprocess footage direct from the camera. And obviously you've never been involved in a major legal action where such things as device embedded metadata are demanded by sharp attorneys for authentication and verification.

So which dashcams record the RAW video to an SD Card then?
You were saying in your case they wanted the original file (H264 if I recall) which is very different from the raw data straight from the sensor.
So what is it (after all you are the international legal expert here)? RAW data from the sensor stored on some alternative memory bank or the processed and compressed (and therefore modified) data that is ultimately written to the SD card?
Asking for a friend.

 

[Dashmellow]

So where do you draw the line?
H264 was had no native support in Windows XP or Windows 95 etc and there are certainty still Windows XP machines out there.
So by your argument if you insist on pandering to the lowest common denominator, you would need a dashcam that records in AVI format I guess or how about RealMedia?
In the real world you record in whatever works for you safe in the knowledge that somebody qualified to perform digital forensics on such a file to validate its authenticity would be able to play it no problem where as for those that are not qualified to validate the integrity of the file, just making them a copy in a format that works for them (how about QuickTime) is perfectly fine.

That's a BS argument. Nobody is arguing for the use of outdated OSs or file formats. On the other hand adopting a file format like H.265 for your dash cam that has barely penetrated the market and that many average users including many professional users may never have heard of and don't have knowledge or ability to view seems like an unwise way to go.

 

[Dashmellow]

So which dashcams record the RAW video to an SD Card then?
You were saying in your case they wanted the original file (H264 if I recall) which is very different from the raw data straight from the sensor.
So what is it (after all you are the international legal expert here)? RAW data from the sensor stored on some alternative memory bank or the processed and compressed (and therefore modified) data that is ultimately written to the SD card?
Asking for a friend.

Don't get cute. I made it quite clear I am referring to device embedded metadata.

 

[M A R K]

That's a BS argument. Nobody is arguing for the use of outdated OSs or file formats. On the other hand adopting a file format like H.265 for your dash cam that has barely penetrated the market and that many average users including many professional users may never have heard of and don't have knowledge ability to view seems like an unwise way to go.

You argued for using a format your local police or insurance company could view on their aging computers. You said they have no chance of viewing H265 which is true unless they install a player (such as VLC) but as you say, they may struggle even with that.
But aging IT could actually mean Windows XP and that can’t play H264 unless you install something like VLC etc.
So either they can install a player/codec etc or they can’t but the problem is the same.
If you reasonable expect somebody with aging IT to be able to view H264, it’s not unreasonable for them to also be able to view H265 UNLESS they simply don’t want to which is a very different situation.

 

[M A R K]

Don't get cute. I made it quite clear I am referring to device embedded metadata.

I rest my case. My work here is done.

 

[Nigel]

Nobody outside the UK particularly cares about how the UK legal system works according to you. You seem to be trying to confuse the issue with your definition of "raw video" which is a file format that conatins minimally processed data from the image sensor. However, for as long as I've b on this for refers to "raw" video as simply unprocess footage direct from the camera. And obviously you've never been involved in a major legal action where such things as device embedded metadata are demanded by sharp attorneys for authentication and verification.

Well I'm not going to discuss the legal system of Uncanny Valley USA, wherever that is, I have no interest in that and few others have either!

What exactly are those sharp attorneys going to achieve by examining the embedded metadata of the original storage file?

 

[Dashmellow]

QUOTE="M A R K, post: 454431, member: 56785"]
I rest my case. My work here is done.
[/QUOTE]

It's always amusing when someone shows up on an internet forum and immediately describes themselves as “the UKs foremost expert” on a subject and under such circumstances I don't take it with a grain of salt, I consume a whole tabelspoon. Even if true you were talking about deploying body worn video which is a proprietary walled system unrelated to dash cam footage or real world insurance or legal matters across the globe.

But since you've rested you case and your work is done, please don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass in the way out.

 

[Dashmellow]

Well I'm not going to discuss the legal system of Uncanny Valley USA, wherever that is, I have no interest in that and few others have either!

What exactly are those sharp attorneys going to achieve by examining the embedded metadata of the original storage file?

What is your argument exactly? Everyone should rush out to find a dash cam that can shoot H.265? The few that have existed don't seem to last on the market very long and for good reason.

As for the metadata there are numerous reasons an attorney might demand authentication and verification, especially in matters of liability or criminality in the event of a fatality.

Interestingly, many journalists and political activists today receive training in preserving video metadata, also for authentication and verification.

 

[M A R K]

QUOTE="M A R K, post: 454431, member: 56785"]
I rest my case. My work here is done.

It's always amusing when someone shows up on an internet forum and immediately describes themselves as “the UKs foremost expert” on a subject and under such circumstances I don't take it with a grain of salt, I consume a whole tabelspoon. Even if true you were talking about deploying body worn video which is a proprietary walled system unrelated to dash cam footage or real world insurance or legal matters across the globe.

But since you've rested you case and your work is done, please don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass in the way out.
[/QUOTE]

No problem

I’ll try not to Miss The Point as well as I walk down the corridor

 

[Nigel]

What is your argument exactly? Everyone should rush out to find a dash cam that can shoot H.265? The few that have existed don't seem to last on the market very long and for good reason.

No, I said in post #2 that it has "No significant advantage for dashcam use".

As for the metadata there are numerous reasons an attorney might demand authentication and verification, especially in matters of liability or criminality in the event of a fatality.

Interestingly, many journalists and political activists today receive training in preserving video metadata, also for authentication and verification.

I can't imagine any reason with dashcam metadata, and even if there was, the metadata is by far the easiest part of the file to fake!

 

[jokiin]

What is your argument exactly? Everyone should rush out to find a dash cam that can shoot H.265? The few that have existed don't seem to last on the market very long and for good reason.

As for the metadata there are numerous reasons an attorney might demand authentication and verification, especially in matters of liability or criminality in the event of a fatality.

Interestingly, many journalists and political activists today receive training in preserving video metadata, also for authentication and verification.

I think there's a good case for using a more widely accepted format to have a greater chance of the video being used/useful

on the subject of metadata how about Viofo cameras that have the option of recording TS or MP4, if you use MP4 you get GPS data, if you use TS you don't, TS can replay a file up until about a second before failure, MP4 could potentially lose a whole segment, the MP4 files have added info, the GPS info could be critical in some cases, more playback options but that small risk of loss under certain circumstances, TS you miss out on all the added data and have reduced file handling options, so which do you choose?

 

[Dashmellow]

This whole argument seems to have spun wildly out of control. Why am I not surprised?

It's just common sense to use a dash cam file format that "most" parties to the matter, whomever they may be in the foodchain, can view, work with and authenticate easily without encountering problems that require eleborate workarounds or specialized tools available only to certain elite professionals. Otherwise one is only inviting unnecessary problems.

 

[jokiin]

This whole argument seems to have spun wildly out of control. Why am I not surprised?

welcome to the internet

It's just common sense to use a dash cam file format that "most" parties to the matter, whomever they may be in the foodchain, can view, work with and authenticate easily without encountering problems that require eleborate workarounds or specialized tools available only to certain elite professionals. Otherwise one is only inviting unnecessary problems.

this is my take on it also, the more compatible you can be while providing the detail required just makes sense

 

[Nigel]

I think there's a good case for using a more widely accepted format to have a greater chance of the video being used/useful

on the subject of metadata how about Viofo cameras that have the option of recording TS or MP4, if you use MP4 you get GPS data, if you use TS you don't, TS can replay a file up until about a second before failure, MP4 could potentially lose a whole segment, the MP4 files have added info, the GPS info could be critical in some cases, more playback options but that small risk of loss under certain circumstances, TS you miss out on all the added data and have reduced file handling options, so which do you choose?

TS with GPS, time and license plate data video overlay, all the data, very difficult to fake, and protection against crashes?

If an alternative format has a useful advantage and can be easily converted then it seems sensible to use it...

How do we expect those legal people to be able to manage the GPS data in an mp4 file if they can't manage standard things like H265?

 

[Dashmellow]

No, I said in post #2 that it has "No significant advantage for dashcam use".



I can't imagine any reason with dashcam metadata, and even if there was, the metadata is by far the easiest part of the file to fake!

With the rapid development and increasing availability and ease of use of "deepfake" video as well as audio technology, the field of "authentication" will be a growing trend. For the time being it is mostly confined the world of porn but that same technology will soon be weaponized for many other purposes.

 

[Dashmellow]

No, I said in post #2 that it has "No significant advantage for dashcam use".

You did say that and I agreed and added that there were also some disadvantages which is what seems to have set this ball in motion.

 

[M A R K]

It's just common sense to use a dash cam file format that "most" parties to the matter, whomever they may be in the foodchain, can view, work with and authenticate easily without encountering problems that require eleborate workarounds or specialized tools available only to certain elite professionals. Otherwise one is only inviting unnecessary problems.

You see THAT is the point you most eloquently chose to ignore.

A huge amount of work is going on around the world as criminal justice professionals (police, judges, lawyers etc) wake up to the fact that “evidence” comes in many many different formats. And just like an insurance clerk may not have the skills/tools to deal with a certain file type, an iPhone user may not have the skills/tools to export a file in anything but default whatever that may be.

When some terrorist wanders into a high school and starts shooting school kids, the people dealing with the follow on investigation can’t ask people to check their dash cams/mobile phones/cctv etc in case they captured something that may be of help but then say “but we can only accept photos in bitmap format”.

So it’s taken some time but across Europe and North America this is being addressed which means TODAY a member of the public can provide “evidence” in whatever format works for them. This evidence is then used to form a picture of what happened in what may be a complex investigation that may have video footage, witness statements and so on.

I am not denying that at some point in the past (I’m guessing prior to 2013 when you joined this forum) you had an issue with your local hill billy police department which is different to what I am describing here but that doesn’t make what I am saying here wrong. Here in 2019 the world is very different. As I said, this is part of what I do for a living so have a very good view of the system as a whole from the inside in many countries not as a victim on the outside as you found yourself. As I said, the US actually leads the western world with a lot of this technology thus the huge take up of these “evidence cloud” platforms. In Europe for example, there is a lot more resistance to cloud in criminal justice mainly because most of the platforms are run by US companies.

So to my original point

If somebody chooses to buy a camera (regardless of if there is any benefit) that shoots in H265, they do not need to concern themselves that the footage won’t be usable if there is an accident and the whole thing ends up in court. As long as the file is in a current and supported format they will be perfectly fine.

 

[M A R K]

With the rapid development and increasing availability and ease of use of "deepfake" video as well as audio technology, the field of "authentication" will be a growing trend. For the time being it is mostly confined the world of porn but that same technology will soon be weaponized for many other purposes.

I believe this is going to be less of an issue in the courts that it will be for news etc.

When a prosecution takes place, the investigation team build a body of evidence. So a single photo or video clip isn’t enough. There has to be witness statements, forensics etc etc. A whole picture is built up that can stand up to cross examination and other scrutiny.

As an example, in one EU country when looking at putting cameras on armed police officers (remember unlike the US, a lot of EU countries only arm some of their officers) there was the discussion about if they should use HD or 4K cameras. The decision was that they should have standard definition cameras (480p). This may seem mad at first but such a camera is there to support an officer in the event somebody claims he shot somebody illegally.

In the heat of the moment, the armed officer is stood there with his blood pumping, adrenaline going, surrounded by lots of shouting and plenty of other things going on around him. In the heat of the moment, he may have thought he saw a gun and fired. After the event it turns out the person he shot didn’t have a gun but instead had a mobile phone.

In the court, if the officer had a 4K camera shooting at 60fps, you could play that back frame by frame and see clearly that it wasn’t a gun. But the incident didn’t happen in a calm court in slow motion with no distractions. Thus the footage is just used as part of the picture building. We will see the video from the camera, we will hear from the officer, we will hear from witnesses and some of the, may lie or try to paint a different picture. Only by building a body of evidence can the case be made.

Deep fakes are more dangerous.

Not in cases like I have described above but in scenarios where the video clip is taken in isolation. Somebody may make a fake of Trump saying he hates walls Post that on FaceBook and see it go viral. In that case many people may not question it and of course in isolation they have no real way of validating the footage. It’s part of the bigger “Fake News” problem we are seeing where we can no longer trust what we see on the screen in front of us.

So do we need to validate the footage or do we actually need to validate the journalist who is putting this in front of us?

PS

We are now a ridiculous way off topic