low cost dash cams with H.265?

[SawMaster]

I'm not sure if the sensor is a limiting factor, I'm sure the (currently available) chipsets are an issue though, that would need improving regardless, technology is always on the move so it's just a matter of time I would think

THANK YOU I was waiting for someone to explain what should have been spoken of from the start, but I wasn't going to be dragged into the arguing. With no active cooling, small size, and economical pricing we're not going to get the performance and features of other devices that have had millions of dollars of development put into them. Everything could be better in dashcams but then we couldn't afford them or they'd lose their practicality.

H.265 is here but only in it's first stages of development. Better will come but don't expect it tomorrow or even next month. In a couple years? Maybe.

Phil

 

[crabu2]

When I asked which cams supported H.265, I was asking which existing cams might be able to support it with a firmware upgrade. I understand the hardware needs changing and I figured some were changing since some cams do support H.265.

In the near future, if hardware in these cams aren't revised for newer tech, other companies will take over their market.

 

[jokiin]

H.265 is here but only in it's first stages of development. Better will come but don't expect it tomorrow or even next month. In a couple years? Maybe.

you may start to see it later this year, there are some next generation chipsets which are just becoming available now, does take time to develop to get the best out of them though

 

[Nigel]

The H265 standard was published April 13, 2013, I doubt there is still much room for encoder improvements in 2019.

 

[M A R K]

The H265 standard was published April 13, 2013, I doubt there is still much room for encoder improvements in 2019.

I think as you said earlier when you talked about what Microsoft and Google there will always be the constant drive to do more with less and push technology further. It what keeps techies awake at night.
So I am sure there will be those out there looking to see how far they can push H265 but I’m guessing right now there are probably people working on H266 and H267 etc. This is what makes the world we live in so exciting. Right now, you only need to look back 5 or 10 years to see how much things have evolved when it comes to technology. 15 years ago, the concept of being able to have a camera in your car that could record in 1080p (or even 480p for that matter) would have been ridiculed especially if you suggested you could buy it for under $100

 

[crabu2]

Don't ask me why, but I was looking at 4k chipsets and it seems they can all encode in H.265. None were showing vp9 or av1. Maybe I shouldn't say all, but the ones I found online from Novatek like the NT 96683 or the Ambarella H22.

Look at Hisilicon, unless I'm reading it wrong even their current generation IPO on entry level soc can encode h.265. http://www.hisilicon.com/en/Products/ProductList/Mobilecam

I think, I will be right with my 2 year prediction....

 

[Nigel]

Don't ask me why, but I was looking at 4k chipsets and it seems they can all encode in H.265. None were showing vp9 or av1. Maybe I shouldn't say all, but the ones I found online from Novatek like the NT 96683 or the Ambarella H22.

Look at Hisilicon, unless I'm reading it wrong even their current generation IPO on entry level soc can encode h.265. http://www.hisilicon.com/en/Products/ProductList/Mobilecam

I think, I will be right with my 2 year prediction....

Most dashcams don't have 4K chipsets, and there is no reason why they should do in two years time.

Including H265 has a license cost per device, which I think the dashcam manufacturer would have to pay, so unless there is an advantage to including it, for all the cheaper and maybe midrange dashcams they will probably leave it disabled even though the chipset is capable.

AV1 doesn't have a licence cost so there is no reason to disable that, unless there may be heat consideration since higher compression requires more processing which will generate more heat, why include it if it may reduce reliability and there is no other benefit?

AV1 compression hardware is not with us yet and VP9 has never been implemented in chipsets.

It would be really nice if when they implement AV1 in our chipsets, they do it in a way which allows variable bitrate to work, unlike with the current H264/H265 encoders, then we could make some huge space savings. This is a clip from yesterday that I uploaded to Youtube in VP9 format with an "Overall bit rate : 1 491 Kbps", almost indistinguishable from the H264 original at "Overall bit rate : 16.8 Mbps" - over 11 times the bitrate, and AV1 should do better than this!

Clearly 1.5 Mb/s is adequate for a rear camera...

 

[crabu2]

This is a clip from yesterday that I uploaded to Youtube in VP9 format with an "Overall bit rate : 1 491 Kbps", almost indistinguishable from the H264 original at "Overall bit rate : 16.8 Mbps" - over 11 times the bitrate, and AV1 should do better than this!

Clearly 1.5 Mb/s is adequate for a rear camera...

With more and more companies going with h.265, I think it's going to be the new defacto. When you have 3 different chip makers already putting it in their chipsets, it says a lot.

BTW, theres something wrong with your AV1 video.. everyone's driving on the wrong side of the road. ;-)

Personally I don't care what is used as long as it does as well as h.265 and gets quick implementation. Oh.. and at 20 cent per device as the licensing fee, I don't think it's going to be an issue for h.265.

 

[Nigel]

BTW, theres something wrong with your AV1 video.. everyone's driving on the wrong side of the road. ;-)

That is because my rear view hasn't been mirrored to match what you would normally see from the driving seat

Personally I don't care what is used as long as it does as well as h.265 and gets quick implementation. Oh.. and at 20 cent per device as the licensing fee, I don't think it's going to be an issue for h.265.

That is what H264 costs:

A Video Codec Licensing Update

The fragmented, frustrating future of HEVC licensing dominated discussion at the Media Coding Industry Forum's recent meeting, which attempted to influence licensing for the upcoming Versatile Video Codec.

www.streamingmedia.com

 

[country_hick]

Going back on topic:

If you have footage in a format that can not be used on someone else's hardware take your own hardware in to show them your evidence.

Your evidence will be reviewed by the other parties when it is played back on your own phone, tablet, or laptop.

 

[jokiin]

If you have footage in a format that can not be used on someone else's hardware take your own hardware in to show them your evidence.

there's always a way

 

[Nigel]

Going back on topic:

If you have footage in a format that can not be used on someone else's hardware take your own hardware in to show them your evidence.

Your evidence will be reviewed by the other parties when it is played back on your own phone, tablet, or laptop.

Unfortunately, most of use don't use local insurance brokers these days, so we can't take the dashcam in to play the video on the built in LCD or HDMI!

 

[Dashmellow]

Going back on topic:

If you have footage in a format that can not be used on someone else's hardware take your own hardware in to show them your evidence.

Your evidence will be reviewed by the other parties when it is played back on your own phone, tablet, or laptop.

It doesn't quite work like that. If you seek to present video on a smart phone or tablet and then want to enter it as evidence in a trial you may be required by the court to hand over your device. There have been several accounts in the news about this.

 

[Deleted member 46308]

It doesn't quite work like that. If you seek to present video on a smart phone or tablet and then want to enter it as evidence in a trial you may be required by the court to hand over your device. There have been several accounts in the news about this.

Could be an interesting cross-examination depending on what other things might be on that device.

 

[Dashmellow]

Could be an interesting cross examination depending on what other things might be on that device.

I know that this issue has been scrutinized by various courts, including the Supreme Court except that much of it has revolved around the access and admissibility of evidence on devices seized from criminals. Not sure how these rulings apply to someone voluntarily submitting video evidence at trial. When this first came before the Supreme Court one of the amusing things that came to light was the fact that most of the judges were fairly clueless about the technology.

 

[crabu2]

It doesn't quite work like that. If you seek to present video on a smart phone or tablet and then want to enter it as evidence in a trial you may be required by the court to hand over your device. There have been several accounts in the news about this.

If the want the original file, give it to them.. It's up to them to figure out how to play it.

 

[Deleted member 46308]

I know that this issue has been scrutinized by various courts, including the Supreme Court except that much of it has revolved around the access and admissibility of evidence on devices seized from criminals. Not sure how these rulings apply to someone voluntarily submitting video evidence at trial. When this first came before the Supreme Court one of the amusing things that came to light was the fact that most of the judges were fairly clueless about the technology.

I would be very surprised if a prosecutor would even attempt the introduction of any evidence in that manner. Seized devices on the other hand would be subjected to close court scrutiny and introduction would have to survive 4th Amendment objections. As you have correctly stated SCOTUS has visited some of these issues, but I am certain that this issue has not been settled with any finality at this point. If you voluntarily submit any materials they would be available to all interested parties for complete forensic examination which would include any other information that the device itself contained. If it were me I would extract only the relevant material from any device and only submit that material and nothing else.

 

[Dashmellow]

If the want the original file, give it to them.. It's up to them to figure out how to play it.

I'm not quite so sure if it's up to the court to "figure out" how to view your evidence but as for giving them a verified copy of your video, tell that to @country_hick who I was responding to.

 

[country_hick]

I have been told that some courts have zero audio visual equipment available for use.
The lawyers must bring in their own laptops or other equipment that is required to play the audio visual evidence.

Your lawyer introduces your evidence (sd card, cd, dvd, etc.) NOT the playing device to the court.
After that evidence is accepted by the court your lawyer must be able to be present that evidence to the court.
Any equipment your lawyer uses to present any accepted evidence to a court is not introduced or considered as evidence by the court.
It is possible to have to explain why a piece of technology should be accepted by a court.
Explaining precisely why any specific video player that is needed to play a video in court should be accepted by the court is absurd as courts presumably know that different recording formats requiring various players exist.
Were it otherwise the lawyers glasses and the stands upon which any exhibits are placed would be taken away from the lawyer as those items were used during the presentation.

 

[Dashmellow]

I have been told that some courts have zero audio visual equipment available for use.
The lawyers must bring in their own laptops or other equipment that is required to play the audio visual evidence.

Your lawyer introduces your evidence (sd card, cd, dvd, etc.) NOT the playing device to the court.
After that evidence is accepted by the court your lawyer must be able to be present that evidence to the court.
Any equipment your lawyer uses to present any accepted evidence to a court is not introduced or considered as evidence by the court.
It is possible to have to explain why a piece of technology should be accepted by a court.
Explaining precisely why any specific video player that is needed to play a video in court should be accepted by the court is absurd as courts presumably know that different recording formats requiring various players exist.
Were it otherwise the lawyers glasses and the stands upon which any exhibits are placed would be taken away from the lawyer as those items were used during the presentation.

Equating an attorney's eyeglasses or the easel used to hold a cardboard mounted chart with a device that holds digital evidence seems like pretty flaky logic if you ask me.