M2 Discussion

I tried it for a while, but dident look into it to see if there was something wrong with the recordings back then ( last summer )
 
Necromancer said:
Anyone recording with H.265?
I seem to get a lot of corrupted frames, not sure if because of camera or card.
Click to expand...

I would strongly recommend people NOT use H.265 for dash cam footage! Basically, if you should ever need to hand over original RAW footage to law enforcement, insurance companies, attorneys or courts there is a very high likelihood that they will not have the appropriate media player to review your footage. Many agencies are using older computers, operating systems and software. Many of the people who would need to handle your footage would not even know what the term H.265 means or what is required to view the footage. They will only know that they can't watch your footage.

I have learned from personal experience presenting dash cam footage evidence to the police, prosecutors and lawyers that you need to make things as absolutely simple and foolproof as possible for people with unknown skill levels whom you will never even get to meet or speak with but who are to review the footage that comes across their desk, otherwise the legal or insurance matter you are trying to present to them may end up in the trash bin.

Forget about the idea of using H.265 until it becomes a ubiquitous, universal standard the way H.264 currently is now.
 
Last edited:
Dashmellow said:
For me it all started to go downhill when the dual frame WDR (HDR) was abandoned.
Click to expand...
I'm still running my M2 as a rear view camera, where I can live with less-than-ideal quality. My original M1 is now in my wife's car, and I'm looking out for another second-hand M1 to use rear-facing instead of the M2.

If I do get another M1 to use in the rear, I'll probably run the M2 in dual-frame WDR up front alongside the GC.
 
they are working on another new model also which looks like it might be a better performer for dashcam use
 
jokiin said:
they are working on another new model also which looks like it might be a better performer for dashcam use
Click to expand...
Really? Where did you hear about that? I admit I'm not on this forum 7 days a week so probably missed something...
 
Dashmellow said:
I've heard some rumors of this possibility elsewhere. Glad to hear some sort of confirmation.
Click to expand...
How far along with it I don't know but I did see the PCB was done, it wasn't really a topic of discussion but I think it was still an evaluation version and may not be a production version
 
jokiin said:
How far along with it I don't know but I did see the PCB was done, it wasn't really a topic of discussion but I think it was still an evaluation version and may not be a production version
Click to expand...

Well, going by the amount of time it took to bring the M2 to market and the subsequent other issues that have required sorting out it may be quite some time before we see a newer camera on offer. Hopefully a different approach will be taken this time around with the SDK, etc., so as to avoid some of the pitfalls the M2 has encountered.
 
I think they bit off more than they could chew with the M2, the new model I saw is far more familiar to them which should make development much quicker I suspect
 
jokiin said:
I think they bit off more than they could chew with the M2, the new model I saw is far more familiar to them which should make development much quicker I suspect
Click to expand...

That's good news, and yeah, I agree. I just don't know quite what to say about the M2 anymore.
 
Dashmellow said:
I just don't know quite what to say about the M2 anymore.
Click to expand...
Do you think it was better on the old dual-frame WDR firmware than it is now? Sure, there's more metering options and other settings available now. But do they make it better?
 
I hope they still work on the M2 and don't abandon it altogether.
 
Dashmellow said:
That's good news, and yeah, I agree. I just don't know quite what to say about the M2 anymore.
Click to expand...

I have no idea but I get the feeling when they started the M2 project the SDK may have been very basic so they made the decision to go the way they did (the impression I got at least), the reality is the SDK gets updated along the way also, it may have been a bit premature/naive to think that the manufacturer wouldn't improve it and that they could somehow do better doing things themselves
 
TonyM said:
Do you think it was better on the old dual-frame WDR firmware than it is now? Sure, there's more metering options and other settings available now. But do they make it better?
Click to expand...

That's a good question. Recently I've considered reflashing the old firmware so I can revisit the question as it has been some time now. Certainly the dual frame version had it own issues, hence its abandonment but I was sorry to see the loss of the potential of what I saw there.
 
jokiin said:
I'm not sure they would abandon it but there may be limitations as to what's possible to achieve
Click to expand...

I guess there's no other option than to wait and watch and hope..
 
jokiin said:
I think they bit off more than they could chew with the M2 ...
Click to expand...

They won't be the first or last business to over-estimate their own abilities. Look at the failure of Honda to develop a race-competitive F1 engine, by insisting on doing it all in-house, without employing any outside expertise.
 
russ331 said:
They won't be the first or last business to over-estimate their own abilities.
Click to expand...

in a way I kind of understand the thinking if the SDK at the time was lacking, they never stay that way though and it's probably poor judgement at best to think that the chipset vendor wouldn't have the resources available to further improve it
 
Is it too late for them to go back and use the SDK instead, but keep the existing hardware? Admittedly I don't know enough about the firmware side of things to know if this is even feasible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top