Mobius Telephoto Dashcam

[Dashmellow]

On WB I think you misinterpreted what I said. I said above that dynamic to me means constantly adjusted and I said no camera achieves that. What a camera does is match the current lighting conditions to the nearest pre-set balance and then applies that pre-set, whether it's right or wrong. I explained that SLR's are more accurate because they have a greater selection of pre-set scenarios but they still get it wrong. Please feel free to re-read my post above, it's unedited since you posted.

As for the article, I can't comment on the overall accuracy as I have to admit I didn't read it, and still haven't! I just saw the lines about presets when I scanned it and quoted it.

I assure you I know about white balance. I own, adjust and use high power RGB laser systems. Although you're coming at it from a completely different angle, you still need to understand colour balance.

What exactly is the point of publishing links to articles you've found on the internet alleging to support your remarks when you haven't even bothered to read the material you are posting??!!! What kind of BS is that??!! It simply makes you sound foolish. Many of your attempts to show us all how much you know often end up displaying all that you don't know. For example, just the other day you posted Photoshop color adjustments in regard to color correcting the green bias on the new Mobius Maxi, except that digital cameras don't work like that, as the photometric or colormetric functions in Photoshop you used or talked about are not available to digital cameras.

 

[c4rc4m]

No more foolish than you look failing to read my post properly above. You make attacks (once more) when you haven't even correctly read what I posted. Then you criticise me for not reading a whole article. That's what I get for backing you up in explaining that AWB uses presets. More fool me for helping you.

As for Affinity (not photoshop), I was using that to explore what the likely colour imbalance was. I'm fully aware the two things don't work the same. I was equally aware it was unlikely to be more complex than a single colour imbalance, just not quite as complicated as it turned out to be. No where did I suggest you could directly attribute a photo programs colour profiling with the white balance settings for a camera. For a start a typical HD camera uses the Rec 709 colour space whereas an editing program will typically use the AdobeRGB colour space. However, a colour cast is a colour cast ie a green imbalance is a green imbalance. So if you can establish you have too much green, a little too much cyan, a bit too much red etc it gives you a starting point to work from.

As for the article, if you think I'm going to waste a full 10 minutes reading through the full article to post on an internet forum then you're mistaken. It contained everything I wanted to show in 2 lines I spotted straight away when glancing over it - that white balance uses a set of presets. Beyond that, I'm not going to waste time reading the irrelevant rest of the whole thing for mistakes. That's for academics and sad people with no life away from the internet to do. I have better things to do than spend hours checking links for errors before I post. The internet nor this forum is not my life.

 

[Dashmellow]

No more foolish than you look failing to read my post properly above. You make attacks (once more) when you haven't even correctly read what I posted. Then you criticise me for not reading a whole article. That's what I get for backing you up in explaining that AWB uses presets. More fool me for helping you.

As for Affinity (not photoshop), I was using that to explore what the likely colour imbalance was. I'm fully aware the two things don't work the same. I was equally aware it was unlikely to be more complex than a single colour imbalance, just not quite as complicated as it turned out to be. No where did I suggest you could directly attribute a photo programs colour profiling with the white balance settings for a camera. For a start a typical HD camera uses the Rec 709 colour space whereas an editing program will typically use the AdobeRGB colour space. However, a colour cast is a colour cast ie a green imbalance is a green imbalance. So if you can establish you have too much green, a little too much cyan, a bit too much red etc it gives you a starting point to work from.

As for the article, if you think I'm going to waste a full 10 minutes reading through the full article to post on an internet forum then you're mistaken. It contained everything I wanted to show in 2 lines I spotted straight away when glancing over it - that white balance uses a set of presets. Beyond that, I'm not going to waste time reading the irrelevant rest of the whole thing for mistakes. That's for academics and sad people with no life away from the internet to do. I have better things to do than spend hours checking links for errors before I post. The internet nor this forum is not my life.

As is so often the case you seem to have no idea what you are talking about. And trying to justify that posting material you can't be bothered to read in order to prove a point sounds simply ludicrous.

I have no interest in wasting my time being draw into yet another one of your tedious circular arguments showing us how much you really don't know but here's an example. Image editing software such as Photoshop doesn't "typically use the AdobeRGB colour space". A competent and knowledgeable user must select the appropriate color space before beginning their work. And the user needs to select both the input LUT and the output LUT.

So, in the case of Affinity Photo you would select the appropriate color space here. (Defaults in these programs is usually sRBG, BTW.)

 

[c4rc4m]

With no Rec 709 in view because it's a video colour standard. Most people default to Adobe RGB which is pretty much the industry standard for printing photos as it translates well into CYMK standards, but then again I'm sure you know that.

You're argumentative for the sake of it which is a shame when you clearly have knowledge to contribute and could do so in a much nicer manner.

Like I said before, my original post you chose to criticise as wrong is unedited above since this argument began # 478. Couldn't be clearer on pre-sets for someone who says I can't be bothered to read:

Jak what you're suggesting is not dynamic. Dynamic would be constant adjustment based on changes to the lighting curves. That would involve constant reassessement and either a very clever algorithym or thousands of profiles each one subtly different. I'm not sure any camera has that due to processing considerations.

The mobius is simple like a point and shoot camera - my understanding is it attempts to assess the white balance according to the lighting conditions and then applies the most appropriate pre-set, whether that pre-set is correct or not. In other words its dumb like most cameras out there. The only difference to my knowledge between simple and mopre advanced SLR's when it comes to white balance is SLR's have more pre-set profiles and so can adjust to more situations thereby increasing accuracy. However, as you'll see in the explanatory web page below, even some top name SLR's get it wrong. The only real solution is to shoot in raw. Which you'll never get in a dashcam because the files are huge due to no compression being used: Raw HD video at 1080P uses 7.1GB per minute of storage space.

https://expertphotography.com/4-steps-to-understanding-white-balance/

As for not reading a long web page for proofing mistakes, you already have my answer - dashcams and forums are a hobby. I've got better things to do in life than proof read mutli-page articles. If I see the point I want to make and it's correct, the article will be quoted. Beyond that, if you want to proof read and point out the author has made mistakes on the wider subject in his multiple pages, feel free.

Hopefully we can lay another pointless argument laid to rest....

 

[Rocketvapor]

Has anyone considered the upper and lower cutoff curves of the IR filters in use?

 

[Dashmellow]

With no Rec 709 in view because it's a video colour standard. Most people default to Adobe RGB which is pretty much the industry standard for printing photos as it translates well into CYMK standards, but then again I'm sure you know that.

You're argumentative for the sake of it which is a shame when you clearly have knowledge to contribute and could do so in a much nicer manner.

Like I said before, my original post you chose to criticise as wrong is unedited above since this argument began # 478. Couldn't be clearer on pre-sets for someone who says I can't be bothered to read:



As for not reading a long web page for proofing mistakes, you already have my answer - dashcams and forums are a hobby. I've got better things to do in life than proof read mutli-page articles. If I see the point I want to make and it's correct, the article will be quoted. Beyond that, if you want to proof read and point out the author has made mistakes on the wider subject in his multiple pages, feel free.

Hopefully we can lay another pointless argument laid to rest....

"Proofing mistakes?". You cited an article full of misinformation because you couldn't be bothered to read it! If one of my students ever pulled something like that I would have flunked him, pronto.

Once again, you don't have your facts straight but attempt to come off like you know what you are talking about. FYI, "Most people" don't default to Adobe RGB (nor do the software programs). It is used as the pre-press standard colorspace environment in CMYK printing because of its wider color gamut which is exactly the reason why it is the wrong profile to use for something like dash cam videos. The correct color space to work in would be sRGB which FYI happens to include the ITU-R BT.709 (Rec 709) specification, intended for viewing images on a computer monitor, HDTV and originally on CRT monitors.

I'm certainly not arguing with you for the sake of it but instead because it's frustrating to read posts where you incorrectly speak with authority about things you clearly have no first hand knowledge of except perhaps reading a thing or two about on the internet. (Or in this case, not even bothering to read before posting.)

As for what I know, or don't know, one of the hats I sometimes wear is doing pre-press color management workflow in the graphics and printing industry.

 

[Harsh]

Bought 8 and 12mm 5MP lenses for the Maxi. Here's the 12mm with the Mobius 1. Not as good as the 6-22mm f/1.6 Varifocal but pretty close.

12mm - https://www.aliexpress.com/item/5Me...-Distance-View-For-1080P-4MP/32792225850.html

8mm - https://www.aliexpress.com/item/5Me...-OV5658-1080P-3MP-4MP-5MP-IP/32687762156.html

With a little modification, locking ring fits and holds the lens firmly in place.



Evening

Night

 

[Lola]

Bought 8 and 12mm 5MP lenses for the Maxi. Here's the 12mm with the Mobius 1. Not as good as the 6-22mm f/1.6 Varifocal but pretty close.

12mm - https://www.aliexpress.com/item/5Me...-Distance-View-For-1080P-4MP/32792225850.html

8mm - https://www.aliexpress.com/item/5Me...-OV5658-1080P-3MP-4MP-5MP-IP/32687762156.html

With a little modification, locking ring fits and holds the lens firmly in place.

View attachment 39261

Evening

Night

Not a bad set of lenses @Harsh, fulekan has a good reputation for making lenses in China.

What type of modification did you make on the lens locking rings?

 

[Harsh]

What type of modification did you make on the lens locking rings?

Snipped and sliced off the partition between the slots.

 

[Lola]

Snipped and sliced off the partition between the slots.

View attachment 39268

Oh, I see what you mean, that partition just happened to be in the way of the lens ring being tightened, no big deal.

 

[Harsh]

Sunny

Afternoon (cloudy)

IIRC this Mobius is on the C-lens profile. Let's see how A and B do with the colours.

 

[Dashmellow]

Very impressed with the performance of this lens @Harsh! Looking forward to seeing what the 8mm can do.

 

[Harsh]

Very impressed with the performance of this lens @Harsh! Looking forward to seeing what the 8mm can do.

Me too!

Mounted the 8mm today, have the card in front of me but yet to take a look. Will post a few tomorrow.

 

[Harsh]

Looking good but I have a hunch that it could be better, focusing this was a little tough as the fit was a little too tight, will refocus it just to be sure.

Otherwise, more smileys...

 

[c4rc4m]

It's no wonder you need a dashcam. The standard of driving in your country is atrocious!

Good work making the lenses fit.

As for the 12mm lens, definitely needs a refocus with perhaps a reconsideration of the focal point to increase the hyperfocal effect as it all looks a bit shallow. When you look at this still from your video above:

Neither the Avensis in the foreground, the white car on the right in the mid ground nor the black tailgate car on the left in the background are sharp (on the Avensis, ignore the plate which is easily readable nevertheless, and look at the car's smaller badges on the r/h side at the same distance and some of the lower bodywork edges as it shows up more here). Good work nevertheless. Focusing can be a nightmare with a small device screen.

 

[TonyM]

As for the 12mm lens, definitely needs a refocus with perhaps a reconsideration of the focal point to increase the hyperfocal effect as it all looks a bit shallow. When you look at this still from your video above:

Neither the Avensis in the foreground, the white car on the right in the mid ground nor the black tailgate car on the left in the background are sharp (on the Avensis, ignore the plate which is easily readable nevertheless, and look at the car's smaller badges on the r/h side at the same distance and some of the lower bodywork edges as it shows up more here). Good work nevertheless. Focusing can be a nightmare with a small device screen.

I think it's difficult to judge focus based on a YouTube video with moving cars and compression artefacts on that tree-lined street.

In those driving conditions, I think I would want the focus point to be close as traffic speeds are fairly slow and there's a lot going on right in front of the car. My daily commute is along open roads typically driving 40-70mph so I would prefer a telephoto to be focused further away, if it cannot achieve sharp focus throughout the entire scene.

Focusing CAN be hard with a small screen, but maybe @Harsh is using a nice big laptop screen like I sometimes do?

 

[Harsh]

It's no wonder you need a dashcam. The standard of driving in your country is atrocious!

Tell me about it!

Good work making the lenses fit.

As for the 12mm lens, definitely needs a refocus with perhaps a reconsideration of the focal point to increase the hyperfocal effect as it all looks a bit shallow. When you look at this still from your video above:

Neither the Avensis in the foreground, the white car on the right in the mid ground nor the black tailgate car on the left in the background are sharp (on the Avensis, ignore the plate which is easily readable nevertheless, and look at the car's smaller badges on the r/h side at the same distance and some of the lower bodywork edges as it shows up more here). Good work nevertheless. Focusing can be a nightmare with a small device screen.

For the intended purpose, I think it did great

 

[Harsh]

Focusing CAN be hard with a small screen, but maybe @Harsh is using a nice big laptop screen like I sometimes do?

Mostly I've gotten it right on the first go. The f/1.2 as we all remember was a nightmare. Received an overly tight 8mm but overall these f/2.0 lenses are fairly easy to focus.

Yes, have always used a laptop (15"), phone screens are way too small.

 

[Dashmellow]

As for the 12mm lens, definitely needs a refocus with perhaps a reconsideration of the focal point to increase the hyperfocal effect as it all looks a bit shallow.

So, once again @c4rc4m you are dishing out advice despite the fact that you have literally no hands-on experience whatsoever with any of the lenses that many of us have been experimenting with for nearly a year now. Vicarious experience based on what you see or read on the internet cannot replace actual experience.

All of us who have expended time, energy (& money) into exploring the possibilities of a variety of aftermarket M12 lenses on our Mobius cameras have encountered learning curves and challenges as we evaluate each lenses' unique qualities, quirks, strengths, and weaknesses along with the best techniques for deploying and using them. Only actual experience can tell us what works and doesn't work. Only actual experience (and experimentation) can tell us how to precisely focus each unique lens for its optimal performance in each given driving situation. What works best for focus in urban or suburban traffic may not work so well out on an major rural interstate highway or on long winding rural country roads. What works for optimal focusing on one lens may not on another. Even the weather, lighting or color of certain vehicles (like the silver Toyota in @Harsh's screen shot above) can affect the appearance of apparent focus. From my personal experience, precise focus with certain aftermarket lenses can be a bit of a "moving target" and I've often found myself tweaking and fiddling with precise focus based on the footage I'm seeing on any given day. In general, (with the 6-22mm varifocal for instance) I find that a compromise between near and far focus offers the best results for my particular driving circumstances.

As I mentioned in this thread a few days ago, "it's frustrating to read posts where you incorrectly speak with authority about things you clearly have no first hand knowledge of".

 

[c4rc4m]

From my personal experience, precise focus with certain aftermarket lenses can be a bit of a "moving target" and I've often found myself tweaking and fiddling with precise focus based on the footage I'm seeing on any given day. In general, (with the 6-22mm varifocal for instance) I find that a compromise between near and far focus offers the best results for my particular driving circumstances.

Isn't that precisely what I said?

Didn't we just have a big general discussion on hyperfocal distances in this thread, and yet there is no real front to back sharpness here. It was intended to be a constructive comment. As for judging a videos sharpness, anyone can do that. They don't need to be in possession of the lens. Just compare this to Tony's shots and you can see the difference. That's not a criticism of Harsh, that's a constructive comment that the focus is good but could maybe be tweaked a little.

Maybe you should spend a little less time looking for negatives in other people's views.