My Mobius Maxi

[kamkar]

I have not updated yet, but i will get that done a little later.

 

[Harsh]

Turned on the G-sensor while setting up the Maxi after the update. Set to 'Medium' the file below got locked

Found this one also in the 'Locked' folder

Didn't expect to see this one, could really add up with 1.4GB files.

A129 on Medium sensitivity didn't lock any of these files.

 

[c4rc4m]

F.W V. 1.90 - 2704x1524 (2.7K). Bitrate - 60 Mbit/s (CBR). Exposure Metering - Centre-Weighted, Video Quality - Extreme Fine, Volume - Medium.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=12GMjWGumC_bLNdT-HdnAxsHVWY_UvSzU

That looks pretty good for night time with a sensor >2mp. A little over sharp sometimes in the edges but better that than a soft picture. What's it like in total darkness? Also, is this the standard lens?

 

[Harsh]

That looks pretty good for night time with a sensor >2mp. A little over sharp sometimes in the edges but better that than a soft picture. What's it like in total darkness? Also, is this the standard lens?

Lens B, A came out later.

Had turned off the headlights in the video below, was on the firmware that came loaded

 

[c4rc4m]

Thanks Harsh. I can't remember when I last looked in the Maxi thread, but that's pretty good performance for low light. Obviously HID's help over Halogen. In almost total darkness, there's some grain and maybe a 2mp might gain up and be lighter, but considering you had no headlights at all, even on a road with no street lighting you're going to have headlights on, that's still pretty good. Obviously, I haven't had this camera so I invite others who have it to make a fair comparison, but to my eyes from the clips you've posted, performance in low light with the B lens seems pretty close if not on par with many a low light STARVIS 2mp. I'm guessing there have been some firmware tweeks since I last saw this thread. Anyway, I welcome any comments on Maxi vs the usual 2mp leaders. Thanks.

BTW 1 last question, is there any observed difference in quality between A and B lens?

 

[Harsh]

BTW 1 last question, is there any observed difference in quality between A and B lens?

A lens for the Maxi is the same as the D lens for the M1, it's f/2.8.

 

[Harsh]

Comparison with A119. Combined clips are 1080p.

Mobius Maxi (FW V. 1.90) - 2.7K @ 30fps, Exposure metering - Centre-Weighted, Video Quality - Extreme Fine.

Bitrate - 60 Mbit/s. 3 minutes file segment (.MP4) - 1.36GB.



VIOFO A119 V2 (FW V. 4.0) - 1440p @ 30fps, WDR - On, CPL - No.

Bitrate - Approximately 40 Mbit/s. 3 minutes file segment (.TS) - 550MB.



Night

Maxi

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1U7XzGLjd6RSyZaL1q2kAtX-C53T2a6n-

A119

https://drive.google.com/open?id=18pq0n4Qrl2Nl2eTIWES6GR1WCz6nKPEm

Combined

Mobius Maxi (FW V. 1.90) - 2.7K @ 30fps, Exposure metering - Centre-Weighted, Video Quality - Extreme Fine.

Bitrate - 60 Mbit/s. 3 minutes file segment(.MP4) - 1.36GB.



VIOFO A119 V2 (FW V. 4.0) - 1440p @ 30fps, WDR - On, CPL - No.

Bitrate - Approximately 50 Mbit/s. 3 minutes file segment (.TS) - 550MB.



Market

Maxi

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1owcXIKWMDVnRlhNeHhk3lZQ2-lAe6uvG

A119

https://drive.google.com/open?id=19YdNJXEP8Pta8AEl0TFT0HfEkV9kNgqT

Combined

Compared to the release firmware, Maxi is looking better with 1.90. Daytime green hue is gone and though much reduced, with the HIDs in my car, image still darkens a bit if there are large vehicles or white coloured cars in front.

Compared to the A119, Maxi looks underexposed. That's because the A119 looks overexposed on FW 4.0 with WDR on, especially in the first clip (night). Will compare with WDR turned off as well.

Motion blur...Maxi wins.

 

[kamkar]

I am going to take a look at my camera tomorrow for the first time since upgrading.
If the sensor is the OV4689 then it can be made to perform better in low light as we have seen, but unsure who can so it if the SOC are not of the 2 common flavors.

 

[c4rc4m]

Nice comparison Harsh. I said it was close but didn't realise how close. There are times when both cameras win. The A119 has slightly better low light performance but at the expense sometimes of highlights becoming blown out eg some well lit signs and more importantly number plates. The Maxi on the other hand, is fractionally darker but copes better with these highlights retaining readability.

 

[TonyM]

@Harsh thanks for your V1.90 videos and comparisons to A119.

Like you I prefer the AWB in V1.90.

 

[Harsh]

Streetlights

Mobius Maxi (FW V. 1.90) - 2.7K @ 30fps, Exposure metering - Centre-Weighted, Video Quality - Extreme Fine.

Bitrate - 60 Mbit/s. 3 minutes file segment (.MP4) - 1.35GB.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=124NJUXCFeKnm_w9eXpj57_aNBDKI4ddb


VIOFO A119 V2 (FW V. 4.0) - 1440p @ 30fps, WDR - Off, CPL - No.

Bitrate - Approximately 40 Mbit/s. 3 minutes file segment (.TS) - 550MB.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jG4k-cV1LEbi16mIGthehBHSEGW3iVGF

Combined

If number plate readability can be maintained like above, would like to see the default exposure bumped.

A119 doesn't looks as overexposed as it did with WDR on in the clip from last night.

 

[c4rc4m]

Excellent tests Harsh. Again very little to choose between them. Biggest differences I'm seeing are the colour looks slightly more natural on the Maxi and the highlights at times, less blown. The 40mbs VBR results in what appears to be compression artefacts (?) in the trees / sky on the A119 starting around 18 secs, something not seen on the Maxi. Not totally convinced it is compression as not seeing particularly excessive detail. Could be some other kind of firmware issue. At times the A119 renders plates slightly sharper, possibly a slightly faster shutter. All in all, horses for courses. Don't think anyone would complain about the performance of either of these cameras at night unless making a critique for a thread like this, at least based on what we know is currently possible with these small sensors.

 

[Harsh]

So is QT is taking the average value or where it peaks because as mentioned yesterday, the bitrates were 40 and 50 Mbit/s but the file sizes were the same?

I think if the A119's exposure is dialled down a bit, that funny business in the sky will also go away.

 

[c4rc4m]

If both the 40 & 50Mbs files were from the A119, it would suggest it's reporting the average bit rate. That said, I wasn't aware Viofo were using anything that high. A 40-50Mbs average would suggest a top limit higher than 50Mbs (impossible to hazard a guess at a value without knowing the lower limit). The average will also vary according to the content as VBR works by using the minimum it can but increasing the bit rate as the scenes become more demanding. eg. in a very demanding video a VBR setting might deliver a video with an average near the peak. In a very easy video such as landscape without much detail or movement eg in a flat Mediterranean seascape, the same VBR setting might deliver a much lower average.

In fact one other question. Didn't BC Hobby report in the A119S Modified Firmware thread that the top bit rate possible was around 27Mbs on the current hardware? If correct, this would seem to suggest QT might be mis-reporting.

What also puzzles me if it's simply over exposure is why the underside of the trees should also suffer as they look like darker parts of the picture. If the electronic gain was up here you'd see grain. This is most likely cause is still to my mind excessive dithering caused by compression. However, it's strange given the lack of excessive detail in the darkness. I suspect therefore some issue with the compression settings in this particular lighting situation. Maybe someone with more insight into the workings of in-camera compression / settings such as BC Hobby could offer a reason.

 

[Harsh]

I'll recheck with a different player.

 

[TonyM]

If both the 40 & 50Mbs files were from the A119, it would suggest it's reporting the average bit rate. That said, I wasn't aware Viofo were using anything that high. A 40-50Mbs average would suggest a top limit higher than 50Mbs (impossible to hazard a guess at a value without knowing the lower limit).

In fact one other question. Didn't BC Hobby report in the A119S Modified Firmware thread that the top bit rate possible was around 27Mbs on the current hardware? If correct, this would seem to suggest QT might be mis-reporting.

The A119 is recording TS files on FW v4.0 which may account for the higher bitrate than normally seen on the A119 series cameras.

 

[Harsh]

 

[c4rc4m]

I think there's maybe some confusion over Si Units here (this goes over my knowledge but searching the web it appears KiB = Kibibyte per Second not a Kilobyte.

It looks as if there are 8.192 Kbs to a KiB:

https://www.google.com/search?num=50&ei=t4mOW--6POXGgAbTk6O4Bg&q=kib/s+to+kbps&oq=Kib+data+rate&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0i71k1l8.0.0.0.13148.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.r3aJPd4NUEQ

That still doesn't explain the relationship between the KiB figures being 2 x the Kbs figure here. However, the demuxing is the separation of video and audio, so maybe there is no relationship as this figure refers to the uncompressed stream from the sensor + uncompressed audio stream from the mic which combined = @400Mbs (8x 50MKiB (?)), and the 25,000 kbs is the true output being the compressed version of the stream from the sensor. This makes sense to me and would explain that the output is actually 25Mbs which is the figure we're accustomed to seeing from the A119S.

I'm sure Jokin or BC Hobby can give a more definitive answer here.

 

[Harsh]

FW V2.26 - 1080p 30

Rear

'Auto' for rotation didn't work, is it a bug? Normally I use 'Inverted' but tried 'Auto' this time. Flipped using QT.

 

[TonyM]

'Auto' for rotation didn't work, is it a bug? Normally I use 'Inverted' but tried 'Auto' this time. Flipped using QT.

I also use inverted, as recommended for dashcam use. Perhaps auto only works if it registers a change in orientation?