New FW 1.13: your thoughts / preferred settings

Cars are about nice looking design, heavy duty trucks and buses are about efficiency, especially fuel efficiency.
Aerodynamics is not about thin and pointy, its more about round corners. The Mythbasters motorcycle vs car episode illustrates it very well. Unfortunately i can't find the full episode, but as you can see in this short clip from the episode the much bigger but more round design is more aerodynamic. The round corners of trucks cause less drag and are more aerodynamic efficient then all the curves on private cars.

@russ331 - internet has a lot of false info about the subject, and the fact a lot of people call small trucks/pick up trucks as just "trucks" doesn't help with the confusion.
The table you linked just says "motorcycle" and "truck" and nothing specific. There are hundreds if not thousands of different designs.
 
Last edited:
dirkzelf said:
Besides they are very vertical (not like your average private car with aerodynamic windows) and thus very reflective.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is exactly the other way around: the more vertical the windshield is, the less reflections you will have. For regular cars the reflections can be fixed by pointing the lens up, but the issue is that it will see a lot of sky and sun -> because of that you will not have good image quality.
 
Watch them on Youtube, settings in description......


MOBIUS Dashcam v1.13: into the sun: just great, éh!



Mobius Dashcam v1.13: Flickering traffic lights, why? Freq. settings are correct...



MOBIUS Dashcam v1.13: Night recording, not as sharp as I'd like, can't read plates....

 
Last edited:
Since there does not appear to be any flicker on the other videos it may be that it was an anomaly on that particular power grid at that particular time. There is no flicker on the lights of the passing cars.
 
Are they LED traffic lights? They might be using some sort of pulse width modulation to drive them and the frequency of that may not be related to the grid frequency.

PS: I've seen the same thing with my Mobius.
 
murcod said:
Are they LED traffic lights? They might be using some sort of pulse width modulation to drive them and the frequency of that may not be related to the grid frequency.

PS: I've seen the same thing with my Mobius.
Click to expand...

I guess what we are trying to say is that it is not camera related, since you seemed concerned about your camera settings.
 
parklawn said:
Since there does not appear to be any flicker on the other videos it may be that it was an anomaly on that particular power grid at that particular time. There is no flicker on the lights of the passing cars.
Click to expand...

You can control flicker from incandescent lights connected to mains power with the 50/60Hz settings, LED lights you can't, regular car headlights won't cause this anyway, LED lights on cars will cause flicker most often
 
russ331 said:
For dashcam use, some people seem to prefer video recorded using v0.59 over that from v1.13, e.g...

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=27192449

I haven't got round to upgrading to v0.59 let alone v1.13, but would be interested to know how many people prefer v0.59 or even earlier FW for dashcam use.
Click to expand...
One person? Wasn't there a thread on here regarding 0.47 being better than 0.59? Here it is - quite a few people commented on it http://dashcamtalk.com/forum/threads/mobius-firmware-v0-57-low-light-issue.3075/page-3#post-37581 :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
murcod said:
...0.47 being better than 0.59?
Click to expand...

Ah, good old 0.47 ... my Mobius was delivered with 0.47 installed & I was very happy with the results ... would've been satisfied if the Developer stopped right there.
 
So many firmwares, so many confusing / contradicting posts! ;)

I should be comparing the firmwares more, but the Mobii (3 of them) live in the cars and only get taken out if the firmware sounds worth trying.
 
1.33 Firmware:
Night:

Day:

Lens: "B"
Artificial Light Frequency: 60 Hz
Wide Dynamic Range: On
Video Data Rate: High
Video Frame Rate: 30fps
Video Resolution: 1920x1080 (1080p)
Field of View: Wide
Sharpness: 0
Exposure: 0
Contrast: 0
Saturation: 0
Color Options: Normal
White Balance: Auto

Notes:
The main thing I noticed with this footage is that when I'm passing some bright headlights it doesn't seem to adjust properly and blacks out almost every thing else.

Edit: Tonight before heading out I guess I confused myself, I set exposure to -2 and the result was that darker areas just got worse. Will try +4 next time I'm out
 
Last edited:
As you're in the UK, wouldn't ALF 50Hz be more appropriate?

Exposure +4 may be too extreme ... how about +1 for starters?
 
Does the 50/60hz thing even matter any more? I've only even seen a flickering light once on my footage and I couldn't be sure that it wasn't on purpose.

The +4 thing is because I just want to see what effect it actually has.

I supposed I could get a mate to flash a light on and off at various settings but damn that seems like work.
 
Exposure set to +4 , that doesn't seem like much of a change to evaluate the difference (given that's out of 128 positive steps?)

I've been playing around with the exposure settings and the polarising filter. My quick conclusion is: if there isn't sufficient light getting to the sensor then the exposure setting won't give much noticeable improvement in low light conditions. So it appears basically of no use to me to improve the polarising filter performance at night. :( I tried 0, +50 and +100- they all made noticeable differences in bright conditions, but in the dark (shooting footage under my desk :) ) the performance was equal- possibly even worse - to my eyes.

I guess it makes sense, if the sensor can't pick up an image no amount of software processing is going to help you out.

Edit: I do much prefer the white balance set to Warm with the A lens. Mine had a distinct blue tinge to the footage.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure I read on the RC forums that there wasn't a need for such huge values, that it should be used to tweak settings as opposed to drasticly alter stuff.

The more I think about it, the more I feel like doing it, I'm going to invest in a brighter bike light. Then I'm going to settup some tests at night and report on settings.
 
Scuz said:
I'm sure I read on the RC forums that there wasn't a need for such huge values, that it should be used to tweak settings as opposed to drasticly alter stuff.

The more I think about it, the more I feel like doing it, I'm going to invest in a brighter bike light. Then I'm going to settup some tests at night and report on settings.
Click to expand...
There isn't a need for such high and low values but the developer has decided to keep them like they are. I'm sure he has a good reason. Some of the beta firmware versions we tested only had a scale from -9 to +9 but there wasn't necessarily enough finite control.
The scales are most likely logarithmic, they are certainly not linear! This means that a small change from 1 to 2 will have a larger effect than a change from 80 to 90, for example.
 
Last night I was riding and setting the exposure to +2 seems to of stopped the headlights blacking out the other areas of the video.

Will upload some thing later but I got a really nasty glass puncture last night. I was planning on testing out +4 to see what that looked like. My worry is that too high exposure is going to ruin my day time videos.

I really wish the mobius just had a day and night mode. Would make this fine tuning stuff a lot easier.
 
OK so this is day and night, you can see the picture is pretty constant:

This is a crappy puncture:

Interesting note that pitch black still means pitch black.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
T thermal pad doesn't look thick enough to be effective, thoughts? Mobius 1
MedicalFlyer Mobius Twin Cam Plan. Thoughts? Mobius 11
Similar threads
thermal pad doesn't look thick enough to be effective, thoughts?
Mobius Twin Cam Plan. Thoughts?
Back
Top