Next Viofo Cam

[Dashmellow]

Yeah, full HD has always referred to 1080P and the expression came into use to differentiate between 720P and 1080P. 4K is often referred to as UHD.

 

[c4rc4m]

Yeah, full HD has always referred to 1080P and the expression came into use to differentiate between 720P and 1080P. 4K is often referred to as UHD.

Full HD is often (mis)used these days in reference to 1440P as a lot of people haven't heard of Quad HD which is what 1440P actually is. How many 1440P capable action cameras / car cams have you seen advertised as Quad HD.....?

However, we're picking hairs here.

The video owner is in this thread and has indicated he has used 1080P on both cameras, so that resolves the issue. It will be interesting to see if 1440P makes any difference but as he pointed out himself, there are so many variables such as the encoding and post processing that can affect the displayed result. As I also indicated, there are a lot of variables with regards to hardware / software that also affect the end quality that go beyond just sensor size. Having the most pixels doesn't necessary = the best quality. It helps, but only if the other elements are there to back it up too, and the presence of some of the other elements will also depend on the target market ie low, mid or high end / enthusiast.

 

[jokiin]

Can't say I've seen anyone referring to resolutions greater than 1080p as Full HD, any chance they get to market higher resolutions as something bigger than Full HD they do, QHD, 2k, 2.7k, 4k, UHD etc

 

[Dashmellow]

Full HD is often (mis)used these days in reference to 1440P as a lot of people haven't heard of Quad HD which is what 1440P actually is. How many 1440P capable action cameras / car cams have you seen advertised as Quad HD.....?

However, we're picking hairs here.

The video owner is in this thread and has indicated he has used 1080P on both cameras, so that resolves the issue. It will be interesting to see if 1440P makes any difference but as he pointed out himself, there are so many variables such as the encoding and post processing that can affect the displayed result. As I also indicated, there are a lot of variables with regards to hardware / software that also affect the end quality that go beyond just sensor size. Having the most pixels doesn't necessary = the best quality. It helps, but only if the other elements are there to back it up too, and the presence of some of the other elements will also depend on the target market ie low, mid or high end / enthusiast.

Nobody is picking hairs. You made the statement that, "Full HD generally means anything between 1080P and 4k these days. You can't just assume these days that full HD = 1080P.", which is incorrect.

 

[c4rc4m]

Nobody is picking hairs. You made the statement that, "Full HD generally means anything between 1080P and 4k these days. You can't just assume these days that full HD = 1080P.", which is incorrect.

Not incorrect when people are commonly marketing cameras with 1440P resolutions as Full HD. eg: http://www.very.co.uk/polaroid-cube...MIi8bxtqbg1AIVjhXTCh0wBwFXEAQYCSABEgJHAfD_BwE

is ready to capture your most exciting moments in full HD video (1440p) or 8-megapixel images.

Really not worth an arguing about in any event as it just diverts the thread.

 

[Moon]

Take a look at those Videos on Page 4

Look on the Right side, and on my Computer, the Buildings, walls, poles and Trees all had a significant curved lean to the left

 

[Dashmellow]

Not incorrect when people are commonly marketing cameras with 1440P resolutions as Full HD.

Just because you and other misinformed folks or unaware online retailers use the wrong terms doesn't somehow make it "correct".

Really not worth an arguing about in any event as it just diverts the thread.

Wait! You're the guy who perpetually drags threads off the rails with some of the most verbose, didactic and pedantic arguments ever seen on this forum, but when someone points out that a quote of yours is completely inaccurate it's "Really not worth an arguing about". Hah, that's a good one.

 

[Module 79L]

Some people never listen!
⁞
You are still using 2 full stop characters instead of the single proper character "…" - Unicode character 2026.
There is also Unicode character 205E "⁞" for vertical use.

Wow, and I thought I was a harsh Grammar Nazi!

 

[c4rc4m]

Just because you and other misinformed folks or unaware online retailers use the wrong terms doesn't somehow make it "correct".

Maybe if you actually read what was posted, instead of arguing for the sake of it; - I never said it was correct. I said you couldn't assume if someone stated Full HD it meant 1080P, because sometimes people were marketing / or misusing using the term Full HD for slightly higher resolutions as the term Quad HD is little used. You disagreed and were proven wrong with an advertisement marketing 1440P as Full HD, but still had to argue.

Wait! You're the guy who perpetually drags threads off the rails with some of the most verbose, didactic and pedantic arguments ever seen on this forum, but when someone points out that a quote of yours is completely inaccurate it's "Really not worth an arguing about". Hah, that's a good one.

Ever thought you're maybe just narrow minded? You spent months arguing that Action Cameras couldn't be used as Dashcams despite the fact that I'd used one daily for several years and until others eventually also jumped in to say they also used Action Cameras as well, because you just made the assumption that everyone has the same requirements as you. You never think that maybe some people put quality above features such as GPS and shock sensors, and that not everyone lives in a country where dash temperatures reach the mid hundreds, or leave cameras permanently mounted.

You also appear to be so narrow minded that you simply want nothing more in discussion than a comparison of Cam A to Cam B, without ever considering why a camera might not be as good as others, and never questioning if improvements can be made. That's fine, Cam A to B comparisons are useful and great, and a great part of what forums like this are about, but if that is the extent of discussion, cameras never get better. I believe in pushing manufacturers to improve their higher end product quality and trying to point out and discuss how improvements can be made from my amateur knowledge of cameras. That way, hopefully we all quickly get much improved cameras rather than slow progress. Sorry if that takes a few words.

 

[Hombré]

Can't say I've seen anyone referring to resolutions greater than 1080p as Full HD, any chance they get to market higher resolutions as something bigger than Full HD they do, QHD, 2k, 2.7k, 4k, UHD etc

It is rubbish and amazing how far advertising goes............. 1080 is sweet with me and 720 is still fine

Here in Australia many TV businesses have recently gone from HD to SD for bandwith reasons maybe ?

 

[jokiin]

Here in Australia many TV businesses have recently gone from HD to SD for bandwith reasons maybe ?

they get a fixed amount of bandwidth allocated so it's about how many channels they can divide that into, they can get multiple SD channels in the same space as one high quality HD channel, more channels means more chance of advertising revenue, that's all it's about, TV is free to watch, remember that when the service is free, it's you that's the product

 

[Deleted member 46308]

they get a fixed amount of bandwidth allocated so it's about how many channels they can divide that into, they can get multiple SD channels in the same space as one high quality HD channel, more channels means more chance of advertising revenue, that's all it's about, TV is free to watch, remember that when the service is free, it's you that's the product

Nothing is free

 

[Dashmellow]

Maybe if you actually read what was posted, instead of arguing for the sake of it; - I never said it was correct. I said you couldn't assume if someone stated Full HD it meant 1080P, because sometimes people were marketing / or misusing using the term Full HD for slightly higher resolutions as the term Quad HD is little used. You disagreed and were proven wrong with an advertisement marketing 1440P as Full HD, but still had to argue.

QUOTE="c4rc4m, post: 346140, member: 27729"] Ever thought you're maybe just narrow minded? You spent months arguing that Action Cameras couldn't be used as Dashcams despite the fact that I'd used one daily for several years and until others eventually also jumped in to say they also used Action Cameras as well, because you just made the assumption that everyone has the same requirements as you. You never think that maybe some people put quality above features such as GPS and shock sensors, and that not everyone lives in a country where dash temperatures reach the mid hundreds, or leave cameras permanently mounted.

You also appear to be so narrow minded that you simply want nothing more in discussion than a comparison of Cam A to Cam B, without ever considering why a camera might not be as good as others, and never questioning if improvements can be made. That's fine, Cam A to B comparisons are useful and great, and a great part of what forums like this are about, but if that is the extent of discussion, cameras never get better. I believe in pushing manufacturers to improve their higher end product quality and trying to point out and discuss how improvements can be made from my amateur knowledge of cameras. That way, hopefully we all quickly get much improved cameras rather than slow progress. Sorry if that takes a few words.

Good lord man! I not only read your post but I quoted you, remember? And just because you find some misinformed retailer on the internet to support your misguided notions doesn't make your distorted version of reality so or "prove me wrong" for that matter. Call me narrow minded all you want but please don't put words in my mouth accusing me of things I never said. I never stated that you "couldn't" use an action cam as a dash cam. Some people do, including you but that doesn't make them a suitable, practical or wise choice. It's hard to fathom that you would drag an old, already overdone discussion about action cams into your petty debate over the accepted and recognized terms for "Full HD" but I should not be surprised at this point. It's weird.

I still remember the last argument you initiated that went for for days (or was it weeks?) when you went on and on about why the dash cam industry should manufacture "ruggedized" dash cams because you are so clumsy and careless that you keep dropping cameras until they break and that you are unwilling to put your cameras in a protective case or tote bag to transport them to and from your house. It just ain't gonna' happen. The industry is not going to create an unneeded product that no one wants for one eccentric, demanding individual.

And then there was your tedious, repeated assertion that dash cams use cheap uncoated lenses when in fact they are indeed always multi-coated and, particularly with the Mobius, are highly corrected and of very fine quality. That went on too long too, despite what everyone tried to tell you.

I don't know the psychology involved with these constant convoluted, verbose, circular and ridiculous kerfuffles you like to provoke and indulge in or your peculiar notions about cameras or your pretentious but oft misinformed know-it-all attitudes but I for one have had enough of it.

 

[c4rc4m]

Yes I stand by my assertion that dash cameras should be reasonably tough. Not everyone has the same requirements as you. Many people remove cameras especially in inner cities. It's inevitable occasionally they're dropped or the suction mount fails when dried by the air con, and for anything over a few pounds, I'd expect a case quality that can take a knock or two. Hardly too much to ask for your money.

As for lenses, continue to be blinkered. I'm not doubting Mobius use a good lens compared to many current dashcams, it's a good camera with M1 quality holding up well against many HD rivals. However, there's a reason why the lenses such as this: https://www.back-bone.ca/product/3-65mm-m12/ cost nearly twice than the entire Mobius camera alone and why cameras with them fitted produce a quality superior to anything I've seen from a dashcam. Yes it comes down to pricing, but no-one is suggesting these for low end cameras.

As for arguments, you're the one arguing and making personal attacks. I've posted opinion, technical details behind picture quality (as I understand them), and always been very reasoned and polite in return.

Now back to the Wr1....

 

[Nigel]

...Now back to the Wr1....

The WR-1 has a 2MP sensor, that 16MP lens seems a bit pointless, that's 8x the required resolution! Doesn't say it is multi-coated...

Also, I don't think a zero fisheye lens is a requirement for a dashcam, generally the more you can see the better and a zero fisheye lens will reduce what fits into the corners of the image, the world is not actually rectangular so the zero distortion lens will give a distorted view of the real world.

 

[Cristianson]

Finally!!! Smaller than i thought.

 

[Viking]

@JonSnow I was in Romania back in 1984. I remember it was a very beautiful country, so I look forward to see some clip from where you live.
At that time, we was so "lucky" to have a stat controlled guide with us, so we was told where we could and not could take photo. After a couple of day, she didn't give a sh** We was just tourist there want to have a nice time. Got the best goulash soup, that have ever tasted. I was a 17 years old and some old men invited me in in a vine cave to tasted there soup. The also serve me some wine from a very long droplet. When I got back to the group I was happy, and I didn't tell them what just has happen. There was chewing in some nasty hotel food there brought with them.

 

[Cristianson]

Interesting story . I was nowhere in '84. Nothing interesting where i live but i will post a video after i set up my wr1.

 

[Viking]

drive through some small town, where there hang the red pepper outside the house to dry. There is always something interesting around you.

 

[c4rc4m]

The WR-1 has a 2MP sensor, that 16MP lens seems a bit pointless, that's 8x the required resolution! Doesn't say it is multi-coated...

Also, I don't think a zero fisheye lens is a requirement for a dashcam, generally the more you can see the better and a zero fisheye lens will reduce what fits into the corners of the image, the world is not actually rectangular so the zero distortion lens will give a distorted view of the real world.

I wasn't suggesting it for the WR1. I'm guessing the WR1 a mid range camera. Due to the cost of a lens such as this, probably even at trade from the manufacturer, I would imagine it would need to be on a £150+ camera.

I also think there are a few misunderstandings:

16MP, is not the minimum sensor but the maximum. It means it's capable of capturing details sharply enough on a resolution chart so as to be suitable for use with a 16mp sensor. It doesn't mean you need one. The higher the resolution the sharper and more detailed the image fed to the sensor.

It's not a fish eye - that particular lens has a stated 82 Degree Field of view. The salient points are the very high resolution, low distortion (although without specifics that's a somewhat vague term) and importantly the fact that it's rectolinear. BTW, Rectolinear has nothing to do with the shape of the world. It simply means that the lens doesn't distort the image towards the edges:

Found this on Vimeo, can't vouch for it beyond saying it's a good demonstration of wide angle vs rectolinear corrected (as it's allegedly a Mobius comparison, I thought Dashmallow might find it of particular interest). It might actually prove me wrong by saying high quality lenses are usually expensive! It's best viewed full screen on Vimeo by clicking the logo and then the expand icon: