Next Viofo Cam

[c4rc4m]

Finally!!! Smaller than i thought.

Beautiful size and nice shape. Thanks for the picture.

 

[Nigel]

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...

It's not going to work well anyway for a dashcam, it is only an F2.8, there would be a lot of motion blur compared to the WR-1's 1.8 and night time performance would be a bit poor.

 

[evlo]

Is it usb mini, micro or even something else?

 

[Cristianson]

Beautiful size and nice shape. Thanks for the picture.

 

[c4rc4m]

It's not going to work well anyway for a dashcam, it is only an F2.8, there would be a lot of motion blur compared to the WR-1's 1.8 and night time performance would be a bit poor.

It would likely work better in the day (greater DOF), and worse at night. However, there are many options out there. It was just one example of a very high quality lens.

 

[CaptureYourAction]

Is it usb mini, micro or even something else?

miniUSB

 

[Dashmellow]

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:

I'm really don't quite understand your obsession with barrel distortion. As @Nigel points out it has potential benefits for dash cam work and is of little concern unless it is quite extreme. At the same time you seem to ignore most of the other primary lens correction criteria one should be looking for in a good lens such as chromatic aberration, flare, edge to edge focus, resolving power, contrast, color accuracy, sharpness, etc., etc.

That video you are referring to is not a valid comparison in that the two lenses being compared are of vastly different focal lengths. He compares a 4.35mm lens with the Mobius "A" lens which is 2.5mm, so of course you'll have less barrel distortion in a longer lens. Tom Franks of all people should know better.

The Mobius developer goes to great lengths in selecting lenses for his cameras. Many, many lenses are tested before they end up in their cameras and they are generally sourced in Japan rather than China. Even with that the developer is not satisfied and seeks to continue offering improvements even three years after the introduction of the original M1. You'll be happy to know that all the new lenses of all focal lengths even the wide one shipping with the Mobius 2 are better corrected for barrel distortion than the originals.

You may be happy to know that the old "A" lens that used to ship with the Mobius camera has now been superseded by the A2 lens which is more highly corrected for barrel distortion. (that telephone pole is not perfectly straight in real life btw.)

A2

 

[viofo]

We have a 125 degree almost no distortion lens for 2MP sensor 1/2.8 inch, it is F2.8 aperture.
We tested 2 Mobius lens before, it is good lens, but maybe not the best one for our projects.

 

[c4rc4m]

I'm really don't quite understand your obsession with barrel distortion.

It's not just barrel distortion but all distortion across a lens surface that's important. Unless a car hits you head on, the number plate is likely to be in the edge of the picture to the left or right prior to impact, which makes having low aberrations important to ensure it's readability. Edge to edge focus comes hand in hand with distortion correction. We're on the same page here.

As for Tom Franks footage, very impressive results even if focal lengths were not quite the same and illustrative of the points I've being trying to get across.

We have a 125 degree almost no distortion lens for 2MP sensor 1/2.8 inch, it is F2.8 aperture.
We tested 2 Mobius lens before, it is good lens, but maybe not the best one for our projects.

I'm really looking forward to seeing test results from the WR1. Very pleased to see you've bucked the extreme wide trend and opted for a slightly narrower angle.

 

[Dashmellow]

As for Tom Franks footage, very impressive results even if focal lengths were not quite the same and illustrative of the points I've being trying to get across.

You cannot realistically compare barrel distortion between a 2.5mm M12 lens and a 4.3mm lens. One is a modest wide angle and the other is a short telephoto.

These are NOT "very impressive results". Instead, this is a BOGUS lens comparison that only a misinformed person would tout. What alternative reality do you live in?? (and Tom Frank, for that matter?)

2.5mm


4.3mm

 

[c4rc4m]

1. Personally I see no need for a 170 degree view in a car cam, - you only need to see in front and a bit to the sides.

2. There are rectilinear lenses that are wide. The lens I linked you to on the previous page was 3.6mm. Backbone sell a 2.7mm lens with low distortion.

It will be interesting to see results from the Viofo for FOV, which I'm sure will be fine, as a 125 degree of view approximates to a 3mm lens.

 

[jokiin]

1. Personally I see no need for a 170 degree view in a car cam.

me either, interestingly enough I've yet to see any of the 170° lenses you see promoted in the market that are anything beyond about 135° max, that's still too wide for my liking anyway but the numbers never match the result with these Chinese companies, anything between about 110° and 120° actual will give far better results but they seem to think that bigger numbers must be better

 

[Dashmellow]

1. Personally I see no need for a 170 degree view in a car cam, - you only need to see in front and a bit to the sides.

2. There are rectilinear lenses that are wide. The lens I linked you to on the previous page was 3.6mm. Backbone sell a 2.7mm lens with low distortion.

It will be interesting to see results from the Viofo for FOV, which I'm sure will be fine, as a 125 degree of view approximates to a 3mm lens.

You seem to be side stepping your posting of a bogus lens comparison.

Maybe what you need is the legendary Nikkor 13mm 5.6 ultra low distortion wide angle rectilinear lens?.......The literal Holy Grail of barrel distortion correction in a wide angle.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikkor_13mm_f/5.6

 

[Rajagra]

1. Personally I see no need for a 170 degree view in a car cam, - you only need to see in front and a bit to the sides.

Do you drive in town? I've lost count of the number of times I've thought: "If only I had more coverage to catch the complete stupidity of what that person did."

And if said person hits me, you can bet I'd want proof of it all. But more cameras is the way to go.

 

[Chris Hunt]

Very quick un boxing, but shows the Physical size of the WR1 Vs a Galaxy S7 mobile Phone.
May have slipped in some brand recognition along the way as well..

 

[c4rc4m]

Do you drive in town? I've lost count of the number of times I've thought: "If only I had more coverage to catch the complete stupidity of what that person did."And if said person hits me, you can bet I'd want proof of it all. But more cameras is the way to go.

I only ever drive urban / sub urban. A front camera is for the front and 3/4. For 3/4 you only need a few feet either side. You don't need what the driver did prior to leaving his lane, only you were in yours and his car (with number plate or face in view) left his and hit you. If you want side coverage you want side cameras as you said, but it all becomes excessive in my view. Even a front camera, for a side impact, if it shows you in your lane, captures a bang and you swivel the camera to show his car hit yours, you have evidence. You have to ask, what are you trying to prove, crashes or get footage of poor driving to report other motorists? Personally I've little time for the latter do gooders - it's not what dashcams were designed or intended for. Policings for the police. Dashcams are for crashes.

Even with a corrected linear lens, the wider you go, the smaller the objects appear (because they're in a bigger landscape), and so the harder it becomes to retrieve detail.

This video shows you get a perfectly good view with only 70 degrees, although I would go a little wider:

2 still frames captured from the video, 70 degrees top, 120 degrees bottom (captured from different time points as the guy doesn't appear to have aligned his video properly - I've tried to go off the road markings straight in front whilst allowing for 1 cam being mounted higher than the other).



Looking at the car to the right, if he were to leave his lane, 120 degrees offers little benefit prior to a collision with that vehicle (you not really capture anything else - an extra 30cm (1 foot) of car)), and there's a clearer less distorted picture from 70 degrees. The view in front is also clearer on the 70 degree despite not suffering distortion from being at the edge of the lens - the benefit of objects being captured larger in a smaller picture.

 

[Rajagra]

Unfortunately, if that white car were to move left, the narrow view wouldn't show if he was heading into empty space, or straight into your vehicle. Tilting it down to get the hood in view would help.

Also that view wouldn't show if the white car had overtaken suddenly before cutting in. That would be the difference between a small error of judgement on his part - which you would be expected to compensate for - and him driving like a lunatic which pins the blame squarely on him.

Detail is nice, especially getting number plates, but the primary purpose of a dash cam is to show what happened.

But Sods law is that you'll have one and need the other!

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[SawMaster]

I heartily disagree with such narrow-viewed logic

If you've only got one cam (which is the norm for most people) then you need it to show both sides of an intersection such as at a 4-way stop. Something around 130-140 degrees actual FOV will usually do this- less will not IMHO it's worth some slight edge distortion to get this although good cams and lenses can handle the scenario without much of that. I'd prefer an even wider FOV but then you cross into the realm of it not being easily possible to get good IQ at the edges. If you really want really good protection it's simply going to take more than one cam to do that

Any half-decent pic is better than no pics at all. A perfect picture of the unimportant is almost worthless. You need to show what other people were doing too whenever you can, and in this case you very easily can

Phil

 

[dash riposki]

wider angles? Then you'll have people complaining they can't read the license tag on the car a half block away.....on the cross street.

I woke up to this thread a bit too late. Amazon had these cams listed 'pre order' for $79 a few days ago,, now they're up to $99.

 

[Rajagra]

Amazon had these cams listed 'pre order' for $79 a few days ago,, now they're up to $99.

Ooh, Amazon UK has them for £70 right now. Given the usual direct substitution of pounds for dollars, that could be a bargain.

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk