Opinion on frame rate

[DonnyD]

I am trying to decide which cam to get. It will be either the A229 Pro or A229 Plus, either one would be a 2 Channel cam.
The Pro would be able to do 2160 at 30 fps, while the Plus is able to do 1440 at 60 fps.
I am trying to convince myself that the 1440-60 would have smoother video and possibly better detail (licenses, etc).
Is this true?

 

[kamkar]

Well if you are using it for anything cinematic like 60 FPS would be preferable, but as a accident recorder 30 FPS are just fine.
Sure using 60 FPS video also mean you lock the minimum exposure time to something 2 X faster than a 30 FPS camera would do, but really it do not matter with anything at a significant speed as both will be too slow exposures to get a crisp image.

I think both systems have the same 1440p rear camera, which is more important to me in regard to a American perspective as in some states cars only have plates in the rear, and so for oncoming traffic only the rear camera will have a chance at a identifying shot.

As soon as we will see dual 4K cameras i will start to recommend those to Americans for that reason

The very best thing though, was if Americans put a knife ( metaphor ) on the throat of decision makers and demanded more readable licence plates on cars, CUZ the ones now is a challenge VS "easy " to read EU plates.

 

[DAP]

When the video is playing, it would be easier to read the license plates at 60 fps, but if you freeze the video, the 4k video would get a better picture.
I used to think that 60 fps would force a 1/60th of a second exposure, until I found that most cameras that record 60 fps drop the frame rate and double up frames when the light gets below a certain level.
For some reason, camera manufacturers prioritize a better looking video (better looking exposure, and lower noise) over minimizing motion blur (under exposed & noisy, but you can read the plates).

 

[Nigel]

I am trying to convince myself that the 1440-60 would have smoother video and possibly better detail (licenses, etc).
Is this true?

In addition to what is written above, at 60fps the Starvis 2 image sensors can not manage HDR. HDR is far more important than 60fps in low light conditions when plates tend to become blurred.

For accident recording, 60fps is not required and not important. Nice to have for movie making though.

 

[kamkar]

Well for a long time in action cameras adding a ND filter and so force in motion blur was / is considered cinematic.
But we do not want cinematic with a dashcam.

I am not 100 % sure about the following, but i would prefer 100 % crisp footage, so when i hit pause i can see things clearly, as for when it is playing back in 30 - 60 FPS / whatever, i trust the poor quality of the human eye will add blur anyway as its so little in the human FOV that is crisp and sharp, a little off center and you see less and less and at some point the brain start to extrapolate on its weak signal, making us think we see everything crisp.
I think this poor eyesight of ours is also what magicians pray upon then they make things " disappear " in thin air before our very eyes.

So while i have ND filters for my Osmo action camera, it is not very often i use them

 

[Nigel]

So while i have ND filters for my Osmo action camera, it is not very often i use them

30fps looks smooth if you have the right ND filter to add enough motion blur, 60fps looks smooth with or without motion blur, so for a movie you do want either 60fps, or more motion motion blur than a dashcam normally records. The 60fps is easier to use than an ND filter, and I assume your Osmo will provide 60fps, so you don't need an ND filter with your Osmo.

For accident video you do not need smooth looking video, you just need sharp video with no motion blur, 24fps is enough in most cases.