Parking Mode captures driver who doesn't use rearview mirror.

sick !

But hang on a minute - that was a nice clean perfect revearse into the front with a good knock ...

But you have to ask yourself what would happen if she was parking at the side of you and put a nice long gentle dint and scratch down the side of your car or hit the side as she revearsed... - you would capture a nice schenic view infront " if " the camera started recording - and then as she stopped there to take a look - still a nice schenic view..

By the time she drove off all you would have is a schenic view with no number plate !!!!

On the other hand, Had the camera been running constant while you were parked - you would see her arrive , manoeuvre in and drive off with a far greater chance of capturing her number plate at some point in her travels...

I would argue parking mode is flawed for the reason above .

But i m not going to argue with anyone today as today is the second miraculous day on the trot with a nice 22% share rise yesterday and already a further 35% today.
 
Last edited:
If they were at the side though mate so out of view to stop parking mode being triggered then you wouldn't catch them with cameras running constantly either? You'd need four cams to cover all scenarios.

Plus you're running the risk that if you're away too long the footage will have looped anyway?

Those 4G devices look good where they'll send you a clip of an event off device so even if someone nicks the camera you've got the footage
 
Its a 5 hour loop and the chances of catching a number plate as they manoeuvre around a carpark and settle next to you is greatly increased as is the chance of capturing a glimpse of the driver to leave no one in doubt...

Thats why i believe it necessary to have them running.
 
The motion detection in the G1W isn't great mate - a good camera with a proper parking mode will pick up the exact same footage your cameras would running full time but with much more chance of the footage not looping.

I'm usually parked up for ten hours at a time for work (I do long days) which is another reason I need a decent parking mode as with five hour loops I'd be missing half of what happened each day (and that's usually when something is going to happen!). Larger cards is one answer but they're too flaky in most cameras to be entirely reliable even now.

I do prefer the wider angle of the old Panorama for seeing more of the scene though - as you'd be seeing stuff come into frame and trigger motion detection and with pre buffering you'd be getting information that a lot of cameras haven't even seen yet.
 
Seems to be horses for courses then !!!

Being as i m well flush...

And being as no video exists of tripped parking mode with the panorama at night parked up with just the odd street light for lighting - any chance of giving us all an example/demonstration by setting it up and tripping a clip to post up ?

please !
 
Can you guys direct me to the best parking mode cameras? And best parking mode discussion threads?
 
Like this?


You can play with the sensitivity of them so they catch more stuff or less stuff, once you're happy with it you just leave it sat there and they're reliable.

The Korean cameras using the Zoran / CSR / Qualcomm Coach CPU usually do this best as they support pre buffering where nothing is written to the memory card until it's triggered and it dumps out the memory buffer as well which is why you get stuff before it's triggered.

A lot of the Novatek and Ambarella cameras just trigger afterwards and by the time they start recording what you wanted to see can be almost gone. I'm not sure if the Ambarella stuff supports pre buffering - that's a question for @jokiin or @Pier28
 
boilers said:
Can you guys direct me to the best parking mode cameras? And best parking mode discussion threads?
Click to expand...
The Panorama is usually known as one of the best. That video above was a Panorama device - I've swapped it out for an X2 now which is two channels so it controls the front and back from the same headunit.

Longer term there will be devices with remote cameras up front and at the back and the headunit hidden away in the car somewhere.
 
Anybody notice how the GPS said the truck was doing 1-2 km/h during most of the clip? For any video that might ever go to court, you don't want inaccurate GPS speed stamps on the video! Good reason not to have GPS at all.
 
M--- said:
Anybody notice how the GPS said the truck was doing 1-2 km/h during most of the clip? For any video that might ever go to court, you don't want inaccurate GPS speed stamps on the video! Good reason not to have GPS at all.
Click to expand...

I didn't even noticed that, not sure which product that is in the video even but very strange. Our products don't have the problem thankfully. (stopped = zero)
 
M--- said:
Anybody notice how the GPS said the truck was doing 1-2 km/h during most of the clip? For any video that might ever go to court, you don't want inaccurate GPS speed stamps on the video! Good reason not to have GPS at all.
Click to expand...
hopefully the judge/jury would have enough brain cells to realize that the camera vehicle is very obviously NOT moving, based on the surroundings, and can safely ignore the erroneous data. that'd be a real jerk of a judge to throw out evidence based on inaccurate gps data, which isn't THAT accurate to begin with anyway, unless you're using military grade equipment...
 
In this example, it's obvious that the vehicle's not moving.

My comment is a general comment related to GPS stamps on dashcam footage. Here's a scenario:
-The speed limit is 50 km/h, and you're doing 50.
-The GPS isn't the world's most-accurate, and it's stamped on the video showing you doing 52.
-Somebody cuts you off and you rear-end them.
-The video's pretty clear that they were in the wrong, so you present it as evidence...

Option A) evidence to the police:
-Officer notices 52 km/h, says you were speeding, writes this in the police report. Officially, speed contributed to the crash, and this makes you partially liable.

Option B) evidence to your insurance company:
-Your insurance company passes it on to the other party's insurance.
-Other party points out that you were speeding, says you must share the liability.

Now you either have to accept some of the liability from the crash, or you have to go to court, and argue that the evidence that you provided is inaccurate... Somehow you've got to prove that your GPS data was wrong.

Or imagine the same scenario, but you're doing 55 km/h, keeping up with the flow of traffic. And your GPS is actually accurate, showing 55, so you won't be able to prove the GPS wrong. So you'd need to prove that you're speeding in a "normal and safe" manner. You will probably not win this argument in court, and you will have to accept some of the liability. Due to evidence that you presented. I'd rather not present that evidence at all-- it makes it too easy for the other party to push part of the blame onto you.
 
I was going to write something like:

"Nice hot pants and legs. I bet her bumper has been hit a few times"

But I don't think I'll bother.
 
M--- said:
Anybody notice how the GPS said the truck was doing 1-2 km/h during most of the clip? For any video that might ever go to court, you don't want inaccurate GPS speed stamps on the video! Good reason not to have GPS at all.
Click to expand...

This will be because the GPS was still hunting for signal, as it picks up more that will stop
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top