Please help looking for decent cam for parking outside

[kamkar]

Thats nice to know about the allotted memory space for events.
I dident get many G-sensor events in my regular driving, not even one for every drive, and while Danish streets are okay, they are far from how they used to be when our society was better in the old days.

 

[Dashmellow]

I can see fully how it might act like a 1st or 2nd curtain sync normal flash. The issue is you're going to get blur. On a stills camera such a blurred picture is just an artistically blurred picture with, depending on the sync, a solid picture at either the start or end of the frame. However, as I see it with video the flash is going to have to last for long enough to encompass quite a few frames otherwise the plate capture will not last long enough to be visible on the video (although you may be able to separate out the frame with it on if you know it's there and have the correct forensic video tools) - lets not forget, video is taking 30-60 frames per second. So anything less than a second or 30-60 frames is probably going to be an issue and most flashes are probably going to last a fraction of a second. Evidentially acceptable? Maybe some questions if the plate isn't view-able in the video itself but only forensically retrievable.

Looking at the experiment you did, you had a continuous IR source and not a momentary flash. That's entirely different and proven tech, as a continuous IR source lasts for every frame. Written from my armchair....

Several days ago, in response to Nigel's mention of using an IR flash gun I merely mentioned that I might like to engage in some fun and interesting IR flash photography experiments since I happen to own some powerful IR strobe units, yet I never mentioned what cameras or lenses I might use, what techniques or methods I have in mind, nor did I ever state that I would even attempt to use IR flash for capturing license plates yet you feel the need to repeatedly tell me that it won't work along with what results I might expect. And I mentioned and linked that I have spent more than eight months posting to an interesting thread I started about using a non IR corrected lens in various unique ways during a period of lengthy and interesting experimentation but never conflated it with IR flash still photography as you attempt to imply here. As it happens I also have extensive experience with both color and black & white film based IR photography using 4x5 view cameras, the results of which were on display some years back at the International Center Of Photography in NYC. I even have some experience with IR flash syncing as it turns out that it can affect color critical work on film and digital in unexpected ways if not deployed properly in a studio environment.

You on the other hand, repeatedly present yourself as some kind of expert, based entirely on things you've apparently read on the internet. Whether it is the constant table pounding about high end Rib Cage cameras and ultra-expensive rectilinear lenses or top-of-the-line polarizers it is abundantly clear that you have no hands on experience with any of these things nor have never owned any of them. There is a dedicated group of us here on DCT that has been experimenting with a wide range of aftermarkets lenses, techniques, camera modifications, etc., etc. and posting our results to share with the community. Sometimes we have great success and sometime not so much but we share our results and knowlege and it's always fun and interesting. You on the other hand have literally nothing to show for yourself. Never once have we seen a single self created screen shot or video, interesting, enlightening or otherwise to support your pretentious prattle wherein you attempt to try to show us what an expert you are. It's time to put up or shut up, mate!

 

[Nigel]

Several days ago, in response to Nigel's mention of using an IR flash gun I merely mentioned that I might like to engage in some fun and interesting IR flash photography experiments since I happen to own some powerful IR strobe units, yet I never mentioned what cameras or lenses I might use, what techniques or methods I have in mind, nor did I ever state that I would even attempt to use IR flash for capturing license plates yet you feel the need to repeatedly tell me that it won't work along with what results I might expect. And I mentioned and linked that I have spent more than eight months posting to an interesting thread I started about using a non IR corrected lens in various unique ways during a period of lengthy and interesting experimentation but never conflated it with IR flash still photography as you attempt to imply here. As it happens I also have extensive experience with both color and black & white film based IR photography using 4x5 view cameras, the results of which were on display some years back at the International Center Of Photography in NYC. I even have some experience with IR flash syncing as it turns out that it can affect color critical work on film and digital in unexpected ways if not deployed properly in a studio environment.

You on the other hand, repeatedly present yourself as some kind of expert, based entirely on things you've apparently read on the internet. Whether it is the constant table pounding about high end Rib Cage cameras and ultra-expensive rectilinear lenses or top-of-the-line polarizers it is abundantly clear that you have no hands on experience with any of these things nor have never owned any of them. There is a dedicated group of us here on DCT that has been experimenting with a wide range of aftermarkets lenses, techniques, camera modifications, etc., etc. and posting our results to share with the community. Sometimes we have great success and sometime not so much but we share our results and knowlege and it's always fun and interesting. You on the other hand have literally nothing to show for yourself. Never once have we seen a single self created screen shot or video, interesting, enlightening or otherwise to support your pretentious prattle wherein you attempt to try to show us what an expert you are. It's time to put up or shut up, mate!

Nice to see people getting on so well, maybe a good time to post my Tom and Jerry infra red video clip:

Don't think my IR illumination is capable of sufficient brightness for number plate flashes though, so I will leave the car in the garage at night and the Gitup Git2 filming what goes on outside:

 

[c4rc4m]

You on the other hand, repeatedly present yourself as some kind of expert, based entirely on things you've apparently read on the internet. Whether it is the constant table pounding about high end Rib Cage cameras and ultra-expensive rectilinear lenses or top-of-the-line polarizers it is abundantly clear that you have no hands on experience with any of these things nor have never owned any of them.

..and it's something you've never tried or owned. When was the last time you put a top quality lens on a dashcamera? Never! You've experimented with cheap $10 lenses. All good, I love the trials you and others are doing on here with these lenses, but you can't knock other people suggestions until you've tried them. I'd be very impressed if you could find a $10 lens as good as $100 lens. Get a $100 top quality lens on the camera and if it shows no improvement, or so little it's not worth the price difference, then there's room for you to talk. I somehow doubt you'd run your professional photography equipment we keeping hearing about with a $10 lens on the front, and yet you knock suggestions to try something high end and see if there's sufficient difference to justify the expense.

As for flash / IR. No where before did you mention using an IR Strobe, just a straight normal / IR flash gun. As for your experience with IR, great you're an IR photography expert. However, as I mentioned before that doesn't directly translate to video - video is 30-60fps and a flash is milliseconds long leaving the plate most likely un-viewable under normal playback conditions as it will encompass so few frames (most likely 1) amounting to only a fraction of a second. Yes the now mentioned strobe might alleviate that, but it's not very practical as there's no realistic way to power it given the usual power consumption of flash circuits. A continuous low power IR emitter such as designed for CCTV, might be a better bet, but then again you're into issues of legality.

You might also want to consider that a lot of vehicle glass is treated to block IR, but then again you already knew that! : http://www.one-candle.com/2013/09/auto-glass-and-infrared-photography.html

Dash, it's time to start debating rather than fighting with people who have differing opinions to you.....

 

[Dashmellow]

..and it's something you've never tried or owned. When was the last time you put a top quality lens on a dashcamera? Never! You've experimented with cheap $10 lenses. All good, I love the trials you and others are doing on here with these lenses, but you can't knock other people suggestions until you've tried them. I'd be very impressed if you could find a $10 lens as good as $100 lens. Get a $100 top quality lens on the camera and if it shows no improvement, or so little it's not worth the price difference, then there's room for you to talk. I somehow doubt you'd run your professional photography equipment we keeping hearing about with a $10 lens on the front, and yet you knock suggestions to try something high end and see if there's sufficient difference to justify the expense.

As for flash / IR. No where before did you mention using an IR Strobe, just a straight normal / IR flash gun. As for your experience with IR, great you're an IR photography expert. However, as I mentioned before that doesn't directly translate to video - video is 30-60fps and a flash is milliseconds long leaving the plate most likely un-viewable under normal playback conditions as it will encompass so few frames (most likely 1) amounting to only a fraction of a second. Yes the now mentioned strobe might alleviate that, but it's not very practical as there's no realistic way to power it given the usual power consumption of flash circuits. A continuous low power IR emitter such as designed for CCTV, might be a better bet, but then again you're into issues of legality.

You might also want to consider that a lot of vehicle glass is treated to block IR, but then again you already knew that! : http://www.one-candle.com/2013/09/auto-glass-and-infrared-photography.html

Dash, it's time to start debating rather than fighting with people who have differing opinions to you.....

EXCUSE ME! I'm not the one who started this argument. I'll say it again! I merely expressed a casual interest in doing some IR flash experiments without ever stating what I might do, what techniques I might employ or what type of equipment I might use. I never even said that I intended to shoot video. Never did I state that I would attempt to capture license plates. Never did I say that I might not use a camera that can sync to flash.

You argue that motor vehicle windshields may be blocked for IR but I never stated that I intend to do any IR flash experiments from inside the cabin of a car. Certainly nobody with any common sense (or photographic experience) would attempt to use a flash gun to shoot through a car windscreen from inside the cabin, especially for IR work.

For some peculiar reason you initiated and keep waging an argument that whatever I might or might not do won't work, apparently just arguing for the sake of empty arguing alone! It's ridiculous at this point.

Your goal appears to be that you want to sound like an expert but as usual you have no clue because you have never done more than read about any of this stuff on the internet.

And BTW, FYI, a flashgun is nothing more than a small portable strobe unit that we photographers often refer to as a Speedlight, a now generic term originally coined by Nikon for their portable "strobes" back in the 1960s. Whether a strobe is used in powerful studio lighting equipment or small portable flashguns, it is the exact same thing, a stroboscopic Xenon flash-tube triggered with high voltage from a bank of capacitors.

No, I have never owned any super high end M12 lenses and have no intention as I consider installing a $100 dollar lens on a dash cam to be a complete waste of money. There is no need for that level of correction on a dash cam as a modest amount of barrel distortion or other minute level of optical correction is entirely unnecessary on a dash cam. You would have a high level of diminishing returns investing that kind of money into dash cam video. The lenses you keep pounding the table about are used primarily by professionals for cinematic/broadcast purposes as well as technical documentation and they are used in concert with other high end equipment including custom filtration.

Unlike you, I've spent five years contributing a wide variety of interesting and worthwhile video and still photographic content to this forum as well as experiments, modifications, comparisons and other commentary, all based on actual experiences. I've also posted numerous, unique, well documented, well received DIY projects. You on the other hand are nothing more than a poseur who has never posted a single example of any self created content with the exception of some pathetic unboxing videos that you used to get several free review cameras only to reveal absurd reasons why you couldn't "actually" review them after the cameras were in your possession. You have literally nothing to show for yourself, yet you repeatedly feel the need to explain things to people who actually have various levels of experience with these things, like when you were giving us instructions on how to focus aftermarket M12 lenses even though you've never done it. While you are entitled to your opinions the fact is that virtually all of your pretentious expert "opinions", commentary, advice and table pounding about high end lenses is speculative and based on vicarious content you've about read online. And this business of suggesting that manufacturers or individuals should install specialized $100 or even higher priced lenses on their dash cams that you have never personally had experience with comes across as nothing more than some sort of sad internet masturbatory fantasy.

 

[c4rc4m]

EXCUSE ME! I'm not the one who started this argument. I'll say it again! I merely expressed a casual interest in doing some IR flash experiments without ever stating what I might do, what techniques I might employ or what type of equipment I might use. I never even said that I intended to shoot video. Never did I state that I would attempt to capture license plates. Never did I say that I might not use a camera that can sync to flash.

You argue that motor vehicle windshields may be blocked for IR but I never stated that I intend to do any IR flash experiments from inside the cabin of a car. Certainly nobody with any common sense (or photographic experience) would attempt to use a flash gun to shoot through a car windscreen from inside the cabin, especially for IR work.

So far as I'm aware the OP was asking for a dashcam he could use in his car at night to prevent accident damage. Now you say you would never suggest shooting through glass, only outside. So are you really suggesting he fixes a flashgun 1/2 way down his bonnet outside of his car every night so he can have an IR flash? You're cover argument really becomes more ludicrous. I can easily accept that maybe you overlooked the flash duration or IR treated glass, as that what debate is about, exploring possibilities. We all make suggestions and some lead to dead ends. However, the cover story becomes ridiculous....

I'm going to ignore the rest of your rant and more personal attacks, as I'm not going to keep engaging you in the pointless argument you seem to enjoy that diverts threads.

To the OP, the bottom line is it's very difficult to capture plates at night. The best suggestion is CCTV on your house where maybe with a good system and Starvis camera, you can control the shutter speed more than with a dashcam. As for a dashcam, something like a Viofo A119S has very good night performance, just don't expect to get readable plates unless the car is travelling slowly or stops due to the collision, or you're very lucky and the angle relative to the camera / lighting are just right.

 

[Dashmellow]

So far as I'm aware the OP was asking for a dashcam he could use in his car at night to prevent accident damage. Now you say you would never suggest shooting through glass, only outside. So are you really suggesting he fixes a flashgun 1/2 way down his bonnet outside of his car every night so he can have an IR flash? You're cover argument really becomes more ludicrous. I can easily accept that maybe you overlooked the flash duration or IR treated glass, as that what debate is about, exploring possibilities. We all make suggestions and some lead to dead ends. However, the cover story becomes ridiculous....

I'm going to ignore the rest of your rant and more personal attacks, as I'm not going to keep engaging you in the pointless argument you seem to enjoy that diverts threads.

To the OP, the bottom line is it's very difficult to capture plates at night. The best suggestion is CCTV on your house where maybe with a good system and Starvis camera, you can control the shutter speed more than with a dashcam. As for a dashcam, something like a Viofo A119S has very good night performance, just don't expect to get readable plates unless the car is travelling slowly or stops due to the collision, or you're very lucky and the angle relative to the camera / lighting are just right.

ENOUGH ALREADY!!! In reply to Nigel mentioning an IR flashgun I made an offhand casual remark that I might like to experiment with IR flash at some time in the future. It had NOTHING to do with the OP's request except to suggest that it wouldn't be a viable solution. Despite how many times I've brought this to your attention you insist on continuing your harangue. In fact, on numerous other counts in this increasingly idiotic argument that you initiated four days ago you simply ignore what I've had to say and keep hammering away. You accuse me of starting arguments to divert threads when in fact you are the one who started this in the first place by insisting what I may or may not do will not work even though I haven't once suggested what sort of experimentation or methodology I might use and even though I have pointed this out to you several times already you're still at it. Why would you repeatedly argue that something won't work when you don't even know what I'm talking about because I haven't said? At this point it's starting to feel like you are engaging in some form of trolling by doing this and I am growing rather tired of it. I'm getting the impression that you are doing this only so you can act like a victim when you provoke responses you don't care for.

Here's a quote of what I said initially, that you seem to wish to ignore: "While I don't really imagine than an IR flashgun would be a viable solution for the OP's needs it's an interesting idea and when I get a little time I will try it with a camera fitted with a lens that does not have an IR-cut filter."

I'm not surprised that you ignore the other comments I've made because you obviously have no good answers. But indeed yes!, please do stop engaging me. It is always tedious, unpleasant and unwelcome.

 

[c4rc4m]

As you clearly want to libel me, accusing me of scamming Viofo, I've reviewed every Viofo camera supplied with a full unboxing and comprehensive performance video review under every possible lighting condition except for one. Even for that one I didn't want to attach to my windscreen permanently with adhesive as there was no suction cup, I completed a video unboxing review which I posted publicly and I then offered to return that camera to Viofo at my expense, as I didn't do I complete review. I'm sure Viofo can confirm that offer, and all my videos are viewable on here.

As for no experience, I've had video on 2 major news channels as well as editing video for a professional website. I don't proclaim to be anything other than a video amateur though.

On the personal side, you're the one engaging me at every opportunity with personal attacks, so don't play the victim. Every time I post, you engage me with personal attacks rather than engaging in polite debate.

Practically every thread I make a comment in you jump in and say I have nothing to contribute / no right to say anything / know nothing. You proclaim yourself the self proclaimed forum king / moderator / video expert, yet clearly whilst your knowledgeable about photography, you don't know everything about video. Your IR suggestion is just one example. We're all here to learn (which means we can make mistakes / suggestions that don't work), and debate and progress dash cams, there's ways to do that. Personal hate / rivalries / attacks have no place on any forum.

You made a suggestion, it unfortunately won't work for dashcam video due to flash duration, available power for strobing and the glass coatings on many vehicles. I offered a suggestion as to why very politely. Now maybe we can move on and the personal attacks can cease once more.

 

[Dashmellow]

My god! You're still at it!! This is now day 5 of this nonsense and despite all that has been said you are still arguing about what will work or won't work based upon a casual remark I made about IR flash photography last Thursday. This obsessive behavior is beginning to border on the pathological.

Unlike you, there are people out there who actually go to the trouble of exploring what actually will or will not work rather than act like a self appointed pundit who can only speculate and theorize. As it happens there is even an entire DIY Trailcam community where enthusiasts engage in all kinds of fascinating IR projects and experiments, including IR video capture. Some projects are even built on a Raspberry Pi platform that offers all sorts of unique and interesting control, shutter timing and PIR sensor triggering capabilities. There are even suppliers who provide components and control circuitry for IR trailcam builds, so indeed an intrepid DIYer could potentially build a camera that would accomplish what the OP is seeking.

As for having "experience" I don't particularly care what kind of amateur video editing experience you may have. It's irrelevant. You seem to be in the chronic habit of trying to divert the subject matter away from the actual discussion and this is no different. When I speak of having experience I'm referring to people here on DCT who have put an enormous amount of time and energy into evaluating aftermarket lenses or performing camera modifications or engaging in DIY projects and posting their results and direct experiences whereas you who have zero hands on experience doing anything of this nature but feel it's necessary to lecture us about things you've only read about on the internet.

Speaking of diverting the subject matter, it's amusing to see you accuse me of attacking you and then playing the victim. How could the alleged attacker be the victim?...In the same sentence, no less! Gee, I thought you were playing the victim as I pointed out in the post you are responding to. Seems you are trying to flip the narrative here. The same goes for accusing me of "jumping in" to your commentary when it's generally the other way around such as in this very thread where you've spent five days "jumping in" with challenges to a simple comment I made about some experiments I might like to try. Generally speaking, I tend to attempt to ignore you but end up entangled in these pointless and tedious arguments with you when you quote me and then launch into one of your clueless explanations based on things you only know vicariously from the internet and then speculate about.

As for whether you were "scamming" Viofo for free cameras, perhaps that may not have been the best choice of words but obviously everyone can reach their own conclusions about what to call it.

You persuaded Viofo to send you a WR1 to review, a camera that is known to ONLY be operated and controlled via the dedicated WiFi smartphone APP, only to reveal upon receiving the camera that you don't own a smartphone or any other suitable WiFi device so therefore there would be no way to conduct a comprehensive and thorough evaluation of the camera as no doubt Viofo was likely anticipating when you approached them for a sample camera or that potential buyers might expect to see in an actual "review". WiFi control and viewing on the WR1 was the primary feature that distinguished this unique, small, screenless camera. It is hard to fathom that someone would offer to review a camera where they know in advance that they would be unable to evaluate or demonstrate its KEY functionality. There's far more to what prospective buyers want to know about a camera's functionality beyond the default settings or performance.

And then when you got Viofo to provide you with an A129 Duo for review, once the camera was in your possession you announced that you were not going to do any review of the camera's actual performance in operation, "because I prefer suction mounts and this new camera is adhesive mounts only". Yet this is a wedge shaped camera, a common design that is widely known as intended for installation directly on the glass with 3M VHB tape and you knew that going into it. As a dual channel camera it wouldn't ship with a suction mount, regardless. So, once again, you procured an evaluation sample that you knew in advance you were never going to review. And what's the big deal about using the 3M VHB tape, even temporarily so you could perform the review? Many of us do this all the time. In the last 8 years I've installed and removed dozens of 3M VHB tape mounted cameras. It's no big deal. Call it what you will but everyone else around here who solicits free cameras from manufacturers for the purpose of conducting a review actually reviews them. Like I said, members reading this narrative can come up with their own word to characterize the practice of not following through with what you offer or agree to.

As for unboxing videos, they tend to make me nauseous, especially ones that spend an inordinate amount of time and energy evaluating the box it was shipped in and how much f**king packing tape they used. This is a camera sold by numerous vendors all over the world and all vendors will have their own packing techniques, so reviewing how much packing tape an individual worker at one company decided to use tells viewer nothing useful worthy of their time.

So let's see. You've been at this for 5 days now. Are you going to go for 6...or longer? I'll bet if I eventually come back with some successful IR flash imagery you might have a stroke and get taken out on a stretcher!

 

[c4rc4m]

TBH I'm really not going to waste any more time with you and your endless insults and inaccurate ridiculous accusations. Your posts are now blocked. I suggest you do the same in return.

 

[Dashmellow]

TBH I'm really not going to waste any more time with you and your endless insults and inaccurate ridiculous accusations. Your posts are now blocked. I suggest you do the same in return.

Praise the Lord!! But they're accurate all right and you know it. Personally, I don't block people on this forum. There's no reason and it's an empty, essentially meaningless gesture and I'm sure we'll be seeing each other around the neighborhood anyway. But yes, please do refrain from replying to any of my posts.

 

[c4rc4m]

Praise the Lord!! But they're accurate all right and you know it. Personally, I don't block people on this forum. There's no reason and it's an empty, essentially meaningless gesture and I'm sure we'll be seeing each other around the neighborhood anyway. But yes, please do refrain from replying to any of my posts.

Well as you don't want me to block you I won't but it's inevitable we will post in the same threads. Maybe a bit more tolerance and less personal attacks on your behalf would go a long way.

As for your accusations re Viofo, no they're not accurate. Viofo knew in advance I didn't have a smart phone with the WR1. As for the A129, no-one informed me of the fact that there was no suction cup included in advance, every previous Viofo camera has had one, and as I've already stated I did an unboxing review and then contacted Viofo to let them know I hadn't been able to do a full review of the camera due to the fact of not wanting to mount it permanently to my windscreen. As I've also already stated, I offered to return the camera at my expense if they were unhappy at this. So there were no scams. The WR1 got an unboxing and video performance review in all lighting conditions. The A119 Pro also got both. The A129, got just the unboxing but I offered to return the camera if they were unhappy at there not also being a performance review.

The only one who believes they were scammed is you, and as I already indicated, the videos are up and linked on here for anyone to view, in fact most people have liked them and found them of quality and use.

 

[Dashmellow]

Wait! What's this? I thought you were blocking me?