Dashmellow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2013
- Messages
- 18,802
- Reaction score
- 19,404
- Location
- Uncanny Valley (●_●)
- Country
- United States
- Dash Cam
- Umpteen
most of the issue you have there relate to reflection, think we need to send you a CPL so you can do some comparison testing of these situations with/without
@jokiin, I don't mean to cause conflict or be adversarial but your post in response to @kamkar1's screen shots is another example of why I find myself becoming increasingly frustrated by my experience with the SG9665GC and your approach to this issue in particular after having spent a full year trying to deal with it and waiting for a remedy. In my initial post to this thread I used the term "sort of" in regard to your willingness to acknowledge the existence of the problems with the GC I've put forth here and this kind of reply is exactly what I was referring to.
Specifically what I said in post #1 was, "I've spent months working behind the scenes with @Pier28 and @jokiin attempting to analyze and resolve the problem........I've sent them most of the images I'm posting here and more along with other supporting data, including contrast curves and tone charts with the understanding from them that the problem is real and acknowledged (sort of) and that at some point it will hopefully be resolved with appropriate attention in the firmware."
When I first reported this issue to you and Pier28 a year ago it was immediately suggested to me that the problem was due to reflections and that a CPL would help or in fact actually fix it. After I finally established for you that the high contrast/high dynamic range issue was not due to reflections and not fixable with a CPL you shifted to suggesting that the problem was due to the dark hood of my vehicle in the image. Both privately months ago and again in this thread we have beat that horse to death several times over. The problem is not the dark hood in the FOV as I've clearly demonstrated. At one point in our private conversations you also suggested the problem "can come down to environmental influences", such as "a tree lined country road with bright sun in the middle".
So NOW, all of a sudden despite all the documentation, discussion, simultaneous comparisons with other cameras and repeated independent confirmations of the problem we are once again back to explaining it away to @kamkar1 as, "Most of the issue you have there relate to reflection, think we need to send you a CPL"
While @kamkar1's footage does start out with a bad windshield reflection that is CLEARLY not the thing he is trying to bring to our attention but rather to the EXACT same problem I have established.
Your general approach here seems to be to thank everyone for submitting videos and screen shots telling is how "helpful" this is, but at the same time basically dismissing the issue as a kind of "user error environmental thing". The fact is that the SG9665GC has a serious demonstrable "flaw" not seen in side by side comparisons with any other camera and I think you are in a certain amount of denial about it, at least publicly.
The road surface glare, blown out highlights and loss of upper tonal in kamkars images are surely NOT windshield reflections that can be fixed with a CPL.
These images have no dark hood in the FOV, nor a tree lined country road.
These images do demonstrate exactly the same tonal range/contrast/dynamic range issue I've tried to bring to everyone's attention and which feels as if it is not be adequately acknowledged.
Even when @kamkar1 turns the corner and the sun is now coming from a different direction, the white van is all blown out and is lost against the equally blown out white building.