Upgrading from 119v1 to.... ???

[ember1205]

I have had the v1 device in my truck for a few years and, with the exception of the GPS module experiencing the common power failure (I swapped the power cable back to the camera and all is well), I have had zero issues with it.

With that said...

- There is a definite loss of visibility around the periphery when driving at night (non-lit roads), but I expect this to at least a certain extent.
- The overall image quality for viewing back later is good, but isn't 'great' (it is not easy to read license plates of other cars, for example, and that could make it difficult use any recorded data if there were an incident.
- I'm looking to move to a system that can also provide rear view.
- I'm looking to move to a system that has a very good parking mode (have never tried this one).
- I'm looking to be able to use this in a convertible where there isn't a place to mount a different camera for the rear view.

With all of that in mind, what would be a good recommendation for a new camera for the new vehicle that won't break the bank?

 

[smiley1081]

I am quite happy with my V3.

 

[ember1205]

I am quite happy with my V3.

I have read that sort of comment frequently.

I need a camera that offers methodology of obtaining rear view as well, and it needs to cleanly mount in a convertible.

 

[Nigel]

I need a camera that offers methodology of obtaining rear view as well, and it needs to cleanly mount in a convertible.

Viofo A129 IR ?

 

[ember1205]

Viofo A129 IR ?

That setup seems to be geared toward capturing the interior of the car and not what's happening behind the car.

Is there anything out there that someone would recommend that does -not- use a separately mounted rear-facing camera? What about one that contains both cameras in the same piece of hardware? It does not have to be Viofo - I'm asking for recommendations on any brand from those that have used Viofo as it should help with providing context on better/worse...

 

[Nigel]

That setup seems to be geared toward capturing the interior of the car and not what's happening behind the car.

Is there anything out there that someone would recommend that does -not- use a separately mounted rear-facing camera? What about one that contains both cameras in the same piece of hardware? It does not have to be Viofo - I'm asking for recommendations on any brand from those that have used Viofo as it should help with providing context on better/worse...

With the A129 IR you can mount the interior camera on the windscreen or mirror to capture what is happening behind, it is more flexible for mounting than a single two lens camera.

However it is 1080 resolution, as are all the other taxi cams available currently, which takes you back a step from the A119.

The new Zenfox T3 in 2 channel form might be a good choice, 2K + 1080. Front of similar quality to an A119 V3, however it isn't available yet.

Zenfox

dashcamtalk.com

Zenfox Dash Cam | Triple Channel Dash Cam | Front and Rear Dash Cam

Zenfox 3 channels dash cams recording quad hd front, full hd 1080 front and interior, support GPS Logger and Wi-Fi.

www.zenfox.com

You could go for a A119 V3, which I think you would like, and add a second camera for the rear, maybe a Blueskysea B1W.
Both listed on: https://dashcamtalk.com/best-dash-cams-of-2020/

Note that with a taxi cam design, if you drive with the roof up then it may not get a good view out the back, depending on the car.

 

[ember1205]

With the A129 IR you can mount the interior camera on the windscreen or mirror to capture what is happening behind, it is more flexible for mounting than a single two lens camera.

However it is 1080 resolution, as are all the other taxi cams available currently, which takes you back a step from the A119.

The new Zenfox T3 in 2 channel form might be a good choice, 2K + 1080. Front of similar quality to an A119 V3, however it isn't available yet.

Zenfox

dashcamtalk.com

Zenfox Dash Cam | Triple Channel Dash Cam | Front and Rear Dash Cam

Zenfox 3 channels dash cams recording quad hd front, full hd 1080 front and interior, support GPS Logger and Wi-Fi.

www.zenfox.com

You could go for a A119 V3, which I think you would like, and add a second camera for the rear, maybe a Blueskysea B1W.
Both listed on: https://dashcamtalk.com/best-dash-cams-of-2020/

Note that with a taxi cam design, if you drive with the roof up then it may not get a good view out the back, depending on the car.

Thanks for all of this... I will take a look.

One question on the Zenfox... You said "2K + 1080"... Can you explain? 1080=HD=2K, so I'm not following what you wrote.

 

[Nigel]

One question on the Zenfox... You said "2K + 1080"... Can you explain? 1080=HD=2K, so I'm not following what you wrote.

Yes, I don't understand that one either!

2K for some reason = 1440 x 2560, it should be 2.5K really, it is double the detail of 1080.

 

[ember1205]

Yes, I don't understand that one either!

2K for some reason = 1440 x 2560, it should be 2.5K really, it is double the detail of 1080.

HD resolution is 1920x1080 and is referenced as 2K. UHD resolution is 3820x2160 and is referenced as 4K. Something like 2560x1440 should really be known as, like you said, 2.5K, 2K+, or HD+.

Zenfox -seems- to refer the resolution is Quad HD which is also confusing since it's really "Dual HD". They also market the camera as dual channel for front and cabin views with the option of expanding to a third channel for a rear camera.

I'm wondering if I should just go with the Viofo 129 Pro Dual to get 4K up front and 2K for the rear camera.

 

[Harsh]

There is no 2K rear.

 

[Nigel]

HD resolution is 1920x1080 and is referenced as 2K. UHD resolution is 3820x2160 and is referenced as 4K. Something like 2560x1440 should really be known as, like you said, 2.5K, 2K+, or HD+.

Zenfox -seems- to refer the resolution is Quad HD which is also confusing since it's really "Dual HD". They also market the camera as dual channel for front and cabin views with the option of expanding to a third channel for a rear camera.

It is Quad HD, HD is 720, FHD is 1080.
For dashcams, 2K is 1440, very few people use 2K for 1080. I'm not saying it is right, but that is how it is.

 

[ember1205]

It is Quad HD, HD is 720, FHD is 1080.
For dashcams, 2K is 1440, very few people use 2K for 1080. I'm not saying it is right, but that is how it is.

"For dashcams"? Do they somehow not have the ability to follow standard definitions for resolution? The -reason- that 2K is defined as it is has to due with the actual numbers in the resolution definition just like 4K is defined as it is.

What is "Quad HD"? Or, should I ask why? That seems to be another made-up term by the Dash Cam industry. Nothing like making this harder to follow because the Dash Cam industry wants to use their own terms... Sigh.

 

[ember1205]

There is no 2K rear.

Only according to the non-standard definition of 2K that the Dash Cam industry uses, though. ALL rear cams actually record in 2K resolution as that is 1920x1080 which is a standard way of defining 2K resolution.

 

[Harsh]

1080 Full HD is definitely not called 2K.

 

[ember1205]

1080 Full HD is definitely not called 2K.

Again, not in the Dash Cam world. Everywhere else that resolution matters, it is known as 2K.

 

[Nigel]

It is used for marketing reasons, and yes, Chinese and Korean manufacturers are happy to not follow the standard.

Quad HD is 4x the pixels of HD, where HD is 720, so Quad HD is 1440, which I believe is a correct standard, although there are several standards bodys that have defined these resolutions - film, TV, video, computer.

 

[Harsh]

And your point was?

 

[ember1205]

It is used for marketing reasons, and yes, Chinese and Korean manufacturers are happy to not follow the standard.

Quad HD is 4x the pixels of HD, where HD is 720, so Quad HD is 1440, which I believe is a correct standard, although there are several standards bodys that have defined these resolutions - film, TV, video, computer.

I can at least follow the logic on this as 720 was the resolution that the term HD was originally tied to. FHD (Full HD) came just a bit later and led to confusion because it was still being called HD.

 

[Nigel]

I can at least follow the logic on this as 720 was the resolution that the term HD was originally tied to. FHD (Full HD) came just a bit later and led to confusion because it was still being called HD.

Well 720 wasn't supposed to be HD, but the TV manufacturers sold is as "HD Ready" which caused confusion because everybody thought it was HD, and then the broadcasters started broadcasting HD which was actually 720, so it became necessary to distinguish the real thing by naming it FHD, and thus QuadHD should really be 4K, but isn't!

 

[smiley1081]

I have read that sort of comment frequently.

I need a camera that offers methodology of obtaining rear view as well, and it needs to cleanly mount in a convertible.

Well, from what I have read, you should wait and see how the A129 Plus Duo comes out in the next few weeks, as it should have many of the features of the A129 but with the optics of the A119 V3 which are strangely better.

This if I have understood correctly.