V1.3 beta firmware for A229Pro/Plus

[LateralNW]

Did you download both firmware onto one memory card and flash both cameras without removing the memory card?

I used 2 memory cards with 1 file on each.

 

[Karagandinez]

I used 2 memory cards with 1 file on each.

Well, we talked above about updating two cameras from one memory card.
After flashing the front camera, you will be prompted to format the memory card.
If you ignore formatting and continue setting up, after a while a discussion of the rear camera will begin and after the update you will be asked to reformat the memory card.

 

[VIOFO-Support]

I have just updated my A229 Pro to the beta 1.3 so sorry for the late input.
When I updated the front dashcam I was prompted to format the card.
When I updated the rear camera it just rebooted and started to work. No prompt.

I use an iphone 8 and after updating the firmware on the A229Pro I was no longer able to access the camera via the app ver 4.2.2
I see votex discovered this early on in this thread.

Viofo mentioned they need to release a new app for the iphone for this beta update to work.

As I have just done the update I don't have much to add except
The IR camera didn't start up after the update.
The app won't work but still works fine on the VS1.
After recycling the power the VS1 started but the A229Pro didn't or at least the lights and screen on it didn't work until I touched a button on it. Might be a one off.

It is encouraging to see Viofo working to improve their product.

Have you reset the camera after updating the firmware? If not, please reset it by choosing Default Settings on the camera. Then test if the IR camera can be detected. The A229Pro 3CH will need more time to start up than VS1 since it is a 4K camera with three channels.

 

[camtalkatnight]

H265 is a minefield in licensing issues. It is only worth paying extra for it if it does something useful. It is basically the same as H264 with some extra compression features, unfortunately all the extra compression features are targeted at saving bitrate in areas of the image that are either not moving, or moving very slowly, while the time we need to save bitrate in our dashcams is when we are driving fast and the image is moving fast. H265 really does nothing useful over H264 when used in a fixed bitrate dashcam with real time encoding. The A139 Pro does have an H265 option, Viofo have chosen to operate it with 11% less bitrate, so it does actually save 11% on file size, but image quality is in my view a little reduced over the H264 setting, so for best quality on the A139 Pro I choose H264. In my view, H265 is not worth having on a dashcam when moving; for low bitrate parking mode it does have advantages, although the time you really need the low bitrate parking mode is also the time when things suddenly start moving fast, and H265 loses its advantage!

AV1 is a completely different codec, made with different design decisions, and appears to me to do a rather better job with dashcam video than H264/H265. It requires significantly more processing, so implementing high bitrate and high frame rate AV1 in a dashcam, where everything must be encoded in real time, is a big challenge. It is being worked on, and has potential to give significant improvements, but when it arrives, and how good the first version will be, is currently uncertain. When it does arrive, it will probably bring HDR10 video, so the bitrate savings will likely get canceled out by the extra detail and dynamic range being recorded in the video. It will not appear on the next dashcam to be released.

I quite like 24:9 aspect ratio for 4K front dashcam video, but Viofo have stuck to 21:9 so that high level traffic lights do not get missed, also 21:9 is a standard format used for cinema, you can buy screens that shape. High level traffic lights only exist in a few countries, but I think we wont be seeing a wider aspect ratio until we get higher resolution than 4K.


It will be released when it is ready, and until then will only have a codename, which may change at any time, and which may or may not get used when released! If Viofo actually answered that question now, it would be wise not to believe the answer!

Comparing h.265 at a lower bitrate to h.264 is not a fair comparison though it appears the units that were mentioned earlier, was limiting the bitrate whether intentional for limiting filesize or if it is due to hardware limitation. This is not an apples to apples test as we are aware when it comes to encoder prowess. It is a comparison of what to expect with what was chosen to be given as our options (thier implemented encoder tuning, and bitrate choice), thank you for the testing again to whom tested it. Those are things to go by for our options and what can work best in our dash cams, but not as the general consensus of h.264/5 true abilities.

It is around 6mbps savings when I did the math from the link shared earlier (lower bitrate used, not apples to apples). At the bitrate range that it was, it should have looked better regardless, if the encoder was tuned well and as long as the hardware could handle higher demands from that, which we do not know, which is alright.

h.265 is actually far superior in movement, if the bitrate is exactly the same as used in h.264, unless of course the tuning of the encoder is not good. It can also look much better at times even with lower bitrate, if tuned well.

I will say that it is very possible that the h.264 tuned implementation was much better in the tested scenario, but if it was same bitrate and the encoders were finely tuned, and that the dashcam could handle everything from heat to the required processing demands, movement of bandwidth, then it would be h.265 is a winner in image quality, but not in power efficiency/heat/processing power used. The tune of the h.265 used may have not been that great perhaps, in addition to the lower bitrate? Possibly.

You can tune the encoder and have it look horrendous regardless of bitrate and codec.

Basically what was compared was what Viofo used as for the tuning of the encoders, and not matching bitrate. h.264 is inferior to h.265 when tuned well for what its intentional use is, at same bitrate, especially in movement. It happens to not be very noticeable with blurry/out of focus and detail in the distance, stuff like movies/dash cams as opposed to super sharp and in focus things like video games which have pixel movement across the entire plane recorded. Video games will quickly show the faults of a codec . One can easily see the difference in h.265 and h.264 and AV1, even moreso the more you happen to lower the bitrate. Where I live in Washington state, there are tons of trees and they are moving all around and there are winding backroads. What happens is that I can be on a bendy road, where the entire scenery will be panning, tons of trees of movement and fine detail in the trees, that the encoder will try to retain which means more bitrate focused on them, with the whole panning going on, h.264 unless really high bitrate, will falter and you will see squares in the entire image where the image starts to break apart, also where the road becomes less detailed until the scenery has less motion. That is where properly tuned h.265 will shine and when using an apples to apples bitrate. No comparison. If the car is parked, I do not expect to see a humongous difference in the two codecs unless they are matched bitrate and the bitrate happens to be very very low where the efficiency of the codec comes into play, where h.265 will win again. Loses in power requirements however.

I like the 24:9 idea <3. Yeah AV1 is super intensive and honestly, a great h.265 would suffice for me with great bitrate for those high panning moments . If the AV1 was used in low bitrate with h.264 and h.265 being a matching low bitrate, I would easily prefer the AV1 in that scenario. Definitely as you mention, I agree as well, implementing AV1 would be tough, especially heat wise and requiring way more processing power. I personally think h.265 is really the sweet spot at current times, but thats an opinion . AV1 or something better will come later, definitely.

You are spot on with the HDR10. I would also be worried about places trying to play it back with tone mapping being different for legal reasons it could be played back on something that isn't capable to show the detail where it matters and being limited by the display. It is cool to record in it for non legal reasons however/leisure etc so thats neat . But yes, doubling down and what you said about the bitrate savings getting overran by the extra bits for the added dynamic range to be saved in.

Look at my attachment of my rear cam (A229 Pro) and what would be the ideal aspect ratio for that. I have louvers. LOL all of the top and bottom is wasted bitrate that could be implemented into the center of the image to retain more of what the lens is getting. Very rare use case but it exists lol. It would make a huge difference in low bitrate parking mode to have that bitrate used only in the sweet spot. This is why options are great to have or add, and also, it would keep the processing power requirements down and the heat down (lower vertical resolution). Rear cam CPL in shipment waiting for arrival, needed badly LOL!

I apoligize if I do happen to come off uneasy, I am very literal, part of my disability. I mean all of this in the kindest sincerity <3. No belly aching and only wanting to better people and things, think outside the box, learn and teach .

 

[Panzer Platform]

Look at my attachment of my rear cam (A229 Pro)

Maybe you would be better off with the waterproof rear cam for the A229 Pro, and mount it externally.
BTW, what is the year / make / model of your car?

 

[camtalkatnight]

Maybe you would be better off with the waterproof rear cam for the A229 Pro, and mount it externally.
BTW, what is the year / make / model of your car?

2013 Subaru Impreza (not wrx/not sti .

Yeah I thought about the rear cam being on the outside. I also installed a rear cam for my head unit (above licenseplate) but it is often covered in rain and then cannot see through that cam when it happens. For the Viofo rear cam, the louvers block the rain even when it is major downfall of rain, meaning I can actually see without water draining down the window so its easier to see with the louvers in rain, to not have them at all. The cam will have almost zero water to contend with during any amount of rain unless it is somehow blown up and into the louvers from the back of the car which I am yet to see happen. The other issue could become snow, but I have it garaged parked at home, so not sure how it would fair being out in snow for a long while, probably block the rear facing camera. Different poisons to install location options I suppose . I like the added visibility during rain with the louvers, keeps temps lower and also some extra privacy. Funny how louvers are not illegal but too dark of a tint is. I have the legal limit tint for WA state, plus the louvers on top. I am trying to hide the fact that I have a dashcam setup, and its hard to tell from the front unless you are looking pretty hard. I have everything but the front lens mounted under a sun strip of tint, which is legal in WA state. You cannot tell from the rear that there is a cam behind the louvers unless you shine a flashlight from outside then you could. It took me at least 30 minutes to find exactly where the cam got the most visibility, even while using my phone to live view lol. A few millimeters adjustment goofs the whole view up in my configuration lol!

 

[Nigel]

h.265 is actually far superior in movement, if the bitrate is exactly the same as used in h.264,

Yes, except that at the speeds and detail levels where it matters, because we are running out of bitrate on our constant bitrate dashcams, the superior parts of H265 have stopped doing anything useful. My experience was that there was no significant difference to H264 at the times when it mattered. If we had variable bitrate video then it might be a very different situation, but we don't.

Where I live in Washington state, there are tons of trees and they are moving all around and there are winding backroads. What happens is that I can be on a bendy road, where the entire scenery will be panning, tons of trees of movement and fine detail in the trees, that the encoder will try to retain which means more bitrate focused on them, with the whole panning going on, h.264 unless really high bitrate, will falter and you will see squares in the entire image where the image starts to break apart, also where the road becomes less detailed until the scenery has less motion. That is where properly tuned h.265 will shine...

That is where you want AV1.

I've not found that H265 does particularly well in that situation even if you have plenty of processing time, but our dashcams don't have much processing time, they must keep up with real time.

I would also be worried about places trying to play it back with tone mapping being different for legal reasons it could be played back on something that isn't capable to show the detail where it matters and being limited by the display.

I'm not sure I understand that comment. Our current dashcams have tone mapping for HDR, and they don't have a standard gamma curve even without HDR, so I don't think accuracy is a legal issue. If you mean that the police/insurance people may view the video on a non-HDR display and not see something, that shouldn't happen, they should just see the information at incorrect brightness. Some of the very fine detail may become invisible but it is unlikely to be a problem. In a serious case it would go to police forensics anyway, and they should be able to extract every last detail from HDR10 video. Much better to have the extra detail of HDR10 than not to have it!

I have louvers.

How about removing the centre section of one of the louvers?
Might help your rear view mirror too...

Looking at your last image, it would change the look a little, but might improve it?

I apoligize if I do happen to come off uneasy, I am very literal, part of my disability.

Just stay polite and don't worry.

 

[camtalkatnight]

Yes, except that at the speeds and detail levels where it matters, because we are running out of bitrate on our constant bitrate dashcams, the superior parts of H265 have stopped doing anything useful. My experience was that there was no significant difference to H264 at the times when it mattered. If we had variable bitrate video then it might be a very different situation, but we don't.


That is where you want AV1.

I've not found that H265 does particularly well in that situation even if you have plenty of processing time, but our dashcams don't have much processing time, they must keep up with real time.


I'm not sure I understand that comment. Our current dashcams have tone mapping for HDR, and they don't have a standard gamma curve even without HDR, so I don't think accuracy is a legal issue. If you mean that the police/insurance people may view the video on a non-HDR display and not see something, that shouldn't happen, they should just see the information at incorrect brightness. Some of the very fine detail may become invisible but it is unlikely to be a problem. In a serious case it would go to police forensics anyway, and they should be able to extract every last detail from HDR10 video. Much better to have the extra detail of HDR10 than not to have it!


How about removing the centre section of one of the louvers?
Might help your rear view mirror too...

Looking at your last image, it would change the look a little, but might improve it?


Just stay polite and don't worry.

HDR10 is a completely different thing than the HDR on our dashcams. Two totally different things for two totally different purposes, totally different looking as well, very confusing statement I know :S. My tone mapping reference was in response to HDR10.

HDR10 on a dash cam would be for leisure and not for legal purposes, hence police would need an HDR10 capable display to properly see all brightness levels etc, (not all displays can provide the correct brightness). If they tried to view it in SDR they would need tone mapping from HDR->SDR.

HDR in the dashcam like the A229 Pro, is taking images from two exposures at the same time and meshing them together, it is still SDR in the end, in an SDR container. A bright exposure to pull more detail from dark areas (underlit licenseplates that are hard to get any grasp of), and a dark exposure to get more detail where the whites are blown out in the bright exposure (overbrightened licenseplates). Somehow it is meshed between the two exposures, to theoretically give you a better chance of seeing licenseplates regardless of light levels. Not using that type of HDR on the dashcam, could mean that one could miss out on a legible licenseplate at night/dark areas where the licenseplate could be too dim in the video or blown out clipped whites. Simply put, the dash cam is recording at two different exposures as far as I can tell, and jamming it into an SDR container, nothing about it is HDR10, its a technique that has been called HDR for some time but they just have similiar names which is where the confusion is <3.

Louvers, have a piece of foam to rest on the rear window right in the middle, clipping that down would make the wobble even more . It was a great idea you mentioned, will depend on each build of louvers if that can be done. I can see out the rear window better with louvers than without (rearview mirror usage), if its raining, and no trouble in the day, as well as no noticeable glare on the rear window during daytime from the drivers seat . The cam back there gets noticeable glare though (waiting on cpl to arrive).

 

[Nigel]

HDR10 is a completely different thing than the HDR on our dashcams.

HDR stands for High Dynamic Range in both cases, it is the same thing.
On our current dashcams, the HDR image from the image sensor gets squashed into an 8 bit SDR file for storage instead of being stored in an HDR file.
Once we have AV1, we can have our HDR image stored in a 10 bit HDR10 file, giving a couple of bits of extra detail if viewed in HDR.

If you view an HDR10 video on an SDR display then it will get squashed into SDR, losing the extra couple of bits of detail, and the result will look similar to what we currently get from our SDR files. It does not need to be tone mapped.

Here is a Viofo A139 HDR video, stored in HDR10 format, if you watch it on an HDR display/HDR capable phone, then you should see it in HDR with a larger than standard brightness range, if you view it on an SDR display, it will still play fine, but it will look like normal SDR video with relatively dull light levels despite the sunny day, you might not see 100% of the original detail, but I don't see where the legal problem is?

 

[Panzer Platform]

HDR10 on a dash cam would be for leisure and not for legal purposes, hence police would need an HDR10 capable display to properly see all brightness levels

This is my argument why dash cams should not use H.265, and use H.264 instead.
Or offer both, and let the consumer choose which to use.
For legal purposes with police, insurance, lawyers, and courts H.265 presents compatibility issues.
H.264 does not have these compatibility issues.
Here we go. lol

 

[camtalkatnight]

HDR stands for High Dynamic Range in both cases, it is the same thing.
On our current dashcams, the HDR image from the image sensor gets squashed into an 8 bit SDR file for storage instead of being stored in an HDR file.
Once we have AV1, we can have our HDR image stored in a 10 bit HDR10 file, giving a couple of bits of extra detail if viewed in HDR.

If you view an HDR10 video on an SDR display then it will get squashed into SDR, losing the extra couple of bits of detail, and the result will look similar to what we currently get from our SDR files. It does not need to be tone mapped.

Here is a Viofo A139 HDR video, stored in HDR10 format, if you watch it on an HDR display/HDR capable phone, then you should see it in HDR with a larger than standard brightness range, if you view it on an SDR display, it will still play fine, but it will look like normal SDR video with relatively dull light levels despite the sunny day, you might not see 100% of the original detail, but I don't see where the legal problem is?

Nigel, I can tell that you know a ton and I appreciate you. Tone mapping is important. I honestly did not realise that there were HDR10 dashcams. I still would not use it for anything but fun stuff. Viewing that would be a bear for tone mapping and codec support, correct displays to display the highest and lowest nits, for enforcement legally. I think between what you know and what I know, we can paint a pretty detailed picture . I got told with humble pie lol.

Panzer Platform, You are spot on with there needing to be some sort of standard across agencies for displays and ability to correctly playback files with ease, no tone mapping issues etc. Even though it is a constant evolving tech for codecs to change over to another through the years, it would be great if there was some sort of requirement by federal and state of what is acceptable formats and footage to play back across the entire board, wishful thinking but it would be ideal, not even realistic that any agreement could be made lol. Please color me wrong though, fingers crossed lol! I would be down with a recognized format of h.264 and toss h.265 in favor of it regardless of the benefits of h.265.

I think I will silence myself and let the forum get back on track to the firmware <3. My apologies. I appreciate you guys!

 

[Panzer Platform]

I think I will silence myself and let the forum get back on track to the firmware <3. My apologies.

No need to silence yourself, or apologize.
You’ve done nothing wrong.
Viofo loves hearing feedback from paying customers.
You can also send your requests for improvements to them directly here;
https://support.viofo.com/support/tickets/new
But whatever you do don’t say anything about requesting Viofo adding cloud capability, or you will drive me to drink. Lol
-Chuck

 

[joshuaho96]

No need to silence yourself, or apologize.
You’ve done nothing wrong.
Viofo loves hearing feedback from paying customers.
You can also send your requests for improvements to them directly here;
https://support.viofo.com/support/tickets/new
But whatever you do don’t say anything about requesting Viofo adding cloud capability, or you will drive me to drink. Lol
-Chuck

Cloud is worthless. The whole point of going with Viofo is they don't waste time on features I don't care about like cloud support. Yes, firmware updates are a little more challenging. Yes, I need to manually pull the SD card or connect to the dashcam's wifi hotspot to download video. But I'd rather have a better sensor, better ISP sooner than wait for what is merely nice to have.

 

[Nigel]

Viewing that would be a bear for tone mapping and codec support, correct displays to display the highest and lowest nits, for enforcement legally.

If you need to display the video at the correct nit level before it is legally acceptable then we currently have a big problem!
Full sunlight is 10,000 nits, but our current dashcams recording in H264 have a maximum nits level of 100, therefore they all record sunlight wrongly!
Most of our HDR monitors/TVs/Phones have a maximum of around 1000 nits, which is a lot closer to full sunlight, but it is till a long way off.

In reality, it does not matter if it is displayed at the wrong brightness level. Under UK law, all that matters is that the person who recorded the video is prepared to make a statement that the video accurately represents what happened. If there is some minor detail in the video that does not show up unless carefully viewed on a 1000 nit HDR display then you, or the police forensics, can enhance the video so that everyone can see the details on any display. There may be a problem in some countries, but in general, genuine evidence should always be accepted by a court, even if it needs converting and enhancing with tone mapping, magnification etc.

For legal purposes with police, insurance, lawyers, and courts H.265 presents compatibility issues.
H.264 does not have these compatibility issues.

4K H264 presents compatibility issues too, I have a computer that really struggles to play 4K H264 at correct speed, yet can play FHD H265 fine. I have a TV that can't play 4K H264 or any H265, but can play FHD H264.

H265 does have licensing issues, so is not installed on many computers, Microsoft requires payment for adding an H265 codec to Windows, 4K doesn't have that problem. AV1 also doesn't have that problem, the codec is zero cost on Microsoft and Apple have hardware AV1 support on all recent Macs. ChromeBook has H264, H265 and AV1 support.

The whole point of going with Viofo is they don't waste time on features I don't care about like cloud support.

Yes, if Viofo had spent their time and our money on 4G and cloud connectivity, we probably wouldn't have working HDR now. The cloud dashcam companies (Thinkware and Blackvue, and the rather expensive Nextbase IQ) don't have HDR, so can't read license plates at night, despite being relatively expensive!

 

[Demo]

I did the update yesterday and switched to 21x 9 but was surprised that the file sizes did not change.

A 3 min video at 3840 x 2160 (16:9) and 59.87 Mb/s has a file size of 1.35GB. At 3840 x 1600 (21:9) same bitrate is also 1.35 GB. The same thing with the rear camera the file size stays at 541.1 Mb for both ratios ( 2560 x 1440 and 2560 x 1080) .

I had thought with fewer recorded pixels, less data and so one advantage of the 21:9 would be smaller file size. Where am I wrong in my thinking?

 

[Nigel]

I did the update yesterday and switched to 21x 9 but was surprised that the file sizes did not change.

A 3 min video at 3840 x 2160 (16:9) and 59.87 Mb/s has a file size of 1.35GB. At 3840 x 1600 (21:9) same bitrate is also 1.35 GB. The same thing with the rear camera the file size stays at 541.1 Mb for both ratios ( 2560 x 1440 and 2560 x 1080) .

I had thought with fewer recorded pixels, less data and so one advantage of the 21:9 would be smaller file size. Where am I wrong in my thinking?

It gives you better image quality instead of smaller file size.

If you want smaller file size, turn the bitrate down a step, that should give you roughly the same image quality as at 16:9 but with a smaller file size.

 

[Demo]

It gives you better image quality instead of smaller file size.

If you want smaller file size, turn the bitrate down a step, that should give you roughly the same image quality as at 16:9 but with a smaller file size.

Thanks again Nigel.

I prioritize image quality over filesize , I was just surprised that the file size did not change.

 

[forcefed]

So is this the firmware that finally allows future ota updates?

 

[Mtz]

It gives you better image quality instead of smaller file size.

If you want smaller file size, turn the bitrate down a step, that should give you roughly the same image quality as at 16:9 but with a smaller file size.

Viofo already is already offering higher bitrates compared to other dashcams. Maybe for 21:9 they should reduce the bitrate by about 15%. Also I like quality over file size but overheating is always a problem.

 

[Nigel]

Also I like quality over file size but overheating is always a problem.

But 21:9 runs cooler anyway ... does it?

Does @Panzer Platform have any figures for 16:9 vs 21:9 on the thermal camera?