VIOFO A119 V1 V2 Modified Firmware MODs Archive

Most of your grumbles relates to how YouTube can change a video with their encoding. The video is best viewed at 4K as anything below 4K uses Youtube's Lower Bitrate rendering between 8-12Mbps for1080p but 4K is between 30 - 40 Mbps. The video at my end was rendered at 35Mbps. Your monitor would only give you a simulated lower resolution version even viewing a 4K file. You state your monitor is not a 4K monitor.
 
Last edited:
most 1080p content on YouTube is at around 4Mbps unless it's on a popular channel, they get higher bitrates
 
jokiin said:
most 1080p content on YouTube is at around 4Mbps unless it's on a popular channel, they get higher bitrates
Click to expand...
And most people wont even be using that since the average screen resolution is less than that.
 
OK, thanks for all the comments.

First of all let me stress my comments were NOT intended as "grumbles" - they were merely my thoughts having viewed the video and being amazed at the perceived disparity between the 2 halves of the footage.

There seems to be the suggestion that I need a 4k monitor counterbalanced by one that says the majority don't even use 1080? I have no idea what screen resolution "most people" use - I chose a 32" 1440p as it seemed the best compromise between size, text legibility, video quality and value for money in my particular environment.

I do not understand why the particular handling characteristics of YouTube has seemed to "downgrade" one half of the video over the other, at least on my system. Although someone else told me that on their 1080p monitor there seemed little difference between the two? So obviously it becomes very difficult to judge the ACTUAL video quality, sharpness and detail etc. when there are so many variables in effect. I assume any tweaks should only be done by assessing the raw footage direct when displayed on a monitor with a resolution equal to or better than the video resolution.

All I can say say is the A119 V2 gives extremely pleasing results especially with the excellent 6Ro firmware, but I definitely think it could be even better with less sharpening applied.
 
The footage released by me has had no processing and is as is. I test drove the MOD R6o and many more before that I know what R6o is capable of but on this outing the results you see are the results I got. You could watch some of my other YouTube stuff some in 1080p for comparison. No one is saying the A119v2 Mod6Ro is bad is just the limitation of the hardware/software and is by todays standard in video very aged. If you are content with the A119 V2 no one is forcing anything on you. The A119 v2 as a lower VBR range in comparison with the V3 which will make a big difference. FYI The reason for rending to 4K is to combat the YouTube problems.
 
OK, I must confess it starts to get confusing with all the various parameters, bit-rates, resolution and different packaging so I don't fully understand all the implications especially the effect YouTube streaming has on the video.

If I understand what you are saying does that mean that your 1440p video, uploaded to YT as 4k should look exactly the same, when streamed on YT and viewed full screen on my monitor, as the original video or will it still be degraded?
 
Your monitor is not a 4K monitor so you will only see the YouTube 1440p version at best. Anything moving swiftly that YouTube renders is likely to be substandard. If there are enough views the quality will improve. The first viewing even on a 4K screen from YouTube is a mess but gets better. To improve on this you need to be higher up on the YouTube Celebrity list who seem to get priority.
 
Now I am really confused - I know I will only see 1440p on 1440p my monitor because that is what the video is recorded in so surely a 4k monitor cannot improve it anyway?
 
YouTube stream the video resolution according the equipment connected to them. So if you view 4K YouTube on a 1440p device they stream 1440p or less to you. The playback is dependant on your hardware being able to meet the YouTube requirements which it checks on playback. The video sent is always a lower resolution when it commences but after a few secs or min or so it will play the best resolution for your hardware. In your case 1440p.
 
Sounds to me like Youtube isn't the kiddie for this type of exercise and we need to obtain the raw file(s).

I uploaded one 3 minute .6Ro clip to YT and whilst it's OK(ish), it's not as good as playing the ~550Mb file direct through Firefox.

I've got a 24" 1080 monitor and playing the side by side through YT in HD, full screen, there isn't that much of a difference for me, but, looking at the 'still' shot, the one you click to set YT playing, there is a difference.

The bottom line, for me, is, comparing the side by side on my setup, it wouldn't be worth changing a V2 to a V3 for a slight improvement, but the reality with raw files is probably a different story.

my head hurts 😀
 
OK that seems logical Tractor, so as suggested above unless you understand all the ramifications of the inner workings of YT don't judge the PQ of any video being streamed!

Funnily enough I did notice when I was looking at that video a couple of times I was offered 4k in the pop-up settings? I assume YT had not decided what my machine was capable of at that point? (Win10 + Google browser)
 
I decided to release this raw format for downloading from Google Drive it will never appear on YT.
Taken on a very drab grey and wet day. It's 3mins long and may take awhile to download on slower connections.
Google drive link.
 
Just downloaded it, only took a minute, and had a look.

I get the picture now😀 - that's pretty darn good especially under those conditions.

I see the bit rate is a tad under 26 so I assume that might be tweaked eventually for even better results?
 
That bitrate is the average it can go up 43Mbps if the scene requires it. It will certainly will get tweaked but in what way? It depends how far it can be pushed before it causes a problem. @BCHobbyist is the technician but it may take a while to find his way around the new firmware.
 
Last edited:
Agree with Woodbar - viewing the raw file shows the V3 at its best. Looks good.
 
Loaded the Mod 6Ro. This really enhanced my A119. Thanks for the mod. I did the comparison video also.
 
The A119 V2 modified color saturation adjustments require more enhancement to match the new V3 model firmware color profile. MOD Beta testing is being done.
 
Excellent that the V2 is still being tweaked.

I'll more than likely hang onto my V2 for a while yet, let the V3 settle down.
 
BCHobbyist said:
The A119 V2 modified color saturation adjustments require more enhancement to match the new V3 model firmware color profile. MOD Beta testing is being done.
Click to expand...
Excellent.....Thanks for that
 
Created new A119V2 - STABLE MOD version 6Rp , 5Rp , 4Rp
DOWNLOAD > https://viofo-dash-cam-modified-firmware.blogspot.com/p/download-a119-mod-file.html

The RP series MODs combine radical and subversive alterations to color values in an attempt to reach the ultimate realistic video colorization achieved by the all powerful V3. (DCTeam translation = cranked up the values)
Recommend 24 Mb/s for reduced file size or 26 Mb/s for improved image detail. View the A119 ChangeLog page for full details.
Higher Bitrate MODs improve image detail and increase MP4 video clip size.

MOD Install Guide: https://viofo-dash-cam-modified-firmware.blogspot.com/
A119 Dash Cam Review: https://viofo-a119-dash-cam-review.blogspot.com

47390

---
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/BCHobbyist/videos
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top