VIOFO A119 V3

Thats how everything look once you pass 50 YO
 
So I've read that it's recommended to use the 2560x1440 rather than the 2560x1600.
Is there a reason why?
I've noticed that iwth the 2560x1600, I get a bigger view of things, and the 2560x1440 looks like a cropped version of it.
I may be mistaken though, so please correct me if I'm wrong!
 
So I've read that it's recommended to use the 2560x1440 rather than the 2560x1600.
Is there a reason why?
I've noticed that iwth the 2560x1600, I get a bigger view of things, and the 2560x1440 looks like a cropped version of it.
I may be mistaken though, so please correct me if I'm wrong!
2560:1440 is 16:9 ratio, which is possibly the same as your PC/laptop screen or your phone, so when you play back the video it fills the screen without black bars down the sides.

2560:1600 gives you a taller image, using more (all?) of the available pixels on the sensor, but most likely it only shows extra sky and dashboard which are not essential for dashcam purposes.
 
2560:1600 gives you a taller image, using more (all?) of the available pixels on the sensor, but most likely it only shows extra sky and dashboard which are not essential for dashcam purposes.

Exactly why I have not posted any footage over 2560x1440. Which is undoubtably the best setting.
 
This is a clip recorded at 2560x1600.

Encoded first at 2560x1600 so you can see how it looks, then the same clip encoded to 2560x1400 so you can see the wider view.


 
The A119 V3 does NOT widen the field of view selecting 2560 x 1600 at 16:10 ratio, it only makes the image taller than 2560 x 1440 at 16:9 ratio, they both use 2560 pixel width.
 
The A119 V3 does NOT widen the field of view selecting 2560 x 1600 at 16:10 ratio, it only makes the image taller than 2560 x 1440 at 16:9 ratio, they both use 2560 pixel width.

Correct, but the video hopefully shows the effect as a good example
 
the video hopefully shows the effect as a good example
Your video, properties
Bitrate: 3594 kbps
Width: 1728 pixels
Height: 1080 pixels
Aspect Ratio: 16:10

Give the original.
The viewing angle does not depend on the resolution, although of course it should !!
 
It's only meant to show what the bars and no bars look like.

I'll upload RAW files tonight
 
nice resolution reveal, very few A119 V3 owners are aware of Viofo image width cropping but now they can see the proof.
another interesting fact is the A119 V3 Lens with 1600p sony sensor is identical to the A129 Lens with 1080p sony sensor but A119 V3 Lens has narrower width and height field of view than A129 1080p Lens.

47191

47193

47194
 
Last edited:
Your video, properties
Bitrate: 3594 kbps
Width: 1728 pixels
Height: 1080 pixels
Aspect Ratio: 16:10

Give the original.
The viewing angle does not depend on the resolution, although of course it should !!

RAW file here:

> CLICK <


.
 
RAW file here:
There the format is 16:10, of course it will compress, the video on the monitor is 16:10 and everything will be ok.
The viewing angle does not depend on it, they will be equal.
Here is a photo from the original, today shot.

Make the resolutions 1280x800, 1440x900 and 1680x1050 and everything will be ok.
1600P changes the vertical viewing angle, but it is not needed.
 

Attachments

  • W.jpg
    W.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 37
Last edited:
How many people are not going to be concerned about a fraction of the picture being cropped. Back in the day all video was always cropped unless you wanted wavy edges and jumbled picture top and bottom of the screen. It was called overscan and most TV and displays of the day cropped the picture automatically and sometimes quite severely. Most people probably did not know this was happening or even want to know as long as they saw want they wanted.
 
Last edited:
How many people are not going to be concerned about a faction of the picture being cropped. Back in the day all video was always cropped unless you wanted wavy edges and jumbled picture top and bottom of the screen. It was called overscan and most TV and displays of the day cropped the picture automatically and sometimes quite severely. Most people probably did not know this was happening or even want to know as long as they saw want they wanted.
Worse, with the televisions of the day, the size of the picture varied with the brightness. The HAD to over-scan the picture. The appalling thing was that the industry was so used to over-scanning, it was even included in the specification for HDTV, even though it was completely unnecessary and wasteful for HDTV.
 
Sorry for the late comparison between V2 6Ro and V3 fw1.02. I had switch rear to front and forgot change res. I thought it would not be a fair fight unless they were both the same res. Had to get some more footage. Ignore dashcam Date/Time and info for V2 as Incorrect. Both dashcam Had CPLs and GPUs.
Will up about 10 mins to 20mins from posting this link.

Tractor, thanks for posting this comparison. A few observations:

- V3 shows more contrast (higher dynamic range?);
- V3 tends to blow out highlights in high-dynamic and changing conditions;
- The colours in the V3 footage seem more saturated (not necessarily a good thing);
- V3 shows more detail (resolution), which is no surprise (1080p vs. 1440p).

I realize it's difficult to separate the hardware from the firmware. I also know the firmware is still in its infancy, but for now, my conclusion is that the new V3 with Sony sensor has a lot of potential, but its firmware needs to go through a few iterations to mature a little.
 
Both samples are 1440p (not 1080p) so equal comparison if you look at the info from both the V3 and V2 displayed at the bottom of the screen. You will notice a different text size of the Dashcams info if the samples text are at different resolutions. If you read my posting you quoted it said it was at 1080p but I change it to 1440p before taking the footage,
Saturation is a personal choice depending on how the display showing the footage is set-up. The colours in the V2 are muted but not as bad as the V4 firmware, Mod6Ro represents a vast improvement over the supplied firmware.
There will always be a blowout with automatic exposure and it also happens with V2 in certain conditions and most auto exposure devices.
Changes will obviously be made over time and the V3 already shows big improvements over the V2 so can only get better once @BCHobbyist has a chance to start investigating the firmware.
 
Both samples are 1440p (not 1080p) so equal comparison if you look at the info from both the V3 and V2 displayed at the bottom of the screen. You will notice a different text size of the Dashcams info if the samples text are at different resolutions. If you read my posting you quoted it said it was at 1080p but I change it to 1440p before taking the footage,
Saturation is a personal choice depending on how the display showing the footage is set-up. The colours in the V2 are muted but not as bad as the V4 firmware, Mod6Ro represents a vast improvement over the supplied firmware.
There will always be a blowout with automatic exposure and it also happens with V2 in certain conditions and most auto exposure devices.
Changes will obviously be made over time and the V3 already shows big improvements over the V2 so can only get better once @BCHobbyist has a chance to start investigating the firmware.

Sorry, missed the 1440p part in the V2 footage... Still, the V2 sensor shows its limitations in physical resolution.
I do expect the V3 to improve in IQ with time. As I'm in the market for a new dash cam, I might just opt for the V3 and see how it improves.
 
Back
Top