VIOFO A119 V3

[Kremmen]

Just for info, I'm powering my V3 with a Nextbase V1 HWK which outputs 5V 1.5A

 

[ursamajor]

What I see in this forum:
1. Viofo adding 60FPS. 5% thanks, 95% hate, banding, darker image, etc
2. Viofo adding HDR. 5% thanks, 95% hate, poor image during day
3. Viofo adding 21:9. 10% great! 90% not useful, cannot see traffic light in very rare situations
etc.

This is your OWN opinion and your vision about the opinions of the users on the forum. Banding has nothing to do with 60fps and HDR. Since both the sensor and the processor can handle this (60 fps at full resolution and HDR ARE in their specifications), that issue should not exist, the problem is not with them, but with their programming. I understand that WDR is not reliable because the sensor does not support it. And yet, images with WDR on are the best (except in very low light). This is the way they should follow.
HDR as it is now (using consecutive frames to increase dynamic range) is really a sinister joke, except that it allows random reading of license plates at night. In daylight is... a joke, let's only say that.
1. I haven't heard anyone complaining about 60 fps mode, they just reject it because of preconceived ideas. For those who assume that the image is a bit darker (like me), the 60 fps mode is perfect.
2. About HDR ... I'd rather not talk about it, it is probably the worst possible setting in terms of image quality. That's my point.
3. Ultrawide @ 21: 9 is very good on cameras that have wide FOV. Some traffic light problems can arise with the A119V3, which has a real FOV of 95 degrees. But even there, the advantages of using ultrawide are much more than the disadvantages.

 

[kamkar]

Most car build in chargers are like a insult to any charge needing person, i mean 500 mah that cant even keep up powering the phone and screen if you use say google maps.
But even just charging you will have to drive "all" day to fully charge your phone, and you should NOT use a port like that for a dashcam.
I use a +2 A port and my phone can even charge while i use the waze like app, and on same port my 2014 7" tablet can even run google maps / navigation and still charge too.

 

[EduCam]

I did some tests with 119V3, the last fw 2.3, but with different power sources. With the 1A source banding appears in low light, but with the 2A source the banding disappears.

Here is my theory:

According to CARCAMCENTRAL's review, the normal consumption of the Viofo A119 V3 is 1.67W, which powered with a 5V supply means it requires only 334mA.
The problem with these interferences (banding and flickering) is not so much because of the amperage the power supply is capable of delivering, but because of the quality of its construction. Cheap power supplies in many cases have high noise and ripple values. Usually these values increase when the power demand increases.
These noise and ripple problems (only measurable with an oscilloscope) are very common in cheap mobile chargers and cheap power supplies that omit, or minimize, in their design the use of output coils and capacitors to reduce costs.

Probably the new firmware requires more power consumption. Also in low light conditions the granularity of the image increases, which makes the processor work harder, more consumption, because an image with a lot of detail at the pixel level (such as an image with noise) is much more difficult to compress and requires more work from the processor (and that's the reason why the problem worsens when adding options that add more load to the processor such as 60fps and HDR).

More processor work means more power consumption, and more power consumption, in a cheap power supply, means more electrical noise and ripple, which leads to more interference in the electronics and ultimately shows up in banding and flicker.

 

[ursamajor]

Here is my theory:

The problem with these interferences (banding and flickering) is not so much because of the amperage the power supply is capable of delivering, but because of the quality of its construction. Cheap power supplies in many cases have high noise and ripple values. Usually these values increase when the power demand increases.
These noise and ripple problems (only measurable with an oscilloscope) are very common in cheap mobile chargers and cheap power supplies that omit, or minimize, in their design the use of output coils and capacitors to reduce costs.

Another theory:

What you said it's an assumption. How do you know it's not the camera that has bad@undersized regulators and/or controllers?

 

[Mtz]

What you said it's an assumption. How do you know it's not the camera that has bad@undersized regulators and/or controllers?

I observe that you are on this forum something like a God which is showing to the people how wrong are they in everything they say. No matter what a user is saying you are against his ideas. You have no school or graduation or at least experience in any domain of dashcam world, to sustain your fights.
I am here from 9 years and I never saw such behavior from any user. Some came here and doing things like you are doing here in latest three months, but after they observed that this forum is a nice forum, they quit in some way. Quit the forum or start respecting other users. You even fighted against the greatest user of this forum with the biggest dashcam experience in the world showing him how wrong is he and how right are you. This only a God can do. Or a troll.
But God will never insulte the amazing knowledge of jokiin and his kindness and helping people from here no matter if they bought his dashcam ot not. He was so kind on the last fight with you that he didn't told you that his company is offering for free the DashCam Player after you accused the manufacturers are not offering for free such player. He could demonstrate to you that he is different and his company is offering the thing you asked. But I think he avoided that just to not draw your attention to his products and start trolling his products too like you are doing with Viofo.
Also not forget that you declared how great is the ADAS on 70Mai, a feature which is 101% useless and because is useless serious manufacturers are not including it on the camera options. But only if Viofo offered ADAS could be a disaster implementation. If is made by 70Mai is fantastic and helping you in your daily driving. And you declared this even you don't have the 70mai but only for few days and the result was fantastic after your big and great experience of 3 days with 70Mai.

If you are not respecting a product or a brand it is your choice. In almost every post, you are against a camera which you don't have, but also on a camera you have. Just read your latest two posts from here. A camera which is declared maybe the best in the world all around great camera by @DashCamMan , have bad electronics inside, have a sinistre HDR implementation, you are pretending to V3 to have declared horizontal FOV even ALL dashcams manufacturers in the world are declaring diagonal FOV and you repeated this many many times. No dashcam manufacturer is declaring horizontal FOV but you want only Viofo to declare it and if not declare like you want they are cheaters.

You should ask site administrator to allow comments on his camera reviews so you can post there how bad are the cameras he is declaring that are great. You can post the same bad review to any Viofo product because it share the same lens, same CMOS, almost same firmware as you said. More than that, you can post bad reviews to any dashcam which is using same CMOS or same chipset as Viofo because Novatek is implementing the HDR, so all dashcams made with Novatek and Sony are sinistre. Do not forget how desperate you were to obtain the A129 Plus HDR firmware and after you obtained it from Viofo because they were good boys and gave to you, you just started the HDR hate against Viofo, even it is impossible the HDR to work like you expect because the cars are moving. Moving cars = different recorded frames. More speed = more distance between frames = more ghosting. The idea of HDR is for photography because are static, not for videos. Can be for videos but with with much bigger costs. A camera with a HDR like you expect can cost $2000 and you can not afford such dashcam, you bought something cheap.
If a user is reading Dashcamtalk reviews and then will read your opinions about that products the results can be two: reviews are fake and telling to people to buy poor cameras or you are a troll.

 

[relu]

......
According to CARCAMCENTRAL's review, the normal consumption of the Viofo A119 V3 is 1.67W, which powered with a 5V supply means it requires only 334mA.
......

That's right, I measured it after reading your post

 

[Mtz]

@relu, can you test with firmware V1.03? Use the same settings of 2K 30FPS. Before updating with 1.03 firmware you can make the same test like in your post but with 16:9 resolution to avoid the AR differences.

 

[Cristianson]

@ursamajor i wonder how are you powering your dashcam. Charger or usb port?

 

[relu]

@relu, can you test with firmware V1.03? Use the same settings of 2K 30FPS. Before updating with 1.03 firmware you can make the same test like in your post but with 16:9 resolution to avoid the AR differences.

I measured both fw: 1.03 and 2.3 with the same settings. I used a powerbank with 2A at the output. Consumption is variable, but with fw 1.03 the maximum consumption goes up to 400mA, and with fw 2.3 goes up to 480mA.

 

[Paul Iddon]

@ursamajor i wonder how are you powering your dashcam. Charger or usb port?

He doesn't own the A113 V3.

 

[Mtz]

I measured both fw: 1.03 and 2.3 with the same settings. I used a powerbank with 2A at the output. Consumption is variable, but with fw 1.03 the maximum consumption goes up to 400mA, and with fw 2.3 goes up to 480mA.

Comparing these results and previous post of you and @EduCam post I see 20% more power used by the V2.3 firmware compared to V1.03 firmware which means the latest SDK is using more power compared to first SDK. Maybe with professional tools the results can be more accurate.

 

[Dashmellow]

The difference between 400mA and 480mA seems fairly minimal. In other words, if the camera were powered by a typical 1 amp or 1.5 amp or even a 2 amp charger would there be any difference in how it performs?

 

[Mtz]

He said that banding on his V3 was only when he used the 1A power bank and no banding when used the 2A power bank. This means for me at least one difference.

 

[jokiin]

He said that banding on his V3 was only when he used the 1A power bank and no banding when used the 2A power bank. This means for me at least one difference.

it's possible the voltage is more stable on the bigger power bank, power supplies that drop below 5V under load are no issue when charging something like a phone with a 3.8v battery, it's a bigger issue for the camera running 5.4v input

 

[DashCamMan]

Another theory:

What you said it's an assumption. How do you know it's not the camera that has bad@undersized regulators and/or controllers?

This is your OWN opinion and your vision about the opinions of the users on the forum. Banding has nothing to do with 60fps and HDR. Since both the sensor and the processor can handle this (60 fps at full resolution and HDR ARE in their specifications), that issue should not exist, the problem is not with them, but with their programming. I understand that WDR is not reliable because the sensor does not support it. And yet, images with WDR on are the best (except in very low light). This is the way they should follow.
HDR as it is now (using consecutive frames to increase dynamic range) is really a sinister joke, except that it allows random reading of license plates at night. In daylight is... a joke, let's only say that.
1. I haven't heard anyone complaining about 60 fps mode, they just reject it because of preconceived ideas. For those who assume that the image is a bit darker (like me), the 60 fps mode is perfect.
2. About HDR ... I'd rather not talk about it, it is probably the worst possible setting in terms of image quality. That's my point.
3. Ultrawide @ 21: 9 is very good on cameras that have wide FOV. Some traffic light problems can arise with the A119V3, which has a real FOV of 95 degrees. But even there, the advantages of using ultrawide are much more than the disadvantages.

I am getting numerous complaints on your posts. I try to be tolerant since this is an international forum and for many English, is not their first language. The biggest complaint is that you are flaming other users and borderline insulting them. You dismiss other people's opinions and position your opinions as facts. Which seems like a strange thing to do, especially for a camera you don't own. Providing feedback on cameras and manufacturers is encouraged but the hostile and antagonistic posts must stop.

Unfortunately if this continues I will have no choice to ban you.

 

[SawMaster]

Somewhere waaaaay back in time when the A119 series began there were powering issues discovered and someone checked the power draw here. It didn't seem high compared to other cams, BUT when a higher-rated PS was used the problems went away. Several people tested various PS's and it was found that to run the A119 reliably, you needed a 1.5A rated PS, even when the measured current draw never even reached 1A. Nobody could ever figure out why this was happening, but it led to most of us advising to use ONLY the approved Viofo-supplied PS's with these cams simply because this seemed to eliminate those problems.

So while measurements may not indicate the need, experience tells that with these cams you should be using at least a 1.5A PS, and a 2A PS would probably be better. Unfortunately on another thread it has just been found that the HWK3 sold for these cams has some huge regulation problems so I am not certain that recommending and using Viofo's PS's is sufficient to avoid power-related problems which could include 'banding'.

I would recommend those experimenting or testing for 'banding' to consider using a better cleaner 2A or higher power source to eliminate the chance of this being a PS related problem. This could also aid diagnosis if it does turn out to be a PS-related problem.

Phil

 

[murcod]

Also, am I one of a few with very low audio levels- or are others just not concerned about it? I've seen a few others mention it, but no fixes? Both my A119 V3 are the same.

So, being a glutton for punishment I purchased a 3rd A119 V3 and all three suffer from the low audio volume problem. A short clip is here. Doing an internet search shows this is a common problem with seemingly no cure?

Thoughts?

I downloaded the free version of Videoproc and it enables increasing the volume by up to 400%, but the dashcam should be doing a better job with audio levels!

 

[kamkar]

Sound in my car ( with the A139 ) are fine, but really my cheapo car with tonnes of thin cheap plastic are almost too loud for the naked ear, no doubt where Suzuki have saved a penny or two.
I must also admit that me personally i have pretty low value on the audio in cameras, most often i have to mute the sound as youtube otherwise cough op a copyright warning.
And also i seem to flap my lips a lot when i drive, and there are no self censorship in my car so anything goes, and i try to minimize that for the people of the world as not all are salty old sea dogs like myself.

 

[EduCam]

Another theory:

What you said it's an assumption. How do you know it's not the camera that has bad@undersized regulators and/or controllers?

Obviously, it's just my theory.

I've seen how cheap chargers with high levels of noise and ripple destroy electronic devices.

It happens with laptops, when people buy a replacement power supply and most of them are of a much poorer design than the original (no matter that they can deliver high amperage, that does not guarantee a quality electrical current), and they lack many certifications they should have such as FCC. Eventually the laptop stops charging because of a damaged component on the board.

It also happens in smartphones. For example, cheap chargers destroy the charging control chip of iPhones, the famous U2 Tristar IC (famous in the mobile repair industry I mean).

A typical symptom produced by such poor quality chargers in some smartphones is erratic operation of the touch panel when used while charging.

Usually these chargers are from rare brands or simply unbranded, and they are a plague in online sales sites such as eBay, Aliexpress, Amazon, etc..

I find your theory very implausible.

First because it is very unlikely that an experienced manufacturer like Viofo would make such a basic mistake as using components at the limit of their capabilities. Also taking into account that these cameras often operate in extreme temperature conditions, if it were as you say they would break down in a few months or even weeks.

And the second reason, is because if it were an undersizing of the components the problem of banding and flickering would affect absolutely to all users without exception for this model of camera.