6Vh
1080p@60fps + CPL + Normal sharpness + EV 0 + 60Hz + WDR off
evening bokeh drive :)
Looks very cold in the falling snow, very slippery, huge traffic jam great job avoiding it and taking that shortcut across the crazy roads, thanks for sharing.
 
Lens 2
Firmware 6Vh
1080p@30fps
Custom Hoya CPL
Normal sharpness
+ EV 0
+ 60Hz
WDR off

Small clip below:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/319q9iboau8gnn2/2019_0602_203403_019.MP4?dl=0
Really like that test route, has everything to assess IQ except clear weather, suggest you dim the dash light intensity down to last 1 or 2 levels to eliminate that blue panel reflection, or cover the center console LCD screen and lit knobs, temporarily of course. Mod-6Vh is a very stable and reliable version for 130 degree FOV Lens owners. You can see the benefit of higher Bit Rate just looking at road surface detail, that is my favorite illuminated Bridge, thanks for sharing, it brings back memories of the hard times we all went through to achieve superior image quality.

A119S Phase 2 Modified Firmware is approaching, more fun times ahead !
 
@BCHobbyist Have you considered uploading these videos in 4k. For example YouTube's bitrates for 1080p are horrendous for scenes with any speed but if you upload in 4k it allows the video when viewed in 4k to sustain a bitrates that resembles the footage you originally viewed on your desktop. You don't get all the compression artifacts. I have to do this because I do alot of country driving flying down country roads and it's the only way to upload for me otherwise the video looks like complete trash.
I found that YouTube always starts playing with a low resolution and after some time switches to 1080. The video quality is set by default to auto mode. If you manually change it to 1080 (not auto) it's playing 1080 right away.
 
@BCHobbyist Have you considered uploading these videos in 4k. For example YouTube's bitrates for 1080p are sub 10mbps... for scenes with any speed compression artifacting reigns. If you upload in 4k or even 2k it processes the video at a much higher bitrates and when viewed in 2k or 4k plays at a much higher bitrate. The key is to do it in 4k only because YouTube will process at the highest bitrate and to view it at 4k will also allow the highest bitrate to download. If you view that 4k stream in 1080p with high action scenes you will be plagued once again due to downloading at 4-8mbps. 2k or 4k would be best. Sorry if it's wordy but here's some examples... The second video is the original and when viewed in TV or a good monitor the wooded areas are complete trash.

A119S 6VH reencoded to 4k (Make sure to view above 1080p since YouTube uses a trash bitrates for 1080p streams)

Same Video Direct Upload from SD Card.
Great suggestions but . . .
Not sure about your demo link since there is no other YouTube version without your 4K upscaling to compare, RAW footage will always be highest quality, upscaling doesn't increase quality. When you upscale 1080 to 2K or 4K for upload what file sizes is created over 4GB for 4mins, it gets insanely large.
I understand your intention to trick YouTube's algorithm into processing at higher bitrates but anytime you upscale any video to higher resolution than original no quality is gained except 2-4 times the render times to waste hours of renders when 15-30mins works well enough. The most difficult type of video to retain quality on YouTube is Dashcams/Action Cams. As long as visitors always view in Fullscreen at 1080P quality the content will look better than YouTube's Auto 480P or 720PHD.

Maybe you're not aware but the high quality YouTube videos on other channels are granted for paid YouTube accounts allowing uploaded content with MUCH higher bitrates than regular free accounts. My channel is too small to quality for increased bitrates. The other option is to use new VP9 codecs instead of H.264 for YouTube uploads, VP9 has same quality as H.264 but creates smaller files but the encode time is longer to gain faster upload time. My YouTube Dashcam footage isn't re-sharpened or changed in any way unlike others that greatly alter image quality with video editing software before upload.

When I have more free time i'll experiment with different video codecs and resolutions but there is no way I'd justify spending 2 to 4 times longer encoding/rendering/uploading by upscaling every video for such a small channel.
 
I have two links there. The first is not edited except for the 4k. The second is the original. Now I have no editing other than resolution change. I there is no quality better than raw but YouTube uses H.264 at low bit rate for 1080p and below. Once you enter into 2k up my understanding is anything you upload will use vp9 instead and also uses a much higher bitrate. So in this case where 1080p high motion is trashed on youtube, because you've tricked YouTube you now retain the quality per say of the raw image. Now this is a non factor for people viewing the raw files but I got my start watching your YouTube and when I'd see stuff for higher bitrate I was kind of like..."well it appears there's a lot of artifacting I do t see a difference"....only because whether we view or upload in 1080p we are restricted to low bitrates that can only be overcome on free accounts with at least 2k. It does take a bit longer but I guess I just click and come back when it's done lol. I also view from my TV so I think the notices are drastically more apparent than when I view from phone or laptop. You've accomplished great work here it was just something I noticed. Only reason I really brought this up was I have about 3 hours of footage I privately uploaded from a road trip all in the countryside and imo it's all pretty unusable to due to artifacting with the low bitrate YouTube's 1080p offers. Those two videos show the drastic difference. I simply told my video editor to render in 4k/60 and uploaded it. Only thing is someone still has to watch it at at least 2k. I noticed 1080p with a 4k upload still gives the same crap low bit rate. I just find it nice when showcasing higher bitrates that people on YouTube actually get to see the difference.
maybe your not aware but YouTube enforces copyright content and removed your 2nd link so I have nothing to compare.
 
YouTube's Quality Setting option for 2K or 4K appears depending on Operating System and Browser.
YouTube's higher Bit Rates use VP9 codec, verify on any video with right-click select "Stats for nerds".

Google Chrome: VP9 is enabled on all OS.
Linux: VP9 is enabled in Firefox,
Mac: VP9 is disabled in Firefox, thus only H264 with 1080p will get played.
Windows: VP9 with 4K depends on the machine

enable VP9 in FIREFOX by setting media.mediasource.webm.enabled to true in about:config
 
Last edited:
Requesting feedback to rank these 5 different 30 second upscaled videos on 1080P + 1440P compared against baseline > 000-A129-1080P-upscale-test.
Notice the road surface and clouds to assess rank easier.
(example rank 1080P Best to Poor = 300,100,500,400,200)
(example rank 1440P Best to Poor = 400,500)
- - -
YouTube's Quality Setting option for 2K or 4K appears depending on Operating System and Browser.
YouTube's higher Bit Rates use VP9 codec, verify on any video with right-click select "Stats for nerds".

Google Chrome: VP9 is enabled on all OS.
Linux: VP9 is enabled in Firefox,
Mac: VP9 is disabled in Firefox, thus only H264 with 1080p will get played.
Windows: VP9 with 4K depends on the machine

enable VP9 in FIREFOX by setting media.mediasource.webm.enabled to true in about:config







(plan to delete this post after a few days, thanks for Alpha testing)
*Edit was able to view now. Same here not seeing much if any difference.
 
Last edited:
Requesting feedback to rank these 5 different 30 second upscaled videos on 1080P + 1440P compared against baseline > 000-A129-1080P-upscale-test.
Notice the road surface and clouds to assess rank easier.
(example rank 1080P Best to Poor = 300,100,500,400,200)
(example rank 1440P Best to Poor = 400,500)
- - -
YouTube's Quality Setting option for 2K or 4K appears depending on Operating System and Browser.
YouTube's higher Bit Rates use VP9 codec, verify on any video with right-click select "Stats for nerds".

Google Chrome: VP9 is enabled on all OS.
Linux: VP9 is enabled in Firefox,
Mac: VP9 is disabled in Firefox, thus only H264 with 1080p will get played.
Windows: VP9 with 4K depends on the machine

enable VP9 in FIREFOX by setting media.mediasource.webm.enabled to true in about:config







(plan to delete this post after a few days, thanks for Alpha testing)

They all look the same to me.
1440P 400 might be a little better then others (even then 500), but I wouldn't count on it, I compared several times, sometimes it looked better then others sometimes it didn't.
Long story short, I don't see any difference :)
 
Here are my reuploads to test. Now if you want I have a whole days worth I can compile thats roughly an hour worth of footage that i can do the same for if you wish and compile it all into one video so you can have different lighting to work with. P.S. all audio disabled this time XD

RAW A119S TS
Raw Youtube Upload
Upconvert 1080p to 4k to Enable VP9 Test
 
Last edited:
Here are my reuploads to test. Now if you want I have a whole days worth I can compile thats roughly an hour worth of footage that i can do the same for if you wish and compile it all into one video so you can have different lighting to work with. P.S. all audio disabled this time XD

RAW A119S TS
Raw Youtube Upload
Upconvert 1080p to 4k to Enable VP9 Test
The 4K VP9 has improved quality at the cost of 4times the file size and encoding time for small viewership that actually have correct browser and matching 4K montior/TV. The maximum I'd encode would be 2K and as predicted has no quality benefit to my tweaked render template. The most common YouTube resolution supported today is 1080P i'll stick with that for all 1080P footage, may even downscale my 4K GitUp G3 Action Cam videos to 1080P just for wider audience.
 
Requesting feedback to rank these 5 different 30 second upscaled videos on 1080P + 1440P compared against baseline > 000-A129-1080P-upscale-test.
Notice the road surface and clouds to assess rank easier.
(example rank 1080P Best to Poor = 300,100,500,400,200)
(example rank 1440P Best to Poor = 400,500)
- - -
YouTube's Quality Setting option for 2K or 4K appears depending on Operating System and Browser.
YouTube's higher Bit Rates use VP9 codec, verify on any video with right-click select "Stats for nerds".

Google Chrome: VP9 is enabled on all OS.
Linux: VP9 is enabled in Firefox,
Mac: VP9 is disabled in Firefox, thus only H264 with 1080p will get played.
Windows: VP9 with 4K depends on the machine

enable VP9 in FIREFOX by setting media.mediasource.webm.enabled to true in about:config







(plan to delete this post after a few days, thanks for Alpha testing)

As others have reported not seeing much difference.
 
The 4K VP9 has improved quality at the cost of 4times the file size and encoding time for small viewership that actually have correct browser and matching 4K montior/TV. The maximum I'd encode would be 2K and as predicted has no quality benefit to my tweaked render template. The most common YouTube resolution supported today is 1080P i'll stick with that for all 1080P footage, may even downscale my 4K GitUp G3 Action Cam videos to 1080P just for wider audience.

I didn't notice too much of a difference between them. I think it's fine if you just stick with what you're already doing. Especially if it saves time and file size.

What I see some other people do is they will include a link in their video description with raw video clips available for download. Then just mention in the youtube video that if they want to see the full quality video, to download the samples below.
 
crashercarlton I'm sorry to say but your driving standards are shocking you are a really BAD driver, your username is your fate and I just hope you don't take an innocent party out with you.
 
In the past I had 2 car DVRs one from DOD and second DAB201 (they both broke after sometime). Now I have A119s. After first recording the special effect hit my eyes. I think it can be called fish-eye effect - so every items on the edges seen on record are rounded. In both 2 cameras I haven't noticed this effect. Is it normal in this camera ? I have MOD-26s firmware. See the picture. Thanks for answer
 

Attachments

  • Clipboard01.jpg
    Clipboard01.jpg
    261.8 KB · Views: 44
In the past I had 2 car DVRs one from DOD and second DAB201 (they both broke after sometime). Now I have A119s. After first recording the special effect hit my eyes. I think it can be called fish-eye effect - so every items on the edges seen on record are rounded. In both 2 cameras I haven't noticed this effect. Is it normal in this camera ? I have MOD-26s firmware. See the picture. Thanks for answer

This is normal. The fish-eye effect depends on the lens type. A119S was released with several lens types over the years. The last release comes with the lens that has strong fish-eye effect. It's not perfect but it's not a defect.
 
My Dashcam interests were put on hold for 2 weeks to make progress on another side Project not to mention the EPIC Story Book Project.
If you answer YES to any of the following click the Link below, else skip to next message :
1) own an Action Camera,
2) have no idea what Snowboarding is,
3) need to laugh,
4) want DCTeam expansion news,
5) have 3 mins to waste,

Forum thread GitUp G3 Duo Modified Firmware MODs Archive > https://dashcamtalk.com/forum/threads/gitup-g3-duo-modified-firmware-mods-archive.37890/
 
Digging through saved footage found some interesting clips to share, here is 2min compilation #17

 
This A129 verses A119S side by side 26 Mb/s Footage Comparison actually surprised me. The image sharpness is basically identical but the color is very different with @Caerus 's A119S 6Vh vivid MOD much better than VIOFO's default A129 FW1.50 color saturation levels. Looks like the A129 needs another MOD adjustment.


Viofo A119S Dash Cam Review > https://viofo-a119s-dashcam-review.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
Back
Top