VIOFO A229 Duo - First Look

[rcg530]

I received my pre-production A229 Duo a couple of weeks ago. I've been testing it in my filming studio. Here are a few pics from my unboxing of the A229 Duo.



Build quality is very good and the packaging is good as well.

USB Power Port Adapter

One concern was the USB power adapter does not fit well into every 12-volt power port socket. The design of the USB power port adapter has a taper to the unit just beyond where the unit fits into the 12-volt power port socket. The tapered section hits the outer ring/edge of some of the power port sockets I've tested and it doesn't maintain a full connection all of the time if it or the USB cable is moved slightly. I've already provided my feedback to VIOFO on that concern. Again, my A229 Duo was a pre-production unit, so I don't know if this is an issue for production units.

Power Consumption Data / Testing

I ran a series of power consumption tests for the A229 Duo using the VIOFO HK4 hardwiring kit to power it.

While performing the Auto Event Detection (AED) parking mode power consumption tests, I found bug (firmware V1.0_0415 and fixed in V1.0_0505) and a couple of things to note about its AED behavior.

Bug - Rear Camera Video Files Did Not Record After Exiting AED Parking Mode with Video Bitrate Set to Maximum

The A229 had firmware version V1.0_0415 when I first received it. I had set the normal mode video bitrate to "Maximum" and performed my power consumption tests. I booted the A229 Duo, let it record in normal mode for about 90 seconds, turned off ACC+ power and it entered AED parking mode. I triggered it to record AED parking mode files by waving my hands in front of the front camera. After the 45 seconds of AED parking recording was done, I waited another 90 seconds before restoring ACC+ power to return to normal mode. I left the A229 in normal mode for several minutes which should have created front/rear video files.

What I found was that when the A229 Duo returned to normal recording mode, it only recorded front video files. When lower video bitrate settings were used (like the default of "Normal") this problem did not occur.

I moved the parking mode video files into the same directory as the normal mode files on my computer to create this screenshot.



A test firmware release version V1.0_0505 was provided to me to test. I found that this issue no longer occurred when the normal mode video bitrate setting was set to "Maximum".

AED Parking Mode Video - Video Before Triggering Motion

The user manual for the A229 Duo states that there should be 15 seconds of video before and 30 seconds after the triggering motion for a total length of 45 seconds. The AED video files are always 45 seconds in length, but I found that the very first set of AED parking mode files (front/rear) after it enters AED parking mode, will have zero seconds before the triggering motion. The 2nd through nth AED parking mode video file sets will have about 13 seconds of video before the triggering motion. I'm not quite sure if VIOFO considers this a bug or it's just the way it works, but this behavior has been reported to VIOFO.

AED Parking Mode Power Consumption

This may be related to the previous behavior of it having zero seconds of video prior to the triggering motion for the very first motion event after entering AED parking mode.

I observed the A229 Duo would reduce its power consumption to 299 mA - 335 mA range when it first enters AED parking mode. As soon as motion is detected, the mA values rise to the 357 mA - 376 mA range. My expectation was that when the writing to the microSD card of the 45 seconds of AED video completed, that the power consumption would drop back down to the 299 mA - 335 mA range. It did not. It stayed in the 357 mA to 376 mA range. I have reported this behavior to VIOFO.

Power Consumption Data Spreadsheet

 

[Nigel]

It is better to state the power consumption in watts. The mA value always depends on the voltage, so is very different at 5 volts than 12.6 volts, and when driving it is going to be at around 14 volts so different again. Also if testing using a battery while not being charged, the voltage is likely to drop as the battery discharges, and also vary depending on the load, both of which affect the mA value. If you convert to watts then the recorded value is always going to be correct, whatever the voltage. To get the watts, you should measure both amps and volts simultaneously.

Your maximum values do not allow for charging of the supercapacitor at startup.

 

[rcg530]

It is better to state the power consumption in watts. The mA value always depends on the voltage, so is very different at 5 volts than 12.6 volts, and when driving it is going to be at around 14 volts so different again. Also if testing using a battery while not being charged, the voltage is likely to drop as the battery discharges, and also vary depending on the load, both of which affect the mA value. If you convert to watts then the recorded value is always going to be correct, whatever the voltage. To get the watts, you should measure both amps and volts simultaneously.

Your maximum values do not allow for charging of the supercapacitor at startup.

Based on your feedback, I've added a set of min/max Watts columns that are calculated based on the mA values. My data collection for milliamps was using a DC power supply set to 12.6 volts (voltage of a fully charged automotive battery). I used the recorded milliamp values and multiplied them by the 12.6 volts to arrive at the watts column values.

The supercapacitor charging load is not necessarily an easy one to know when it starts/ends to state which portion of the load is specific to the supercapacitor. During initial power up of the dash cam, if there is a wildly out of range milliamp draw, I will know it's likely the supercapacitor being charged.

The parking mode current draw is the main thing I think might be helpful from this data. It should help one plan the potential time the dash cam can be powered by their car's battery or a dash cam battery pack.

 

[runtohell121]

Nice to see Viofo releasing a new dual channel dash cam - curious on the cable for the rear camera if it's interchangeable with Viofo A139 - probably not though since it looks like a longer barrel connector.

 

[Mtz]

Viofo answer was "no", in the other thread.

 

[Nigel]

The parking mode current draw is the main thing I think might be helpful from this data. It should help one plan the potential time the dash cam can be powered by their car's battery or a dash cam battery pack.

Yes, power used for parking mode is the figure that is useful, although again, it is the Watts that is the useful value because USB powerbanks are often measured at 3.7 volts instead of 5 volts or 12.6 volts, so if you want to divide powerbank or car battery capacity by power draw, it needs to be Wh / W.

For parking mode, you should include the figure for after the Parking Duration Timer has expired, because after that the new Viofo dashcams will continue to provide impact protection for weeks, depending on battery capacity.

 

[Julian23]

.. it is the Watts that is the useful value because USB powerbanks are often measured at 3.7 volts instead of 5 volts or 12.6 volts, so if you want to divide powerbank or car battery capacity by power draw, it needs to be Wh / W.

If you do that for the powerbank and want to be precise, you have to add the losses from the 3,7V to 5V step-up converter. But that's another topic

 

[Nigel]

If you do that for the powerbank and want to be precise, you have to add the losses from the 3,7V to 5V step-up converter. But that's another topic

Those losses are roughly the same as for the hardwire kit, or the car charger, so if we have measured the power use at the power source, as rcg is doing, and as I have in the other thread, then the calculation is simple, we can ignore losses.

So as a general rule, you can divide your 75Wh power bank (20,000mAh for a 3.7V USB powerbank, 5,859mAh for a LiFePO4 dashcam powerbank) by 0.1W (power consumed after Parking Duration Timer has expired).
75 / 0.1 = 750 hours = 31.25 days
And you have your impact protection parking mode duration.

Note that I have rounded up the power consumption to 0.1W from measured value of 0.087W, so achieving 1 month from the 75Wh powerbank is fairly certain, even though powerbanks are normally fairly inaccurate in their power capacity, and the amount you get out often depends on current draw since they cutoff on low voltage, and the voltage will vary a bit depending on output current, and powerbanks/batteries always loose capacity as they age.

 

[rcg530]

For parking mode, you should include the figure for after the Parking Duration Timer has expired, because after that the new Viofo dashcams will continue to provide impact protection for weeks, depending on battery capacity.

My testing shows that the A229 Duo does not transition to some form of a power conserving state to allow it to handle impact events after the Parking Recording Duration timer has expired. The A229 Duo performs a full power down similar to the user long pressing the <PWR> button to turn off the dash cam. I updated my power consumption chart in my earlier post with the additional info.

I set the Parking Duration Timer to 30 minutes and I tested all three parking mode types (AED, Time-Lapse, Low Bitrate). After 30 minutes in parking mode, you see the screen turn on for a moment and then the power down chime is heard. The power draw almost immediately drops 20 mA @ 12.6 volts (watts in chart) and after 2-minutes it has ramped down to 9 mA and stays at that level.

Almost immediately after the power down and about 4 to 5 minutes later, I tried shaking the A229 Duo front dash cam to "wake it up", but it did not and based on the power draw at that point I didn't expect it to.

 

[MARTIN.BG]

When is it expected to be put up for sale?

 

[rcg530]

When is it expected to be put up for sale?

I've not been informed of a release or pre-order date. I see the new A119 Mini is now available as a pre-order item on the VIOFO website, so I would imagine the A229 Duo should be sometime in the next month of so.

 

[Nigel]

When is it expected to be put up for sale?

Imminently for pre-release sales, delivery is a bit unknown at present.

 

[SawMaster]

I've heard June touted for the A229 release but can't verify that. I do know there are supply problems of some components due to Covid lockdowns, so probably don't count on anything unless Viofo announces it or the cam shows up on his site for sale.

Phil

 

[rcg530]

I just completed another episode of the "dash cam shuffle". Pulling out one dash cam, moving another and adding in the VIOFO A229 Duo.

I currently have four dash cams installed in my primary dash cam review car. Only three are powered at the moment (three dash cam battery packs in my car).

• VIOFO A229 Duo
• VIOFO T130 3-Channel
• BlackVue DR900X-2CH DMS Plus
• BlackVue DR750X-2CH Plus (no power for this one right now)

I hope to be able to remove the DR750X-2CH Plus after Pittasoft releases any sort of a fix for the underexposed rear camera RC110F video. Both of the DR750X-2CH Plus cameras are on the front windshield to confirm any firmware fix.

I will do some follow up testing with DR900X-2CH DMS Plus since a new firmware was recently released adding some new DMS functionality.

I removed a Zenfox U1 2-channel dash cam since it still has problems handling longer parking mode recording sessions (multi hour). I'll test it more in my filming studio.

I hope to install the VIOFO A119 Mini, but right now the firmware in my A119 Mini doesn't allow it to be powered off and then have it remain powered off. When that issue is resolved (I hope soon), I may install the VIOFO A119 Mini in my other car that has a Blueskysea B4K 2-channel dash cam installed.

 

[rcg530]

I went on my first nighttime test drive with the A229 Duo installed in my car. I had a VIOFO T130 and a BlackVue DR750X-2CH Plus recording (switched power from DR900X-2CH DMS Plus dash cam to the DR750X-2CH Plus).

Dash Cam Info:

• VIOFO A229 Duo
  • Firmware: VIOFO_A229_V1.0_0511
  • Video Bitrate: Normal
    • This is the default value
    • I wanted to see video created with the default bitrate would look like
    • Allowed values (Low, Normal, High, Maximum)
  • Front Video: 1440p @ 30fps
  • Rear Video: 1440p @ 30fps
• VIOFO T130
  • Firmware: VIOFO_T130_V1.2_0510;Rear Ver: V1.1_0120
  • Video Bitrate: Maximum
  • Front Video: 1440p @ 30fps
  • Rear Video: 1080p @ 30fps
• BlackVue DR750X-2CH Plus
  • Firmware: v1.010
  • Video Bitrate: Highest (Extreme)
  • Front Video: 1080p @ 60fps
  • Rear Video: 1080p @ 30fps

Rear Camera Screen Shots



Front Camera Screen Shots

 

[Julian23]

Interesting how different the T130 and A229 are from the Blackvue.
The DR750X seems to have more detail in both screenshots and seems to deal better with the glare from the headlights.
Maybe you can do this again with the highest bitrate on the A229 and see if it increases the captured details.

 

[rcg530]

YouTube finally finished the HD video processing of my A229 Duo video samples video. I compare the A229 Duo with a VIOFO T130 3-channel (front/rear only) dash cam and a BlackVue DR750X-2CH Plus dash cam. You can definitely see the BlackVue video is darker than the other two dash cams. My full review of the A229 Duo will be in a separate video on my channel in the near future.

I have the WDR (Wide Dynamic Range) setting enabled for both of the VIOFO dash cams involved in this video sample test. The BlackVue DR750X Plus does not have a user selectable setting for that or similar feature.

 

[Nigel]

You can definitely see the BlackVue video is darker than the other two dash cams.

This may be partly due to the Viofo cameras being calibrated for use with CPLs, best to review them with CPLs fitted, in which case there will be more contrast and a slight change to colour balance .

Your car could do with a CPL anyway, there are a lot of windscreen reflections.

Your windows are also not very clean, especially the rear. Given that you are trying to show how clear and sharp the images are, it is not really fair to the cameras if they have dirty glass in front of them.

I have the WDR (Wide Dynamic Range) setting enabled for both of the VIOFO dash cams involved in this video sample test.

Generally a review should use the default settings, which is WDR off on Viofo cameras. Good to show optional settings turned on as well, but maybe as a review of the options, not in the main part of the review.


I don't like the graphics appearing in the centre of the view while driving, for example the gift box at the start. It is like having your driver txting on their mobile phone while driving! I suggest you either park the car, or move the graphics away from the centre of view.

Overall a good video though.

 

[rcg530]

This may be partly due to the Viofo cameras being calibrated for use with CPLs, best to review them with CPLs fitted, in which case there will be more contrast and a slight change to colour balance .

Your car could do with a CPL anyway, there are a lot of windscreen reflections.

I agree that my car's front windshield presents some windshield reflections and CPLs can certainly help. If your claim is that VIOFO dash cams are calibrated to use with CPLs, then they all should be sold with the CPL included (all models).

My complaint about the BlackVue video being darker is primarily with their rear camera and there are no CPL filters for the rear cameras. I have a longstanding open issue with Pittasoft regarding their RC110F rear camera (part of most all of their current "X Plus" 2/3-channel kits) generating much darker (underexposed) video than their previous rear cameras or other vendor's rear cameras in most daytime lighting conditions.

Your windows are also not very clean, especially the rear. Given that you are trying to show how clear and sharp the images are, it is not really fair to the cameras if they have dirty glass in front of them.

You would be wrong in making the assumption that this was my first time reviewing line of sight sensitive equipment. I take great care in making sure the my vehicle's windows are clean/clear on the inside and outside. The vehicle I use to review most all of the dash cams I review is an ex-police service vehicle, which means the exterior of the window glass is not 100% perfect, but it is certainly clean and clear enough for this type of product review. My vehicle's window glass has no window tint installed, since that question comes up when I discuss camera video quality issues with some dash cam companies.

 

[TonyM]

Your A229 rear camera looks soft, as if out of focus, particularly in the daytime videos. It doesn't have the definition I'd expect from 1440p compared to the others.