Vueroid S1 Dash Camera Review

IMG_3431.webp
 
i will learn from u and do it in China🙂
 
SafeDriveSolutions said:
Vueroid S1 dash camera night time video footage
Click to expand...

From your test, it looks like the Vueroid S1 Infinite oversharpens the image to achieve sign / plate readability. Freeze frames with adequate lighting yield very readable text. In the scheme of things, capturing a plate is far more important than surrounding scenery. Planes aren't regularly dropping out of the sky and the camera can see sufficiently well in front of the vehicle (I.E. pedestrian walks out in front of car) or for a frontal crash.
 
jsmith said:
... capturing a plate is far more important than surrounding scenery
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I have the opposite opinion:
I believe overall image quality is far more important than plate capturing.
Plate capturing should never be the primary factor in image optimization; overall image quality should be.
The plate legibility should only be a consequence of good overall image quality.
Corner-to-corner image quality is not for falling planes but for many other situations on the road and at intersections, and most importantly, involving pedestrians.
Plate capturing is only helpful in a very rare hit-and-run collision, and that is basically it.
Hit-and-run collisions most often occur in parking lots, where cars are mostly stationary or moving slowly.

I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, just expressing my own position.
I'm posting this primarily for @Vueroid , @Jeff_Vantrue , @viofo , @70mai_Official , @Thinkware Dash Cam and other manufacturers who are unfortunately under constant pressure regarding plate readability.

Frankly, overall image quality and license plate readability can go hand in hand, but if there comes a point where one has to be sacrificed to some extent for the other, then overall image quality should take priority.
 
GPak said:
With all due respect, I have the opposite opinion:
I believe overall image quality is far more important than plate capturing.
Plate capturing should never be the primary factor in image optimization; overall image quality should be.
The plate legibility should only be a consequence of good overall image quality.
Corner-to-corner image quality is not for falling planes but for many other situations on the road and at intersections, and most importantly, involving pedestrians.
Plate capturing is only helpful in a very rare hit-and-run collision, and that is basically it.
Hit-and-run collisions most often occur in parking lots, where cars are mostly stationary or moving slowly.

I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, just expressing my own position.
I'm posting this primarily for @Vueroid , @Jeff_Vantrue , @viofo , @70mai_Official , @Thinkware Dash Cam and other manufacturers who are unfortunately under constant pressure regarding plate readability.

Frankly, overall image quality and license plate readability can go hand in hand, but if there comes a point where one has to be sacrificed to some extent for the other, then overall image quality should take priority.
Click to expand...

Personally, I want overall clarity myself, and fully agree with your stance.

However, dashcam manufacturers are definitely under pressure for plate readability over capturing the surrounding scenery. The argument goes that dashcams are there to protect YOU and not everyone else around you. So if the car 2 lanes over crashes into another vehicle, it's a bonus to capture it on camera with the upmost clarity, but not imperative.

If a driver plows into your car, you want that image to be top notch, and capture the plate, too. People do hit and run, and the goal is to identify that driver.

Unfortunately, capturing plates at night is VERY DIFFICULT under low light conditions. @SafeDriveSolutions showed that to achieve it with any sense of reliability, current technology requires the image be over sharpened at the cost of capturing surrounding detail (with the exception of words). Is that an ideal solution? No.....But I'm guessing if a better means existed, @Vueroid would have implemented that technique.
 
SafeDriveSolutions said:
Vueroid S1 dash camera night time video footage
Click to expand...

I always like this drive path you take for your night drives. When you take a left at the Canco station, the lights and the lights from the house behind it really show how well a dashcam is doing in accurately capturing the lights. There is another section where you go slowly through a business district that has a lot of lights. It is a great testing area for a dashcam. 👍
 
I am on the fulcrum when it comes to license plate capturing. I do try to avoid the fear-mongering and the "sky is falling" tactic that some will take with pushing for plate capture. I am pretty sure that if dashcam makers used a much larger CMOS and a faster processor, then license plate capture would be a non-issue. Of course, the new issue would be the substantially higher cost for a dash cam that captures every license plate, just for the one-off time in a user's life they need to capture a license plate. Always a trade-off somewhere when it comes to technology and consumer needs, and that trade-off is usually about money.

I prefer better overall image clarity and the ability to capture license plates from cars in my immediate vicinity. Obviously, weather, speed, and approach direction play a significant role in plate capture, regardless of the dashcam manufacturer.

I posted an image in my thread of a pickup that approached me from the other lane, with an attached trailer. Speed, I think, was around 35 or so MPH. The S1-4K front dashcam that I had placed on my rear hatchback captured the license plate, and from an angle, no less. I was astonished. On the other hand, sometimes a plate is not captured due to various factors, such as weather, speed, angles, or whatever. Plate capturing is not quite an exact science yet.

In Virginia, there are, at my last count, 343 different vanity plates available. Approximately one in six vehicles has a vanity plate. These plates are extremely tough for any dashcam to capture. With logos and colors, various character arrangements, it is an onerous task to capture an image of a license plate, with or without AI enhancement. To see some of the plates, take a look here:

Virginia DMV
 
Last edited:
lufa6977 said:
I am on the fulcrum when it comes to license plate capturing. I do try to avoid the fear-mongering and the "sky is falling" tactic that some will take with pushing for plate capture. I am pretty sure that if dashcam makers used a much larger CMOS and a faster processor, then license plate capture would be a non-issue. Of course, the new issue would be the substantially higher cost for a dash cam that captures every license plate, just for the one-off time in a user's life they need to capture a license plate. Always a trade-off somewhere when it comes to technology and consumer needs, and that trade-off is usually about money.

I prefer better overall image clarity and the ability to capture license plates from cars in my immediate vicinity. Obviously, weather, speed, and approach direction play a significant role in plate capture, regardless of the dashcam manufacturer.

I posted an image in my thread of a pickup that approached me from the other lane, with an attached trailer. Speed, I think, was around 35 or so MPH. The S1-4K front dashcam that I had placed on my rear hatchback captured the license plate, and from an angle, no less. I was astonished. On the other hand, sometimes a plate is not captured due to various factors, such as weather, speed, angles, or whatever. Plate capturing is not quite an exact science yet.

In Virginia, there are, at my last count, 343 different vanity plates available. Approximately one in six vehicles has a vanity plate. These plates are extremely tough for any dashcam to capture. With logos and colors, various character arrangements, it is an onerous task to capture an image of a license plate, with or without AI enhancement. To see some of the plates, take a look here:

Virginia DMV
Click to expand...

The big problem is always price point. Anecdotal, but I've recommended people I know get dashcams. Even though I recommended Viofo, Vantrue, etc they went out and got crappy cheap ones.

As I said somewhere on another dashcamtalk thread, the one person I reluctantly installed a crappy camera for got in an accident where the car was totaled (airbags deployed). The accident became a He Said / She Said between who had the light, until I grabbed video off camera. The video CLAIMED it locked (you hear audio prompt) but it did not. The Video Quality was Sub Par, but it did prove that the acquaintance WAS NOT at fault. I emphasized to this person JUST HOW LUCKY they were the video didn't get overwritten when contacting me 2.5 days later for assistance.

Person #2 bought a random Chinese special of no brand name after hearing me tell people to get a dashcam. Someone sideswiped his car. Person #2 said it was captured on the dashcam, but I didn't see video. Either way, he told me he was able to prove fault.

Any camera is better than none, but people who lack an understanding seem to gravitate towards the CHEAPEST and not the best. So of course people see a 60 USD / 60€ model that makes grand marketing claims and think why spend 500 USD / 500 €. So you're right, if the tech exists to to capture crisp daytime footage and crisp nighttime footage at a price point of 1200 USD / €1200, the Product will likely flop because only Enthusiasts will really shell out that money. It's probably hard enough for @Vueroid and @viofo to sell their top of the line models, S1 Infinite 4K and A329 Series as it is in the 500 USD / €500 range with accessories (hardwire kit, SD Card, and CPL).
 
Last edited:
@SafeDriveSolutions

Customers are coming to you with money in hand, looking to have a dashcam installed, so you might not be the best source here. However, how often do you hear "What is the Cheapest Dashcam You Sell" versus "What's the Best Dashcam Out There?"
 
We invested an enormous amount of time discussing about the tuning concept and tuning the image quality.
I and a tuning engineer even made a business trip to the U.S. specifically to capture and tune footage using local vehicles — changing car models along the way — just to ensure the video quality met our expectations.
I believe the sunlight in Korea is different from that in the U.S. (Trust me 😉 )

It would be too harsh to say that we sacrificed everything for license plate visibility, because of course we also aimed to make the surrounding environment look beautiful.
However, it’s true that our top priority was optimizing license plate readability.
The reason is simple — we’ve seen too many cases where people rank two products solely based on license plate visibility.
And often, those judgments are made from just one or two still captures.

I personally think it’s quite irresponsible to judge a product’s overall quality based only on a couple of snapshots.
Yet from the viewer’s perspective, it’s difficult not to believe the result that appears clearer in those comparisons.
Because of this, many manufacturers inevitably focus their tuning direction toward maximizing license plate readability — even if it means sacrificing other strengths or features of the product.
Although results can vary greatly depending on lighting conditions and environment, people usually only compare captured images and decide the winner based on which one shows the plate more clearly.

When a camera receives more light, each pixel captures more light energy, resulting in more image data per pixel.
More data means better dynamic range and richer expression — in short, a more beautiful image.
However, to improve license plate readability, tuning must take the opposite approach — minimizing blur as much as possible.
We spent a great deal of effort finding the fine balance and achieving optimal performance between those two opposing goals.

Some people repeatedly suggest simply increasing the bitrate, but bitrate only becomes meaningful after sufficient light is captured.
I doubt whether the camera can actually gather enough light to fully utilize that high bitrate.
If there isn’t enough image data to transmit in the first place, a higher bitrate only raises costs without improving quality.
 
Vueroid said:
We invested an enormous amount of time discussing about the tuning concept and tuning the image quality.
I and a tuning engineer even made a business trip to the U.S. specifically to capture and tune footage using local vehicles — changing car models along the way — just to ensure the video quality met our expectations.
I believe the sunlight in Korea is different from that in the U.S. (Trust me 😉 )

It would be too harsh to say that we sacrificed everything for license plate visibility, because of course we also aimed to make the surrounding environment look beautiful.
However, it’s true that our top priority was optimizing license plate readability.
The reason is simple — we’ve seen too many cases where people rank two products solely based on license plate visibility.
And often, those judgments are made from just one or two still captures.

I personally think it’s quite irresponsible to judge a product’s overall quality based only on a couple of snapshots.
Yet from the viewer’s perspective, it’s difficult not to believe the result that appears clearer in those comparisons.
Because of this, many manufacturers inevitably focus their tuning direction toward maximizing license plate readability — even if it means sacrificing other strengths or features of the product.
Although results can vary greatly depending on lighting conditions and environment, people usually only compare captured images and decide the winner based on which one shows the plate more clearly.

When a camera receives more light, each pixel captures more light energy, resulting in more image data per pixel.
More data means better dynamic range and richer expression — in short, a more beautiful image.
However, to improve license plate readability, tuning must take the opposite approach — minimizing blur as much as possible.
We spent a great deal of effort finding the fine balance and achieving optimal performance between those two opposing goals.

Some people repeatedly suggest simply increasing the bitrate, but bitrate only becomes meaningful after sufficient light is captured.
I doubt whether the camera can actually gather enough light to fully utilize that high bitrate.
If there isn’t enough image data to transmit in the first place, a higher bitrate only raises costs without improving quality.
Click to expand...
u are amazing when i read this
i can not beleive vueroid make d21 last year.
now vueroid do a good and correct things
 
Vueroid said:
Some people repeatedly suggest simply increasing the bitrate, but bitrate only becomes meaningful after sufficient light is captured.
I doubt whether the camera can actually gather enough light to fully utilize that high bitrate.
If there isn’t enough image data to transmit in the first place, a higher bitrate only raises costs without improving quality.
Click to expand...
In the city and on bare roads, the Bitrate difference is noticeable.
However, if the road passes through a forest or if trees grow along the road, the Bitrate difference is very noticeable.
 
Vueroid said:
We invested an enormous amount of time discussing about the tuning concept and tuning the image quality.
I and a tuning engineer even made a business trip to the U.S. specifically to capture and tune footage using local vehicles — changing car models along the way — just to ensure the video quality met our expectations.
I believe the sunlight in Korea is different from that in the U.S. (Trust me 😉 )

It would be too harsh to say that we sacrificed everything for license plate visibility, because of course we also aimed to make the surrounding environment look beautiful.
However, it’s true that our top priority was optimizing license plate readability.
The reason is simple — we’ve seen too many cases where people rank two products solely based on license plate visibility.
And often, those judgments are made from just one or two still captures.

I personally think it’s quite irresponsible to judge a product’s overall quality based only on a couple of snapshots.
Yet from the viewer’s perspective, it’s difficult not to believe the result that appears clearer in those comparisons.
Because of this, many manufacturers inevitably focus their tuning direction toward maximizing license plate readability — even if it means sacrificing other strengths or features of the product.
Although results can vary greatly depending on lighting conditions and environment, people usually only compare captured images and decide the winner based on which one shows the plate more clearly.

When a camera receives more light, each pixel captures more light energy, resulting in more image data per pixel.
More data means better dynamic range and richer expression — in short, a more beautiful image.
However, to improve license plate readability, tuning must take the opposite approach — minimizing blur as much as possible.
We spent a great deal of effort finding the fine balance and achieving optimal performance between those two opposing goals.

Some people repeatedly suggest simply increasing the bitrate, but bitrate only becomes meaningful after sufficient light is captured.
I doubt whether the camera can actually gather enough light to fully utilize that high bitrate.
If there isn’t enough image data to transmit in the first place, a higher bitrate only raises costs without improving quality.
Click to expand...
The compression (video codec) we use is lossy. Compression makes the video worse than the original. Higher bitrates mean less compression. Higher bitrates ultimately mean more cost. SD cards have a finite lifespan and are inversely proportional to their bitrate. Doubling the bitrate means twice as short a lifespan. We decided on the trade-off between lifespan and bitrate after much deliberation. Increasing the bitrate isn't difficult. The key is to achieve better image quality at lower bitrates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top