When is the next iteration?

Yes, I suppose it's possible with a rechargeable battery. How well does that work in a dashcam?

yeah let's put some 10,000mah batteries up in the window and charge them regularly, sounds a lot more convenient that having to run a cable :eek:
 
batteries not work well on window, blow up.
 
Wireless doesn’t necessarily have to mean not powered by 12V. Just means communicates wirelessly.
 
Wireless doesn’t necessarily have to mean not powered by 12V. Just means communicates wirelessly.

understand that, like I said, either need to run a power cable or a data cable to a camera, proposing wireless cameras to save cabling is not a good business case, maybe a power cable will be less obtrusive than a data cable, wired cameras in a vehicle are infinitely more reliable based on current technology, data cable is a no brainer
 
Why not have a main unit with coax cables to both cams and a gps unit that can sit on the dashboard? The main unit will be protected from direct sun heat and the coax cables can be thinner than current USB style ones.
This setup may allow for a more powerful processor that could handle higher res cameras,
 
Why not have a main unit with coax cables to both cams and a gps unit that can sit on the dashboard? The main unit will be protected from direct sun heat and the coax cables can be thinner than current USB style ones.
This setup may allow for a more powerful processor that could handle higher res cameras,

I'm glad someone understands the concept
 
proposing wireless cameras to save cabling is not a good business case
I’m not arguing in its favor, only against the idea that it would have to be battery powered. I have an awesome WiFi setup at home and I still hardwire everything in my house I can. I have no need or desire to go wireless for dashcams.

Why not have a main unit with coax cables to both cams and a gps unit that can sit on the dashboard? The main unit will be protected from direct sun heat and the coax cables can be thinner than current USB style ones.
This setup may allow for a more powerful processor that could handle higher res cameras,
Yes, this is my ideal. I’m hoping that’s what we get with the upcoming DR system.
 
I’m not arguing in its favor.

didn't mean you were, there was some questionable logic being argued though

Yes, this is my ideal. I’m hoping that’s what we get with the upcoming DR system.

won't be using coax cables, we have been working on reducing the diameter of the USB cables and size of fittings though
 
Last edited:
I am firmly against wireless, the world have long since passed the max saturation in this regard i think, and i have plenty to deal with in the signals from my phone and all the other peoples devises.
Turning on WIFI on my phone right now i can see 25 WIFI spots, one of then named after the address here just not having the floor/side prefix, i assume thats the new people that moved in the apartment over mine.
I am pretty sure many city dwellers can see even more wifi spots where they live.

Its not like its dense here just a line of apartment blocks along a road, on the other side are a daycare center and school, and to the north a couple of houses and then 100 M away a educational institution of some sort.
I assume if the building density was more city like here i would be able to see 50 - 70 wifi spots..

I have no idea what will happen when underwear ASO also get a computer and wifi, it will be a sad mess indeed.
 
Time and time again on this forum I witness members advocating for dash cam technologies, capabilities and features that are not only highly impractical but also unwise even if they were to become available. Such things as 2.7K, 4K and H.265 compression are typical examples.

This comes about because for the vast majority of members here on DCT, the concept of recording video for evidentiary purposes is entirely theoretical. Only a tiny percentage of members here have ever been in a situation where they have been required to submit video evidence in an serious legal case or significant insurance matter. In fact, many members seem more interested in dash cam video as a form of entertainment (bad driving / crash footage, etc.), with sousveillance evidence only as an afterthought should they happen to need it. The problem with ultra high resolution video is that most people don't stop to think about what happens with your footage after it leaves your hands.

I first became interested in dash cams because of an ongoing criminal harassment matter that involved numerous submissions of video to law enforcement. I learned first hand how vital it is that you hand off video (including and especially the all important raw footage you may be required to supply as evidence) that it is as absolutely easy and idiot proof for anyone in the evidentiary chain of custody to view. You often won't get a second chance if they can't. If say, a clueless insurance adjuster or some low level ADA in a prosecutor's office runs into too much trouble attempting to view your 2K or 4K footage on their out-of-date computer, they'll move on to the next case. For this reason, I have become a strong advocate for the requirement that a good dash cam needs to be able to record high quality native 1080p footage.

Many, many parties you may have to hand off 2K or 4K footage to, such as law enforcement, prosecutors, attorneys, courts of law, insurance company personnel and other random bureaucrats more often than not have to rely on older computers, monitors, graphics cards and software that won't properly play 2K or 4K (or H.265) (or 60 fps) video. Many of these folks wouldn't even know what you are talking about if you mentioned the terms "2K" or "4K"!

So, my practice nowadays is to record 1080p dash cam footage and nothing else unless it is an ancillary camera in support of a primary camera.

Put aside the question of whether 4K dash cams are technically viable at this point in time and think about what you may need to actually do with the footage you shoot. Then forget about 2K and 4K video until such time as these resolutions become ubiquitous the way 1080p is now. Until such time, the best course of action is to use a camera that provides you with the highest quality 1080p results.
 
Last edited:
Time and time again on this forum I witness members advocating for the dash cam technologies, capabilities and features that are not only highly impractical but also unwise even if they were to become available. Such things as 2.7K, 4K and H.265 compression are typical examples.

This comes about because for the vast majority of members here on DCT, the concept of recording video for evidentiary purposes is entirely theoretical. Only a tiny percentage of members here have even been in a situation where they have been required to submit video evidence in an serious legal case or significant insurance matter. In fact, many members seem more interested in dash cam video (bad driving / crash footage, etc.) as a form of entertainment, with sousveillance evidence only as an afterthought should they happen to need it. The problem with ultra high resolution video is that most people don't stop to think about what happens with your footage after it leaves your hands.

I first became interested in dash cams because of an ongoing criminal harassment matter that involved numerous submissions of video to law enforcement. I learned first hand how vital it is that you hand off video (including and especially the all important raw footage you may be required to supply as evidence) that it is as absolutely easy and idiot proof for anyone in the evidentiary chain of custody to view. You often won't get a second chance if they can't. If say, a clueless insurance adjuster or some low level ADA in a prosecutor's office runs into too much trouble attempting to view your 2K or 4K footage on their out-of-date computer, they'll move on to the next case. For this reason, I have become a strong advocate for the requirement that a good dash cam needs to be able to record high quality native 1080p footage.

Many, many parties you may have to hand off 2K or 4K footage to, such as law enforcement, prosecutors, attorneys, courts of law, insurance company personnel and other random bureaucrats more often than not have to rely on older computers and older software that won't properly play 2K or 4K (or H.265) video. Many of these folks wouldn't even know what you are talking about if you mentioned the term "2K" or "4K"!

My practice nowadays is to record 1080 dash cam footage and nothing else unless it is an ancillary camera in support of a primary camera.

Put aside the question of whether 4K dash cams are technically viable at this point in time and think about what you may need to actually do with the footage you shoot. Forget about 2K and 4K video until such time as these resolutions become ubiquitous the way 1080p is now. Until such time, the best course of action is to use a camera that provides you with the highest quality 1080P results.
While most of what you said is common sense, your assumption that the police doesn't have the equipment to view 2k or 4k, but it has 1080p, probably only applies in your country/area. There may be police stations equipped with proper computers to view the 4k footage and a lot others that cannot afford to view even 720p videos. What then, shoudn't technology progress because of that?
Shouldn't people desire better technology?
 
While most of what you said is common sense, your assumption that the police doesn't have the equipment to view 2k or 4k, but it has 1080p, probably only applies in your country/area. There may be police stations equipped with proper computers to view the 4k footage and a lot others that cannot afford to view even 720p videos. What then, shoudn't technology progress because of that?
Shouldn't people desire better technology?

What people desire and what is practical are two different things. I'm not "assuming" anything! That's my point. While some police departments may have the latest high end equipment, many don't. The problem for the person submitting the video is that you have no way of knowing who in the chain of custody will have the required computer, monitor and software or not. If you want to risk not getting the proper attention to your matter, or having your matter attended to at all then go ahead and submit raw 4K video. If you want to make certain that your video can be viewed by anyone and everyone in a bureaucracy or law office or prosecutor's office or court room or insurance adjuster's office, then stick with a resolution that will work for all. Your call.

Of course people should desire better technology but as I mentioned above, wait for the new technology to become widely adopted before relying on it for a mission critical purpose.
 
Last edited:
won't be using coax cables, we have been working on reducing the diameter of the USB cables and size of fittings though
That would be nice, along with streamlining the shape of the connectors themselves in addition to reducing the size. This is a very simple example, but here’s a Lenmar lightning cable with a tapered end that helps it fit into even very bulky phone cases. Even for 90-degree connectors, reducing the overall bulk of the plastic around the fitting (shouldn’t really affect lifespan of a cable that doesn’t get un/plugged often) and ensuring tapers and rounded edges as much as possible can only help.

I like to use a proper fish tape, though, so it rarely affects me all that much :)


22F45CF9-0302-4C19-89C2-D0C6F1FC6DF4.jpeg
 
won't be using coax cables, we have been working on reducing the diameter of the USB cables and size of fittings though


Certain types of coax cable might be an interesting solution for a remote camera module application. I've been using "mini" coax for many years for radio antenna and video work. It performs as well as full sized RG type cables but is tiny, shielded and very flexible. Comes in numerous configurations.

mini_coax.jpg
 
Beat the 1/4" or so cables i used for my radio gear, no doubt you could use my cable to flog the truth out of a terrorist.

woopah,,,,,,, take that Osama :)
 
Coax cable is no good, and USB cables are no good either, proven by the rapidly increasing numbers of posts about lost DAB reception on this forum since dual cameras using remote cables started to be installed. Since analogue radio is being phased out, the use of these noisy cables that kill digital radio reception will become increasingly unacceptable.

The answer is to use optical fibres for the video signals. :coffee:
 
Coax cable is no good, and USB cables are no good either, proven by the rapidly increasing numbers of posts about lost DAB reception on this forum since dual cameras using remote cables started to be installed. Since analogue radio is being phased out, the use of these noisy cables that kill digital radio reception will become increasingly unacceptable.

The answer is to use optical fibres for the video signals. :coffee:

Don't hold your breath on that one.
 
I worked on an aviation system in the military called “glass”. They couldn’t get it working reliably so they ripped out all the fiber lines and replaced it all with copper. They still called it glass.
 
I worked on an aviation system in the military called “glass”. They couldn’t get it working reliably so they ripped out all the fiber lines and replaced it all with copper. They still called it glass.

Sounds like continuing to call it "glass" was intended to not ruffle any feathers with the upstairs "brass". :smuggrin:
 
Last edited:
Don't hold your breath on that one.
I can get a fibre optic HDMI 4K 60fps HDR cable for £40, not much more than a high end copper one, and I guess most of that cost is due to low sales numbers:
ATZEBE HDMI 2.0 Fiber Optic Cable 2M

Looks rather more complex inside than might be necessary for a dashcam remote camera, wouldn't 1 optic core per remote camera do the job? Only needs cheap plastic fibres for the short distances in a vehicle:
ad9084e3-fe6b-4b97-a472-4def67679e14._CR0,0,1200,1200_PT0_SX300__.jpg
 
Back
Top