When is the next iteration?

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

Perhaps, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

For one thing, aside from the high cost of the cable you'd have to add the cost of a fiber optic engine and I'm not aware of any that would easily fit inside a typical dash cam lens module. Plus HDMI fiber optic cables are usually used to send video signals to a monitor from a source. Sending video imagery from a lens module to a dash cam console is a different matter and such technology for dash cam purposes may add significant development costs to the price of the camera. As it is, the current business model for the dash cam industry is to build products entirely out of existing, off the shelf components.
 
Last edited:
i think people just want affordable good reliable cameras, not the next NASA leap in technology that is still in trial.
 
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

Actually it depends on the frequency it's used at. One foot of the small stuff will lose a full decibel of the signal energy compared to the 1/2" (13mm) lines at UHF frequencies, but at low HF frequencies and down it compares decently in most applications. I have no clue what frequencies are used in video transmission, but at all frequencies short of microwave, larger coax performs better (microwave doesn't use coax but waveguides).

I don't know what all is involved with this, but a properly shielded and grounded coax cable which is in tune with the frequency being used is very effective at blocking unwanted emissions as well as incoming interference. Length, turn radius, connector type, and it's RF impedence plus it being matched to whatever is at the ends all play a part in 'tuning' coax. It's not as simple as it may seem!

Phil
 
Actually it depends on the frequency it's used at. One foot of the small stuff will lose a full decibel of the signal energy compared to the 1/2" (13mm) lines at UHF frequencies, but at low HF frequencies and down it compares decently in most applications. I have no clue what frequencies are used in video transmission, but at all frequencies short of microwave, larger coax performs better (microwave doesn't use coax but waveguides).

I don't know what all is involved with this, but a properly shielded and grounded coax cable which is in tune with the frequency being used is very effective at blocking unwanted emissions as well as incoming interference. Length, turn radius, connector type, and it's RF impedence plus it being matched to whatever is at the ends all play a part in 'tuning' coax. It's not as simple as it may seem!

Phil

I had excellent SW band results with a 50 foot run of mini coax that went to a switchable Palomar balun and then to two 100 foot copper long wire antennas (east-west/north-south). Also had good results using it on a wide band scanner with a discone. I was introduced to mini coax at the recommendation of a friend who is a ham operator and general radio freak when he heard what I was wanting to set up. As for whatever signal loss I may have experienced I don't know but I was pleased with the way it worked out. It helps that I live on a mountain in an isolated RF quiet environment. (if I shut down my computers).

I've used it for a surveillance camera somewhat experimentally and got good results as well that were essentially indistinguishable from the results using RG59 cables.
 
Wifi isn't the way to go with most things, really. The channels are limited, and signal interference is already an issue in places where wifi proliferates. Adding more channels only delays the inevitable running out of spectrum. It should only be used where necessary, with 'wired' connections (including fiber optic) used wherever possible. The problem is really that it's convenient and is easy to set up for the average consumer so everyone wants and uses it. As people have issues with it, they just increase power which helps them at everyone elses cost. Then those other people raise the power to cope with your changes and the whole cycle starts again endlessly. If you've ever heard CB radio on the truckers channel in a large city, that's pretty close to what wifi will soon become, and just like CB it will be the users doing it to themselves.

What might work here would be cams using a licensed and dedicated group of frequencies, but those kinds of transmitters have much tighter regulations involved regards spectral purity so are much more costly. And even that could interfere with automotive systems. "Wiring" be it shielded cabling, fiber optics, or whatever is the best option for cams in cars. I think it could be done better without too much cost, but it's still going to always be the superior method.

Phil
 
I had excellent SW band results with a 50 foot run of mini coax that went to a switchable Palomar balun and then to two 100 foot copper long wire antennas (east-west/north-south). Also had good results using it on a wide band scanner with a discone. I was introduced to mini coax at the recommendation of a friend who is ham operator and general radio freak when he heard what I was wanting to set up. As for whatever signal loss I may have experienced I don't know but I was pleased with the way it worked out. It helps that I live on a mountain in an isolated RF quiet environment. (if I shut down my computers).

I've used it for a surveillance camera somewhat experimentally and got good results as well that were essentially indistinguishable from the results using RG59 cables.

If you care to, you can look into it yourself HERE Coax manufacturers and many other Ham radio sites have charts regarding signal loss at various frequencies in coax which will show I'm right. For SWL the small 174 stuff does well on the low end and fair on the upper end, but with your discone you could receive at least twice as much just by switching to a better (and larger) coax like LMR 400 which is more suitable for those frequencies, especially with a good impedance match at both ends. I don't know much about too many things but I'm rabid about antennas and transmission lines :geek:

Phil
 
If you care to, you can look into it yourself HERE Coax manufacturers and many other Ham radio sites have charts regarding signal loss at various frequencies in coax which will show I'm right. For SWL the small 174 stuff does well on the low end and fair on the upper end, but with your discone you could receive at least twice as much just by switching to a better (and larger) coax like LMR 400 which is more suitable for those frequencies, especially with a good impedance match at both ends. I don't know much about too many things but I'm rabid about antennas and transmission lines :geek:

Phil

Thanks Phil. I certainly defer to you on this subject. At one time I was pretty into this stuff and am aware of the signal loss issues but for my purposes the results were satisfactory and the smaller diameter cables addressed a problem with an installation challenge. At this point I don't even have the discone or the long wires set up any more as I took them down when I put a new roof on my house and barn a couple of years ago. Actually, you can get away with a lesser antenna system on a quiet mountain and I make do with a different set-up these days. My "radio friends" are jealous of my location.
 
Last edited:
Add me to that 'jealous' list. Urban RFI, crappy ancient electrical grid, and a factory about 1/4 mile away that wipes out any but the strongest HF signals on an irregular and unpredictable basis :mad: If you have metal gutters they make pretty darn good SWL antennas with either a single-wire feeder or coax shield to a half-decent ground rod (not your house wiring ground). Tap into a downspout and you may never bother to put the wires back up (unless you're hardcore) ;)

Phil
 
Fiber optic is not suitable for two reasons:
- they can break easily at corners
- you cannot power the sensor via fiber optic so you will still need an additional cable for that.
 
That first part is wrong. Modern stuff you can tie in knots before starting to get degradation.

The second part is true in that you still have to power the camera, either from a separate 12V source or via two small-diameter wires along the fiber (more likely).

There are lots of good reasons fiber doesn’t make good technical or business sense. Those aren’t really them.
 
That first part is wrong. Modern stuff you can tie in knots before starting to get degradation.

The second part is true in that you still have to power the camera, either from a separate 12V source or via two small-diameter wires along the fiber (more likely).

There are lots of good reasons fiber doesn’t make good technical or business sense. Those aren’t really them.
Actually fibre does make sense for longer distances, and as our computer cables get faster with more data to transmit, the distances over which fibre makes sense are getting much shorter. I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of computer cables (USB, HDMI, SATA) use optical as standard.

Copper USB-C is limited to 3 meters length, beyond that you currently use optical cables: https://www.electronicproducts.com/...er_optic_cables_for_USB_3_0_interconnect.aspx

For long/best quality HDMI cables you currently use fibre as above.

As for power, it is technically possible to transmit power optically, but using current technology you are not going to power a dashcam with it, so it is either extra copper conductors like the HDMI cable above or a separate power supply like that USB cable. As proof that power can be transmitted optically, 4% of UK mains electricity in the last year has been delivered to the grid optically - solar power!
 
When i got fiber internet to my house, the installer almost panicked over the thought of me touching the actual raw fiber, but the tube in the ground it ran it that was okay for me to dig 3 feet into the ground and save a little money on the install.
There was no mention of how tight bends in the ground tube could be.
And when i got closer to the house i found that yes the very old house dident have a foundation in the modern sense, but it did appear to be placed on a lot of big ass stones, which made it hard for me to have the tube at the specified depth close to the house.
 
as our computer cables get faster with more data to transmit, the distances over which fibre makes sense are getting much shorter.
The data streaming from a dash cam is minimal. Like I said, not only is fiber not necessary, but there are numerous reasons it’s not the best choice for this application. It’s just that power delivery and bending concerns aren’t them.
 
Back
Top