On 24/10/2019 20:57, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:53:33 on Thu, 24 Oct
2019, Graeme Wall remarked:
Nice view of the sky, you need to pan the camera down a bit to see
more of the road.
Â*How about this (without stabilisation):
Â*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWe0kjE6Ns
Â*Doesn't really convey the bumps adequately. Suffice it to say they
areÂ* 30mph max in a car, and used to be 60mph in a 4x4, but are now
more likeÂ* 50mph. Picked today because of the 4x4 coming in the
opposite direction.

Looks better, a more natural drivers eye view!

A lot of that comes from cropping the excessively wide-angle original
video. On the other hand, if the video is to show what happened in an
accident, you do need as wide an angle as possible.

Very true.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 02:09:26PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:23:32
on Thu, 24 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
I think that shows it's quite some time since you were on the
naughtynet! Looking at dodgy copies of rugby world cup quarter finals
highlights as an example, in the list I'm looking at right now no-one is
offering files that highly-compressed. Of those that are on offer, the
least popular is the most compressed (348MB for 32 minutes) and the most
popular is the least compressed (1.56GB for 32 minutes).
For the majority of TV soap operas, what we once might have described as
"VHS quality" is entirely adequate for viewers to follow the [rather
weak in many cases] plotline|story-arc.

Just because that may be sufficient (of course a text file reading "it's
****, get a life" would be too) doesn't mean that that's what people
actually download. The only content you'll regularly run across at low
resolution and heavily compressed is *old* content.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

Do not be afraid of cooking, as your ingredients will know and misbehave
-- Fergus Henderson

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 08:33:02AM -0000, Recliner wrote:

Would it also have aperture blades?

No. Partly because that's complicated and expensive and moving parts are
likely to break, partly because you don't want the depth of field to
change based on how bright it is. It'll use some combination of fiddling
with exposure time and CCD sensitivity, all of which is purely done in
software, to control brightness.

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

Human Rights left unattended may be removed,
destroyed, or damaged by the security services.

David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 08:33:02AM -0000, Recliner wrote:

Would it also have aperture blades?

No. Partly because that's complicated and expensive and moving parts are
likely to break, partly because you don't want the depth of field to
change based on how bright it is. It'll use some combination of fiddling
with exposure time and CCD sensitivity, all of which is purely done in
software, to control brightness.


Yes, that's what I expected.

Graeme Wall wrote:

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! (Sorry - I had to.)


Cardinal Biggles I assume?

Monty Python - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAn7baRbhx4

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:08:18 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019,
Graeme Wall remarked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4aHaSyBHvE
(Rail-related content)

Nice view of the sky, you need to pan the camera down a bit to see more
of the road.
If I pan it down much, then you get a great view of the bonnet.

Always a problem with those things.

The vertical wide angle is a consequence of the horizontal wide angle.
An alternative would be to letter-box crop the video.
I agree I don't think I've quite got the compromise completely right.

Does it actually have much in the way of adjustment or is it a ratchet
type arrangement where you pick the least worst spot?

There are ratchet points, but somewhat a hostage to the fortune of the
rake of the windscreen.

for me the problem was that, as I had overnight on-street parking, I didn't
want to leave it in place when parked in case some scrote broke in just to
steal the cam, so every time I went out I had to guess the correct place to
put it

And I'd be left will a bill to replace the window that's probably 3 or 4
times the value of the cam

tim

In message , at 23:59:30
on Thu, 24 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 02:09:26PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:23:32
on Thu, 24 Oct 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
I think that shows it's quite some time since you were on the
naughtynet! Looking at dodgy copies of rugby world cup quarter finals
highlights as an example, in the list I'm looking at right now no-one is
offering files that highly-compressed. Of those that are on offer, the
least popular is the most compressed (348MB for 32 minutes) and the most
popular is the least compressed (1.56GB for 32 minutes).
For the majority of TV soap operas, what we once might have described as
"VHS quality" is entirely adequate for viewers to follow the [rather
weak in many cases] plotline|story-arc.

Just because that may be sufficient (of course a text file reading "it's
****, get a life" would be too) doesn't mean that that's what people
actually download. The only content you'll regularly run across at low
resolution and heavily compressed is *old* content.

Is that because the originators can't be bothered to compress it
properly, or is it in fact compressed quite a lot, but is *also* very
high definition?

I haven't got a lot of examples, but one is a well known 1280x720 TV
whodunnit show where they get 1.5hrs into 1.2GB
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:45:36 on Fri, 25 Oct
2019, tim... remarked:

Nice view of the sky, you need to pan the camera down a bit to see
more of the road.
If I pan it down much, then you get a great view of the bonnet.

Always a problem with those things.

The vertical wide angle is a consequence of the horizontal wide
angle. An alternative would be to letter-box crop the video.
I agree I don't think I've quite got the compromise completely right.

Does it actually have much in the way of adjustment or is it a
ratchet type arrangement where you pick the least worst spot?

There are ratchet points, but somewhat a hostage to the fortune of
the rake of the windscreen.

for me the problem was that, as I had overnight on-street parking, I
didn't want to leave it in place when parked in case some scrote broke
in just to steal the cam, so every time I went out I had to guess the
correct place to put it

I leave the suction cup and stalk on the windscreen, and the camera just
clips to that. Very reliably/repeatably. If I had to adjust it daily it
would drive me potty.

And I'd be left will a bill to replace the window that's probably 3 or
4 times the value of the cam

--
Roland Perry

On 25/10/2019 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:

I leave the suction cup and stalk on the windscreen, and the camera just
clips to that. Very reliably/repeatably. If I had to adjust it daily it
would drive me potty.

And said scrote, seeing the suction cup (or even if you did remove it,
the marks left by it, unless you cleaned the screen every time) would
break in looking to see if you'd hidden the camera somewhere.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

In message , at 17:40:30 on Fri, 25 Oct
2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:
On 25/10/2019 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:

I leave the suction cup and stalk on the windscreen, and the camera
just clips to that. Very reliably/repeatably. If I had to adjust it
daily it would drive me potty.

And said scrote, seeing the suction cup (or even if you did remove it,
the marks left by it, unless you cleaned the screen every time) would
break in looking to see if you'd hidden the camera somewhere.

I don't think I've ever seen a car that appeared to have been broken
into like that. And for £39 of dashcam, would they bother?

--
Roland Perry