October 24th 19, 08:44 AM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|
external usenet poster
|
|
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,715
|
|
C5 Fare Dodgers - question
On 24/10/2019 09:18, tim... wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:37:27 on Wed, 23 Oct
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:05:11 on Wed, 23 Oct
2019, remarked:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:34:49 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:41:34 on Wed, 23 Oct
2019, remarked:
I wonder if dashcams storing low/uncompressed video is so it can
accurately
capture very fast movement - eg just before an accident - which
most video
compression systems are not particularly good at.
I think it's because they don't want to have the
silicon|dollars|power
budget of compressing the video. They externalise it to users
having to
buy stupidly big SD cards.
My previous dashcam gobbled through 1.2GB for each ten minute file.
There must be more to it than that. Even cheap smartphones can do
realtime
video compression.
They produce files in MP4 format, but not very much compressed. My
phone
produces typically 150MB per minute (1920 x 1080 pixels).
So, Full HD video.
Like my dashcam (I presume the camera is essentially the same as that
in a phone).
The hardware is probably commodity by now.
My whole dashcam only cost about £30.
That doesn't leave much budget for the lens.
The lens is quite large (1.5cm), and wide angle (170 degrees). And
yes, it's probably one of the more expensive components.
I don't see why
non focusing, non zoom-able lenses cost pennies to make
The rest of the components probably cost fractions of a penny to make :-)
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
|