News: CAA Meeting Update: FPV exemption extended to 3.5kg AUW and 1000ft Max Altitude from March 2014

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Fpv-Forum.com »
  • Equipment »
  • Video Equipment »
  • #11 vs #16 comparison

* User Info

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

* Recent Posts/Topics

What did the postman bring you today? by bigMouse
[Today at 10:15:44 PM]


MrBens Happy Wings 'Wipeout' Build Thread by MatthiasC
[Today at 12:52:16 PM]


anyone flying the weekend? by xxpitt
[April 22, 2015, 11:19:00 PM]


New DJI phantom + Fat Shark Attitude V2 ( Compatability Question) by JasonHeart
[April 22, 2015, 10:31:14 PM]


wanted...... teksumo motor Mount by gavnthat
[April 22, 2015, 08:51:16 PM]


FPV Spanky Up North, Rochdale Canal by JAB1a
[April 22, 2015, 10:33:48 AM]


FPV Model is Seeking Reviewers for Brushless Motors by bigMouse
[April 22, 2015, 09:43:47 AM]


Hobbyking $12 osd new firmware out for rssi values by bigMouse
[April 22, 2015, 09:18:10 AM]


Fun, altitude and night... a good mix by bigMouse
[April 22, 2015, 09:16:30 AM]


The Safe Way to Use UAS by tattustore
[April 22, 2015, 04:28:26 AM]


old hat futaba & Campac stuff by bigMouse
[April 21, 2015, 09:00:44 AM]


Sponsor for RC Racers by tattustore
[April 21, 2015, 03:40:55 AM]


A few laps and loads of crashes by bigMouse
[April 20, 2015, 09:02:15 AM]


HOW TO RECOVER OVER-DISCHARGED LIPOS? by bigMouse
[April 20, 2015, 08:53:07 AM]


GPS signal wire by bigMouse
[April 18, 2015, 08:46:48 AM]

* Traders Section

$9.99 only!!! FPVMODEL MC2204 2300KV Brushless Motor by fpvmodel
[April 16, 2015, 04:40:58 AM]


Tarot 5D3 3-Axis Self-stabilizing Gimbal TL5D001 by fpvmodel
[April 16, 2015, 04:10:41 AM]


« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: #11 vs #16 comparison  (Read 2109 times)

Offline Dusty

  • Legendary Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3344
    • View Profile
#11 vs #16 comparison
« on: July 03, 2013, 09:48:18 PM »
Looking back at one of my videos I just realised how crap the #11 Keychain camera was. At the time, when it was new I was all chuffed at how brilliant the HD footage was.


But just look at it, and compare it to the second video which is from the newer #16 v2 version


#11
quadfpv





#16
Bixler 2 FPV - #16 HD Keychain camera
Logged

Online bigMouse

  • Ultimate Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1807
    • View Profile
Re: #11 vs #16 comparison
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2013, 09:45:56 AM »
Just for reference, as mentioned on shout, I had problems with the avi files from the #16 camera.
They were loading into sony vegas for editing, sound was ok but the video was blank. after a lot of searching on the net could find no complete solutions, and some were totally useless. The 808 #16 official threads admitted the mov and avi formats were "non standard" (meaning they didn't adhere to the correct protocol) Bad software programming or trying to avoid copyright infringement, (rather think it was the former!).

Anyway the official threads suggested a few different options:

(1) Use VirtualDub to Perform a direct stream copy of the avi files.
This would presumably save them in the correct universal format!
That didn't work! It opened in VD with blank video and the direct stream copy produced blank video.

(2) Use x264vfw, its an x264 encoder, (a load of bollocks) the more crap you load on your computer, the more conflicts your going to get! The problems are not with the codecs, its with the way the 808 codes the avi file.

(3) Use Freemake, (it is a freeware video converter) BEWARE of this load of Crap, the soft is probably ok but the tossers hosting the freemake download wants to infest your pc/laptop with a load of shite! If you must install Freemake, then use the custom install and un-tick the boxes, you will need to do this three times during install.
Results: It did work but produced a file half the size of the original, with obviously a big reduction in quality, and that's before you can even get it into the editor, no way...

(4) Use AVS video converter. This program is commercial, need to pay to remove the watermark!
Results: It did work but produced an even smaller file-size, (defaults are set for ipods etc) found the highest quality conversion it could do! Actually 720p at 30 fps (an exact match!). Took a while to convert, The file produced was ok to good, but the file size was still smaller than the original, which is annoying!

Finally I realised the best solution was already in front of me, use your editing program to re-encode the original file, Done... and for no extra cost! Still a pain that you need to do this for every video file coming out of the 808 #16 camera...
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 10:21:40 AM by bigMouse »
Logged

Cupid Stunt

  • Guest
Re: #11 vs #16 comparison
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2013, 10:01:28 AM »
I've never had any trouble with the avi files from any of my keychain cameras, but then I do make sure my PC has Quicktime Pro (paid for) it's not expensive and gives you the h.264 full codecs it also allows you to use Quicktime to clip/cut files before using in an editor too if you wish

There are also several other codec packs out there like the k-lite codec pack but I've not found any others that include the full h.264 codecs
Logged

Online bigMouse

  • Ultimate Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1807
    • View Profile
Re: #11 vs #16 comparison
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2013, 10:50:27 AM »
CS It isn't a codec problem, whatever coding is used in the 808 camera, its not adhering to the h.264 (avi) protocol. It produces unexpected results with any random program that uses the file, SV  is strict on what it will accept, some other editors or players might be less strict, might or might not work!.

The signs that it's not a correct format shows in a couple of different ways.

Attached pic. left is the 808 avi copied directly to the pc, see it couldn't resolve the thumbnail image!
On the right side is the same file after rendering with the correct protocol. see the thumbnail is now visible.
Other issues is, it will play but the filmstrip in SV is blank, search youtube and they all blame codecs but it's the coding in the 808 firmware to blame, which has been admitted in the official thread...

edit, forgot to attach the pic
Logged

Offline Dusty

  • Legendary Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3344
    • View Profile
Re: #11 vs #16 comparison
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2013, 11:38:29 AM »
Yeah, we were chatting about this last night... turns out I have the .mov firmware installed on my #16 v2

I've never had any issues with that... and havent even installed any special software. I use the windows Live movie maker, free from microsoft website.

All my videos are done with WLMM, apart from the few I've tinkered with PiP... then I've made the PiP bit with Power Director, exported it... then imported into WLMM to make the final movie.
 
Shame the GUI didn't give BM the option to try the .mov firmware
Logged

Cupid Stunt

  • Guest
Re: #11 vs #16 comparison
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2013, 11:56:47 AM »
Quote from: bigMouse on July 04, 2013, 10:50:27 AM
CS It isn't a codec problem, whatever coding is used in the 808 camera, its not adhering to the h.264 (avi) protocol. It produces unexpected results with any random program that uses the file, SV  is strict on what it will accept, some other editors or players might be less strict, might or might not work!.

I use Sony Vegas bigMouse, never any problem
Running Vegas Pro and Vegas Movie Maker on Windows Vista
Never any problems that could not be sorted out by using the correct codecs
Logged

Online bigMouse

  • Ultimate Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1807
    • View Profile
Re: #11 vs #16 comparison
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2013, 12:30:27 PM »
I've located the mov file firmware, trying it now!

This fw has the amusing description of:
Essentially the same as the former buggy v0.58 MOV FW, with a couple of small changes to vol and frame rate functions

will see how this behaves!
Logged

Cupid Stunt

  • Guest
Re: #11 vs #16 comparison
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2013, 12:37:52 PM »
Ahhhhh apologies BM
I couldn't remember what firmware I was using so just did a mini recording to load it onto the PC and I too am using the .MOV firmware, not sure which firmware version it is though
Logged

Online bigMouse

  • Ultimate Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1807
    • View Profile
Re: #11 vs #16 comparison
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2013, 12:45:02 PM »
just done a quick test and the mov FW is running ok. the mov file format is being accepted, Thumbnails being correctly produced and video visible on the timeline. Disadvantages appear to be a sec or so chopped off beginning and end of clip, apparently the avi (was supposed to) produce an overlap each end. Suffice it to say, the avi fw version isn't the fw of choice for me...

Corp this partially answers a question in your video, re: 7 or 10 Mbps on the video options.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1556994
Third post down by Tom Frank.
Video questions> I set my camera for 10Mbps data rate, but only get about 7Mbps on the video
He attempts to answer it in the link, not sure if he's woffling or not!
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=20641421&postcount=2247
Logged

Online bigMouse

  • Ultimate Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1807
    • View Profile
Re: #11 vs #16 comparison
« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2013, 01:04:00 PM »
CS. Latest FW is v0.67 MOV or v0.67 AVI & Bootloader v3.0

Bootloader v3.0 is the same as earlier version but allows FW update using the Nr16 GUI, which is much easier and safer to do.

I can't remember, but must have loaded the avi firmware version at some time, thinking it would be easier to use. Obviously not!


Logged

Offline Dusty

  • Legendary Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3344
    • View Profile
Re: #11 vs #16 comparison
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2013, 01:08:29 PM »
glad you got it working with the .mov firmware mate.

as for the 7/10 mbps debate...... all I know is that the lower rate is safer for lower class (slower) micro sd cards. I've had a class 6 in mine since I bought it, never a problem with those settings in the video.

also, MAKE SURE THE TV VIDEO OUT IS OFF when you're not using AV out... it saves battery power.

I had trouble getting my cam to record over 10 minutes, until I changed the AV setting to off and now I consistently get 25mins plus.

however, I think I fried my internal battery so I'm making up a USB cable to power it from the RX on  my bixler 1.1, using one of those nice right angled USB connectors for it too :)
Logged

Online bigMouse

  • Ultimate Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1807
    • View Profile
Re: #11 vs #16 comparison
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2013, 02:45:28 PM »
ok have just turned it off.
Battery seems ok here providing its charged same day as using it.
Logged

Online bigMouse

  • Ultimate Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1807
    • View Profile
Re: #11 vs #16 comparison
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2013, 04:21:22 PM »
Here is a clip from last Sunday's gliding. The camera was just taped onto the cockpit of a tiny DG-1000.
Youtube has more or less ruined the quality, If you get bored just go to the landing at the end, see the ground at grass level gives a glimpse of the quality.

This was bright'ish and mainly cloud, much better results when the sun is out...

808 #16 test, cloudy conditions.
Logged

Cupid Stunt

  • Guest
Re: #11 vs #16 comparison
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2013, 05:10:23 PM »
Look like a struggle to keep her in the air, it's hard to see if you're above the slopes when you're that fart back eh ?

Have you got the cam on a fixed exposure or auto ?

I keep mine on auto as the V2's don't "step" the exposure as much as the old one's did
Logged

Online bigMouse

  • Ultimate Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1807
    • View Profile
Re: #11 vs #16 comparison
« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2013, 05:25:55 PM »
Earlier on the lift was dramatic, That ASW20 soon disappeared into cloud, had to deploy spoilers and flaps to get it to stop climbing, then it clouded over, and for a while, no lift at all, it was just returning when I took those videos, severely cropped them so they don't really give a true representation of flying that day. You might be able to see the cars way below! Not a bit like Wales, we have to carry the models up, that's why we don't normally build bigger than 1/3rd scale.

There is no adjustment for auto exposure, at least I can't find it! There is auto white Balance though.
Here is a screen grab of the advanced image settings (all on default)

Logged


  • Print
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »
  • Fpv-Forum.com »
  • Equipment »
  • Video Equipment »
  • #11 vs #16 comparison
 

* Who's Online

  • Dot Guests: 30
  • Dot Hidden: 0
  • Dot Users: 6
  • Dot Users Online:
  • user Jake Bullit
  • user MrBen
  • user xxpitt
  • user Martink1974
  • user bigMouse
  • user pixelmills

* Classified Ads

qav400 £200 ONO by xxpitt
[Today at 07:17:14 PM]


DJI iOSD Mini - £30 by MrBen
[April 18, 2015, 02:36:28 PM]


Frsky Taranis For sale by Martink1974
[April 16, 2015, 12:33:18 AM]


wanted fpv goggles by lkparky
[April 15, 2015, 10:20:22 PM]

* Recent Images

No attachments were found.
SMF 2.0.7 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
SimplePortal 2.3.4 © 2008-2011, SimplePortal

Page created in 0.841 seconds with 22 queries.