CGO3 Camera Is just a high priced security camera

Discussion in 'C-GO3' started by Jagerbomb52, Sep 20, 2015.

  1. Jagerbomb52

    Jagerbomb52 Guest

    This is a copy and paste from the RCgroups. Some fellow dissected the CGO3 and his findings are very disappointing for sure. No wonder there is so many complaints about the camera. Just a cheap China security camera.

    AGAIN.......the SENSOR used in the CGO3("the digital film" beneath the lens if you will) IS a sony IMX177


    The processor...the "BRAIN"..........IS a security camera based/marketed Ambarella S2 Processor...............NOT the far more robust and capable Ambarella A9 Processor/Soc as was rumored to be in the CGO3(and reportedly running in the GP4)


    Heres a few specs of the S2 PROCESSOR

    Sensor and Video I/O
    ° High-speed RGB Bayer interface to popular sensors
    • 12-lane SLVDS/HiSPi™/subLVDS, 4-lane MIPI™, or • 16-bit parallel
    ° BT.601/656/1120 video in and BT.656/1120 out
    ° 24-bit RGB out, HDMI® 1.4a with PHY out
    ° PAL/NTSC composite SD video out

    Front End Sensor Processing
    ° 32 MPixels maximum resolution
    ° 600 MHz maximum pixel rate
    ° Lens shading, fixed pattern noise correction
    ° Multi-exposure HDR
    ° WDR local exposure

    Image Processing
    ° 3D motion compensated noise reduction (MCTF)
    ° Adjustable AE/AWB/AF
    ° 180/360° fish-eye dewarping with multi-window modes
    ° High quality polyphase scalers
    ° Digital PTZ and Virtual Cameras
    ° OSD engine; overlays, privacy mask
    ° Crop, mirror, flip, 90°/270° rotation
    ° DC-iris and P-iris
    ° Defect pixel correction
    ° Geometric and chroma lens distortion correction
    ° Gamma compensation and color enhancement
    ° Backlight compensation

    Intelligent Video Analytics
    ° Face detection and tracking
    ° Intelligent motion detection
    ° Tampering detection
    ° Intrusion detection and people counting
    ° Advanced 3rd party analytics options
    ° License plate recognition
    ° Object recognition and more

    Video Encoding
    ° H.264 codec BP/MP/HP Level 5.1 and MJPEG
    ° 32 MPixels maximum resolution
    ° 4K UltraHD (3840x2160p30) encoding performance
    ° Low bitrate/high quality encoding
    ° On-the-fly change of multiple encoding parameters
    ° Flexible GOP configuration
    ° Dynamic region of interest
    ° Multiple CBR and VBR rate control modes
    john cappiello, AJDroneOn and midego like this.
  2. Nathan

    Nathan New Member

    Sep 20, 2015
    Sydney AUSTRALIA
    Easy fix just save same shots as raw and add +- an Ev in photoshop!
  3. Michal

    Michal New Member

    Oct 19, 2015
    Thanks for the information. Do you have a link to this post in RCgroups?
  4. NoRush

    NoRush New Member

    Jul 28, 2015
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Not having a technical background in the likes of cameras, I'd appreciate an informed view on the implications of using this "cheap security camera"; most especially for an (assumed) use in the upcoming Typhoon H?
  5. HoveringNinja

    HoveringNinja New Member

    Jan 12, 2016
    Quality Control
    NB, Canada
    And they charge that much for it ? That's a 20 dollar board cam :(
  6. ^pomen_GTR^

    ^pomen_GTR^ Active Member

    Dec 21, 2015
    BUT why we cant get the 32mp image quality? :p :p :p
  7. technicallyitsnotadrone

    Sep 1, 2016
    Hi. I know this is an old post but I came across it researching detailed information on the new Blade Chroma 4k camera drone I just bought.

    After reading this post and doing additional research on the camera hardware myself I came to the conclusion that there seems to be a lot of misinformation out there. Most of the misinformation seems to be originating from the original post on RCGROUPs.

    Anyone can tear down a piece of electronics and read what parts are inside. Not everyone can understand what it is they are looking at.

    I have worked for over 20 years in the Professional Broadcast Video and Graphic hardware and software industry. I am also an avid amateur photographer and RC enthusiast.

    I’m not saying I know everything but I am very familiar with video and graphic processing hardware and software.

    We already know the CG03 uses the same Sony IMX177 cmos sensor found in the Phantom 3 Professional and the GoPro Hero 4.

    The point of contention seems to be the fact the CG03 is using the Ambarella S2 as opposed to the A9 used in the P3P or GPH4.

    Having actually researched both SOCs I have come to the conclusion that the S2 and A9 are nearly identical in specification and performance with a few exceptions.

    They use the exact same processor cores (dual ARM cortex A9’s running up to 1ghz) and Memory interface.

    Performance wise the A9 can process pixels at 700MHz while the S2 does so at 600MHz. However the S2 appears to support internal image processing functions that the A9 does not.

    My guess is that is that there is a slight pixel processing throughput penalty to support these extra image processing functions. This probably has forced the S2 to have a slightly lower pixel throughput rate than the A9. The extra real-time processing power has to come from somewhere right?

    Having done the math myself, the S2 appears more than capable of processing Ultra 4K @ 30fps and 1080p @120fps natively just like the A9 .

    The S2 and A9 support identical sensor and video I/O specifications save for one 1-lane SLVDS/MIPI on the A9. It’s probably used to support the LCD on the GPH4.

    The S2 also supports 8 simultaneous streams of encoded video where at least on paper the A9 does not. This, I assume is to support its functionality as an IP security camera where multiple clients may want to view 1 camera at the same time.

    Owners of Yuneec drones or derivatives can stream video to both the ST10+ and the CG02 smartphone app simultaneously. I assume this is due to the simultaneous streaming capability of the S2.I even suspect you could stream to 8 devices if you wanted to but latency would become an issue in this application.

    I’m not sure if the Phantom series has this capability but it is not listed on the A9 specification. Assuming this is not just a software limitation I suspect this is one reason why Yuneec choose to use the S2 over the similar A9.

    Someone stated that the S2 is just a $20 part. Cost alone is not indicative of the quality or capability of this type of electronic part. If you think it is then I will assume you are not familiar with the concept of “Economies of Scale”.

    In closing I’d just lo say that I’m only posting all of this to clear up what I believe are misconceptions about the CG03 camera. I’m not arguing the merits of one drone over the other.

    I had the money to make a choice and for very specific reasons I chose the Chroma 4k. Others might choose another brand/model based on their needs.

    Still others might choose another brand/model because they heard that the CG03 was a “cheap security camera”.

    IMHO, hardware wise there is no significant difference in image acquisition performance or processing capabilities between the CG03, P3P and GPH4.

    There may be differences in the lenses, in-camera image processing choices(i.e sharpness, WB, etc) but that is true of any camera product.

    Please be prudent and take what you read on the internet with a grain of salt. Who knows, I may even be full of it and work for Yuneec or Ambarella but you won’t know that if you don’t take the time to understand and verify what you read.

    I do not want to contribute to misinformation either so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
  8. Jagerbomb52

    Jagerbomb52 Guest

    Who cares anymore, CGO3 is history and the CGO3+ is out with better this and that but if you do more research you will see people bitching about it also. Can't make everyone happy.
    Oh by the way nice first post.
  9. technicallyitsnotadrone

    Sep 1, 2016
    Here's the thing though. The CG03+ is almost identical to the CG03 with the exception of a modified Gimble to support 360 rotation on the Typhoon H. I know this because I was curious to know this.

    I only posted a reply here because it is one of the 1st links that come up when you search for any CG03 based drone.

    Also CG03 based drones are still for sale in mass quantities so people will still be researching this stuff.

    I know the CG03 is older now but It's never to late to correct bad information. Especially if it will help someone enjoy or understand what they already have or plan to buy.

    I learned something reading this old post. Some of the information was accurate and some wasn't.

    I'm just trying to make it more accurate for the next person.

    Thanks for noticing!
    john cappiello likes this.
  10. Jagerbomb52

    Jagerbomb52 Guest

    Welcome to the forum
    It would seem you are one of the few who support the CGO3 as is. Many people don't. I myself think its a great camera for the price you pay for it.
    You and our resident Der Stig should have a conversion about the CGO3 and CGO3+. He will tell you the GoPro is ten times better. It sure would make for some very good reading if he piped in here LOL
    Again welcome and keep posting, I like learning
    john cappiello and armyrcer like this.
  11. technicallyitsnotadrone

    Sep 1, 2016
    I wouldn't say I support the CG03 as it is. I would say I accept it for what it is.

    If I needed the absolute best image quality I wouldn't be putting a smartphone camera sensor in the air on a small vibrating quadcopter.

    I have spent much time and money over the years on my photography hobby.

    I have sat at my computer and pixelbated over sensor size, noise and lens sharpness as much as anybody.

    Maybe a gopro is better for some reason unknown to me. Maybe they use a better lens on the gopro? The cmos sensor and image processing chip are the same though. Tell der stig there is no arguing that! ☺

    I do know that people have been changing their lens on the CG03+ and getting improvements in sharpness.

    I suspect they may have had a bad batch of the new camera lens or its an alignment problem that should have been caught during assembly.

    No company in this age of the internet and instant product feedback is selling a $2000 flying camera with a blurry lens on purpose!

    As it is I think the image quality I'm seeing on the CG03 out of the box is great for what it is.

    Perhaps when I get the urge to pixelbate I'll try balancing the props and if that doesn't satisfy the urge then maybe I'll change the lens.

    Its all good for now though.
  12. Michael Jay

    Michael Jay New Member

    May 18, 2016
    From my observations, several components have been changed on the cgo3+ board. One of the most notable changes is higher power wifi and better cooling (heatsink, thermal paste, and thermal tape) to the wifi board as a result. The processing board has also been beefed up with better cooling and some different SMD components. The firmware on it is definitely different as I have tried to use parts from one to the other and it doesn't work properly.
  13. Michael Jay

    Michael Jay New Member

    May 18, 2016
    I've flown a few H's a few weeks apart (probably different batches) and from what I can tell, it was a bad batch of lenses as the new lenses have a little bit larger FOV and seem to be focused better. I'll bet they dropped their original supplier over the issue, I would have. The same thing happened with the older cgo3 also. The earlier batch had more blurry lenses and later revisions seem to have worked that problem out.
  14. technicallyitsnotadrone

    Sep 1, 2016
    The typhoon H supports a much longer video and control link range of 1.6 km. I think this is at least 2-3x what the Q400 and Chroma supported? The TPH also streams 720p to the ST-16.

    My guess is they changed to Hi power wifi and beefed up component cooling to support streaming higher bitrate Video at a much greater distance.

    The firmware would need to change just to support the new Hi power wifi and 720p streaming.

    Yuneec either couldn't or didn't want to make the new firmware backwards compatible. Its understandable either way.
  15. Tank

    Tank Member

    Aug 9, 2016
    I have been getting video feed back freezing at about 100 yard's, on CGO-3 but the camera is still recording so I'm definitely navigating by line of sight. Is there a solution for this problem?
  16. technicallyitsnotadrone

    Sep 1, 2016
    This limitation is not just dependent on the CG03 although its internal wifi antenna strength and positioning is partly to blame..

    External range antenna kits are available for the ST10 that can vastly improve the video link range to 1000yards/meters and beyond.

    You should do a search through some of the other threads for "st10 range extender" for more info.
    john cappiello likes this.
  17. Mandofpv

    Mandofpv New Member

    Mar 20, 2017
    Hello all,
    Sorry for the up but i'm reading that the processor board have an HDMI output ?
    So we could link an other sensor to the vtx as an Sony rx100 through HDMI ?

    Sorry I might not clearly understand I'm French


Share This Page