Inigo_Montoya 0 #1 October 13, 2010 So this seems to be a hot topic lately (or always). This thread is not about number of jumps before using one, etc etc... My thoughts reside in the actual equipment. I understand in the 'early days' (whatever that means for you) big camera's were the norm and dangerous for obvious reasons. Nowadays, there are smaller cameras but I see they are still deemed as quite a bit of a snag hazard. With all of the technology out there in regards to cameras, spy cameras, etc.... why are people still skydiving with big things attached to their heads? Why has a helmet with a built in camera not been invented to remove the snag hazard that a camera imposes? (Please point me in the right direction if this gear exists.) No, not for my use, as I only have the 'first one's free' tandem jump under my belt, but common sense tells me this would be a natural evolution for camera fliers and equipment. Should I go to the engineering drawing board and call the patent office? And if there is a high performance helmet with a built in camera, again, why would someone still strap something on top of their heads? <<--board at work, day dreaming about AFF -Brad"I'm not young enough to know everything." O.W. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 8 #2 October 13, 2010 Quote Why has a helmet with a built in camera not been invented to remove the snag hazard that a camera imposes? (Please point me in the right direction if this gear exists.) No, not for my use, as I only have the 'first one's free' tandem jump under my belt, but common sense tells me this would be a natural evolution for camera fliers and equipment. Build it, someone might buy it. I wouldn't... It would limit me using that camera to while its in the helmet, and seeing as many people don't just use their cameras for skydiving, they probably won't want an integrated helmet. Also, the support base is huge for cameras (sony, canon and such) they put out a good product thats well tested and does the job well, how are you going to compete with that? Not to mention that most camera fliers have 2 cameras, you're going to incoporate a DSLR and a HD video camera into a helmet? It would be interesting to see, but its not really as easy as you would think."I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #3 October 13, 2010 QuoteWhy has a helmet with a built in camera not been invented to remove the snag hazard that a camera imposes? They did. The Sidewinder from Sky System. problem is, when a camera format changes, you need a new helmet. What camera do you want to incorporate? This years model? What happens next year when Sony releases the better version of the one you had in mind, but it 1/16 inch larger in one dimension? And where do you mount the still? I mean, you need a proper, good DSRL if you want good professional pictures if you plan on making money.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #4 October 13, 2010 Quote Quote Why has a helmet with a built in camera not been invented to remove the snag hazard that a camera imposes? They did. The Sidewinder from Sky System. problem is, when a camera format changes, you need a new helmet. That removed the snag hazard, but not the riser slap hazard. I could show you the video of my head getting twisted nearly 360 degrees from a riser slap with a Sidewinder. My jaw wasn't back to normal for months."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Inigo_Montoya 0 #5 October 13, 2010 Great replies! Thanks for the sidewinder info. All I know is camera technology, especially miniature camera technology is out there. They have 8gb HD camera the size of a pen, so that's more where my thoughts are. Size. Mini cameras, etc. As far as stills, with decent enough video editing software, why the need for a camera just for stills? Granted, I'm an admitted big noob, so just playing devils advocate with my questions. If I can get 'stills' of comparable quality from video editing, the risk doesn't seem worth the reward in having a camera dedicated to stills....does it? Has anyone tried using mini cams?"I'm not young enough to know everything." O.W. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #6 October 13, 2010 Send a PM to DSE. I'm sure he'll tell you all you wanted to know, and then some, about video and still quality....Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
monkycndo 0 #7 October 13, 2010 QuoteSend a PM to DSE. I'm sure he'll tell you all you wanted to know, and then some, about video and still quality.... Or just read the camera/video forum. Been discussed there plenty already.50 donations so far. Give it a try. You know you want to spank it Jump an Infinity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #8 October 14, 2010 Didn't Swain or Swann come out with somthing like thissome years ago, with a remote recorder and a small lens on the helmet?You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #9 October 14, 2010 QuoteSo this seems to be a hot topic lately (or always). This thread is not about number of jumps before using one, etc etc... My thoughts reside in the actual equipment. I understand in the 'early days' (whatever that means for you) big camera's were the norm and dangerous for obvious reasons. Nowadays, there are smaller cameras but I see they are still deemed as quite a bit of a snag hazard. With all of the technology out there in regards to cameras, spy cameras, etc.... why are people still skydiving with big things attached to their heads? Why has a helmet with a built in camera not been invented to remove the snag hazard that a camera imposes? (Please point me in the right direction if this gear exists.) No, not for my use, as I only have the 'first one's free' tandem jump under my belt, but common sense tells me this would be a natural evolution for camera fliers and equipment. Should I go to the engineering drawing board and call the patent office? And if there is a high performance helmet with a built in camera, again, why would someone still strap something on top of their heads? <<--board at work, day dreaming about AFF -Brad Lets see... if I remember your ramble in order.. Little camera= Littel quility....which means no one wants to pay for it... OK other than that , you seem to think you can redesign the wheel, please do! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #10 October 14, 2010 Rebuild your helmet every 3 months to keep up with camera manufactuors, then talk about cost,,,, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #11 October 14, 2010 Remember that besides being a physical presence, the camera is a psychological distraction. There's a great thread DSE keeps on noobs getting hurt 'cause they were trying to get a great shot instead of surviving their skydive. Skydiving's a lot of fun if you don't get killed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Inigo_Montoya 0 #12 October 14, 2010 QuoteLets see... if I remember your ramble in order.. Little camera= Littel quility....which means no one wants to pay for it... OK other than that , you seem to think you can redesign the wheel, please do! Actually, I don't.... I was just rambling. :) As far as whether or not people want to pay for it, your point is taken. I came across some cameras claiming HD quality and were the size of a pen. It just got me thinking of miniature, high quality cameras and whether or not they have ever been used in skydiving, that's all. Also, the point of the miniature camera (if there is/was/will be one), would be so you wouldn't have to redesign your helmet every 3 months, and you could continue to sell high quility photos. Now where is that wheel...."I'm not young enough to know everything." O.W. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 8 #13 October 14, 2010 Quote Quote Lets see... if I remember your ramble in order.. Little camera= Littel quility....which means no one wants to pay for it... OK other than that , you seem to think you can redesign the wheel, please do! Actually, I don't.... I was just rambling. :) As far as whether or not people want to pay for it, your point is taken. I came across some cameras claiming HD quality and were the size of a pen. It just got me thinking of miniature, high quality cameras and whether or not they have ever been used in skydiving, that's all. Also, the point of the miniature camera (if there is/was/will be one), would be so you wouldn't have to redesign your helmet every 3 months, and you could continue to sell high quility photos. Now where is that wheel.... A tiny camera could very well do HD quality video, but a tiny camera=tiny sensor, so low light would suck among many other things I'm sure. You could probably hack the hell out of a P&S camera and make it fit, but you likely would never get the quality of a decent DSLR. There is a reason people jump them ya know. "I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #14 October 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteLets see... if I remember your ramble in order.. Little camera= Littel quility....which means no one wants to pay for it... OK other than that , you seem to think you can redesign the wheel, please do! Actually, I don't.... I was just rambling. :) As far as whether or not people want to pay for it, your point is taken. I came across some cameras claiming HD quality and were the size of a pen. It just got me thinking of miniature, high quality cameras and whether or not they have ever been used in skydiving, that's all. Also, the point of the miniature camera (if there is/was/will be one), would be so you wouldn't have to redesign your helmet every 3 months, and you could continue to sell high quility photos. Now where is that wheel.... Just because it records a video with a resolution which is defined as High Definition does not mean that video is quality video. The small ones (GoProHD, ContourHD) use rolling shutter which affects the video quality.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #15 October 14, 2010 QuoteThe small ones (GoProHD, ContourHD) use rolling shutter which affects the video quality. How cool is that? I got some camera technology edumacation! Thanks!My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #16 October 14, 2010 Quote The small ones (GoProHD, ContourHD) use rolling shutter which affects the video quality. The Contour and GoPro don't use a rolling shutter. Small cheap cameras like the ATC2K use a rolling shutter."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #17 October 14, 2010 QuoteQuote The small ones (GoProHD, ContourHD) use rolling shutter which affects the video quality. The Contour and GoPro don't use a rolling shutter. Small cheap cameras like the ATC2K use a rolling shutter. You sure about that? Ever watched a propeller/rotor filmed with GoPro? Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zh-T4ifPh4 from 0:10 onwards.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #18 October 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote The small ones (GoProHD, ContourHD) use rolling shutter which affects the video quality. The Contour and GoPro don't use a rolling shutter. Small cheap cameras like the ATC2K use a rolling shutter. You sure about that? Ever watched a propeller/rotor filmed with GoPro? Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zh-T4ifPh4 from 0:10 onwards. Interesting. I bought an ATC2K a couple years ago. When using it on my bike, every bump causes the entire scene to wiggle like jello for a few moments. Some research turned up that the cause was the rolling shutter. This year I bought a Contour, and have never seen any such quirks. Perhaps the difference might be the rate at which the rolling shutter is operating. Edit to add: Some googling seems to indicate you are right."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 2 #19 October 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The small ones (GoProHD, ContourHD) use rolling shutter which affects the video quality. The Contour and GoPro don't use a rolling shutter. Small cheap cameras like the ATC2K use a rolling shutter. You sure about that? Ever watched a propeller/rotor filmed with GoPro? Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zh-T4ifPh4 from 0:10 onwards. Interesting. I bought an ATC2K a couple years ago. When using it on my bike, every bump causes the entire scene to wiggle like jello for a few moments. Some research turned up that the cause was the rolling shutter. This year I bought a Contour, and have never seen any such quirks. Perhaps the difference might be the rate at which the rolling shutter is operating. Edit to add: Some googling seems to indicate you are right. The video does not show any effects of rolling shutter. I think you are mistaking the rotors to appear curved due to a curved wide angle lense for a rolling shutter effect. The GOPRO is CMOS. From the GOPRO website: Sensor Type: 1/2.5" HD CMOS, 2.2µm-sized pixels Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #20 October 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The small ones (GoProHD, ContourHD) use rolling shutter which affects the video quality. The Contour and GoPro don't use a rolling shutter. Small cheap cameras like the ATC2K use a rolling shutter. You sure about that? Ever watched a propeller/rotor filmed with GoPro? Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zh-T4ifPh4 from 0:10 onwards. Interesting. I bought an ATC2K a couple years ago. When using it on my bike, every bump causes the entire scene to wiggle like jello for a few moments. Some research turned up that the cause was the rolling shutter. This year I bought a Contour, and have never seen any such quirks. Perhaps the difference might be the rate at which the rolling shutter is operating. Edit to add: Some googling seems to indicate you are right. The video does not show any effects of rolling shutter. I think you are mistaking the rotors to appear curved due to a curved wide angle lense for a rolling shutter effect. The GOPRO is CMOS. From the GOPRO website: Sensor Type: 1/2.5" HD CMOS, 2.2µm-sized pixels Yes it has a CMOS sensor. No it does not mean it doesn't have a rolling shutter. Most CMOS sensors are using rolling shutters, it doesn't actually have a mechanical shutter its done electronically. Links for you to read: http://pointofviewcameras.com/blog/pov/article/dendrite-studios-pov-cameras-review-2010 http://www.eyeofmine.com/gopro/hd/prof/index.html Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5UuWp-lASI look @ 0:14Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #21 October 14, 2010 >I came across some cameras claiming HD quality and were the size of a pen. We have gotten to the point where the imagers are much higher quality than the lens. It does little good to get a 1080p-capable imager and put it behind a $10 lens. You'll end up with a very large file that looks worse than most SD videos. This is even worse when it comes to stills. You will always need good glass for good stills - and good glass does not fit in a pen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #22 October 14, 2010 >Why has a helmet with a built in camera not been invented to remove >the snag hazard that a camera imposes? It's been done. But as others have mentioned, it only fits one camera. But don't let that stop you. Get a helmet you like and modify it! It's easy to work with fiberglass, and fairly straightforward to create a smooth surfaced helmet for any camera options you like. Won't be completely smooth, of course; you need doors, lens openings, probably a sight, maybe debrief connectors, probably buttons. If you do start doing camera, you'll end up with a helmet you like at a pretty low cost. (Although if you are like most video people, you'll be hacking away at it within months.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #23 October 14, 2010 Thats a good point regarding the lens...I was also going to point out that even the countour hd...when used in 1080 only records at 30 frames per second...which in my noob opinion would be rather choppy when trying to capture something as quick as a jump. Sure you can record in 720 which will dub at 60 frames per second, but then you're stuck with the default lens and trying to capture widescreen images won't work that well. Besides when I have 200 more jumps (well less the 4 I plan on getting on saturday) there will probably be something better on the market at that time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 2 #24 October 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The small ones (GoProHD, ContourHD) use rolling shutter which affects the video quality. The Contour and GoPro don't use a rolling shutter. Small cheap cameras like the ATC2K use a rolling shutter. You sure about that? Ever watched a propeller/rotor filmed with GoPro? Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zh-T4ifPh4 from 0:10 onwards. Interesting. I bought an ATC2K a couple years ago. When using it on my bike, every bump causes the entire scene to wiggle like jello for a few moments. Some research turned up that the cause was the rolling shutter. This year I bought a Contour, and have never seen any such quirks. Perhaps the difference might be the rate at which the rolling shutter is operating. Edit to add: Some googling seems to indicate you are right. The video does not show any effects of rolling shutter. I think you are mistaking the rotors to appear curved due to a curved wide angle lense for a rolling shutter effect. The GOPRO is CMOS. From the GOPRO website: Sensor Type: 1/2.5" HD CMOS, 2.2µm-sized pixels Yes it has a CMOS sensor. No it does not mean it doesn't have a rolling shutter. Most CMOS sensors are using rolling shutters, it doesn't actually have a mechanical shutter its done electronically. Links for you to read: http://pointofviewcameras.com/blog/pov/article/dendrite-studios-pov-cameras-review-2010 http://www.eyeofmine.com/gopro/hd/prof/index.html Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5UuWp-lASI look @ 0:14 I think what you are getting at is progressive scan which is the P in 1080p for progressive scan. I think this becomes extremely evident in cases which very high vibration such as my 50cc remote control airplane I often mount the GoPro on. At certain RPM's you can see the progressive scan nature a whole lot. I don't have any video of it on youtube yet so I can't show it. On the other hand, are there any HD video cameras (1080) that are not progressive scan? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #25 October 14, 2010 can you bottom line this someone for best all around dive camera ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
