CX150, ContourHD 1080p, GoPROHD Comparison Footage

[MotherGoose 0]

Screen grab attached.

Saskia, what camera are you using ?

You think you understand the situation, but what you don't understand, is that the situation just changed.

[dragon2 2]

Me? CX105.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[rhys 0]

I prefer Go pro bro!

I have been using the go pro full time for a couple of weeks now.

My current DZ runs full time handicam, the customers have always been offered photos with their DVD and these have been grabbed off the camera. We have been grabbing the footage (avchd) in standard definition high quality on cx100's and Panasonic sd9's. The computers accept this much faster than HD from the Sony and Panasonic but the result is awful photos that are hardy even good enough for facebook.

The dubbsta's noticed that the computers are importing Go Pro footage filmed in 720 @ 60fps about the same speed as the Sony cx100 footage filmed in standard def.

The result is the Go pro footage is heaps crisper on the DVD especially in slowmo. The photos are also, once and for all, really nice quality. The footage from the Go Pro is also wider and crisp from edge to edge rather than the grainy images we get from the expensive wide conversion, lenses.

It’s a no brainier!

For me I can't wait to get rid of my cx100 but I need it for outside camera until I get a contourHD1080 for that.

I have made a handicam glove for the go pro. I wanted to have a low profile glove. The only system I had seen available uses the mounting hinge and the water proof case. I don't trust that hinge in minus 20degreesC at 200kmph. I have seen (supposedly strong) plastic snow shovels shatter and I imagine that stuff doing the same is such conditions with a riser etc...

So I decided to not reinvent the wheel, stick with neoprene and the result is in the attached pictures.

I have ordered a binding tape attachment for my sewing machine and the appropriate materials, the example you see in the photos is made from 3 beer coolers some binding tape and a broken set of goggles.

I intend on selling these in the short future and will advertise them in the classified, they will be quite inexpensive.

The 'Go pro bro'.

I designed a crude filter using a coke bottle to address the filter problem. I will supply a more refined filter (or 2) and other mods that make the 'go pro bro' the lightest, lowest profile, most snag proof and user friendly handicam glove on the market. I will be making them forward facing also for skiing and snowboard outside filming etc too, those will encompass the water proof case.

Each glove will be custom made to fit, at leat at first. After I have completed my current orders I'm sure they will be ready for the market.

Sorry about the advertising form moderators and the semi repost but this conversation is not limed to instructors. Just putting it out there.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Hellis 0]

Thought i share what i have found out.

http://www.vholdr.com/forums/tips-and-tricks/wideangle-lens-any-suggestions

Im not sure its wide enough?
At this test the lens was just held infront of the camera, but once its attached properly i think it will go in deeper making the 'rim' smaler.
Or try to find a low profile lens.

[Jonntis 0]

I dont know a lot about this, but are you sure a shooting 1080p with an additional wide angle would improve image quality over shooting 720p with the lens already on the camera?

I've had the same thought as you but from what I've seen most WA converters negatively affect the image quality.


There's been discussions about the resolution of wideangles before, number of lines and so on. How many consumer wideangles actually gives justice to 1080p?

[Hellis 0]

I see your point, but i dont think 135 degrees wideangle is much more than 110.
If you are going to video tandems, 4 ways, other people skydiving etc. its enough, but when you are the video itself you need more wideangle.

Any piece off glass infront of a camera will be negative if its not 100% optimized, but if its 'good enough' it might still give you a better video than without.

Did a freefly jump last week where my friend grabed my foot, and because of the lack of wideangle its not on video.
I could perhaps have looked down a bit more to get it on video.

If you look at the stills, the quality change is not noticable, not even on the 'real video'.
Actually i think the quality is better with the lens on, but that could just be a coincidence.
Its kind of a no brainer to shot a video with a camera with settings for bright daylight on a cloudy day, filming dark people on a gray/white background.

Did some searching for a thin lens, and found xdream http://www.xdream-optics.de/skyline.htm are they HD lenses?

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

The Xdream .3 lens that I used to use on my PC 109 was in every way identical to the lenses sold by Liquid and the ones Max Cohn sells. I don't believe that anyone thinks ANY of the low profile lenses out there are going to give you GREAT HD resolution as compared to the larger, much-more expensive options. Still, I am totally happy with the low-profile Liquid .3 that I use on my CX7. I generally only shoot in SDHQ resolution anyway for the AFF and wingsuit video I shoot.

Chuck

[Hellis 0]

hmm.. Thats not good.
Would you say you can notice the difference?
In the edges its normal to get som distorsion but how much, and what about the centre?

I have seen that Opteka also sells a kind of low profile lens. Its very wide at the top which probably is good.
But are they also worse than a Raynox for example?

EDIT: Nevermind, i cant even mount the Opteka on my helmet. I dont have enough clearance between camera and helmet for that lens

[cshieldsx 0]

How are you planning on mounting aftermarket lenses to the contour as there is no thread or anything ?

Blue Skies

[Jonntis 0]

This would be one option.


/Jonathan