Mr17Hz 1 #1 August 1, 2007 I would have put this in the camera section, but it's the kind of camera that people not interested in flying camera would be more interested in... small and self contained at $120, it's quality isn't anything to brag about but it could be mounted with almost 0 added safety risk and record potential malfunctions, etc.. http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/video/980e/?cpg=56HMatt Christenson [email protected] http://www.RealDropzone.com - A new breed of dropzone manifest software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 0 #2 August 1, 2007 Quoteit could be mounted with almost 0 added safety risk Wrong. Please go read the camera faq in the camera forum. ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #3 August 1, 2007 By the looks of your profile, you have no business deciding, nor recommending what camera equipment poses a risk or not. Adding ANY camera adds risk.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr17Hz 1 #4 August 1, 2007 QuoteBy the looks of your profile, you have no business deciding, nor recommending what camera equipment poses a risk or not. Adding ANY camera adds risk. I don't remember siting sources or stating fact. Everyone else reading this has the same capability of viewing my profile and deciding for themselves what my opinion on the matter is worth. I saw a neat gadget that has previously not been available, and brought it to the attention of others. Hundreds of people claimed that audible altimeters were a safety risk when they came out; that was their opinion. Some argue that configuring the audible to sound only when it's 'too late' is a passive safety device. A camera with no spacial or weight issues lends itself to fall into a similar catagory if used as a passive data capture device, and not for the purpose of taking pictures. Lives have been saved by the data captured and posted on sites like www.skydivingmovies.com.Matt Christenson [email protected] http://www.RealDropzone.com - A new breed of dropzone manifest software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #5 August 1, 2007 What utter tripe.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 August 1, 2007 even if it didn't present snag risk, the distraction effect is still there. Photographers prove that in every activity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #7 August 1, 2007 I've been jumping (and paragliding) with my bullet cam fitted inside my freefly helmet - through a hole(now that's zero snag points!!) for some time now and the quality is pretty good. The way that this is mounted on the cycle helmet looks like a snag point to me. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #8 August 1, 2007 Okay, aside from the fact that there are dangers with ANY camera strapped to your head, especially for someone with 130 jumps ... that camera is a major snag hazard, and videographers have yet to find a non DV tape camera that functions that well in skydiving. I'd leave it for the bike trail. In other words. Get another 100 jumps minimum under your belt and then if you are ready buy a real camera. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baseknut 0 #9 August 1, 2007 QuoteI would have put this in the camera section, but it's the kind of camera that people not interested in flying camera would be more interested in... small and self contained at $120, it's quality isn't anything to brag about but it could be mounted with almost 0 added safety risk and record potential malfunctions, etc.. http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/video/980e/?cpg=56H they go for $80 on ebayStep into my (sub)terminal Playground Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisL 2 #10 August 1, 2007 Quoteit could be mounted with almost 0 added safety risk I see a significant snag hazard with that camera system. I'm a video newb and my comment should be taken with that in mind.__ My mighty steed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Glitch 0 #11 August 1, 2007 Quote I don't remember siting sources or stating fact. Quote The problem is that there are up and coming (newbie) skydivers with more money than brains. They read whats posted here, assume it's gospel, and try it for themselves. The replies you've received are basically twofold...1) Don't make statements that are blatently false. This is the net, and the folks with experience will attempt to set the record straight before a fatality results. 2) If you don't know, ask. A question about the usefullness of this camera in skydiving would have been much better than stating what you did state. If the replies seem harsh, well.... get over it. Life is tuff... lose the skirt and grab a helmet. The experienced skydivers on these boards will do what they can to keep the sport safe and to try and keep folks from killing themselves. Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #12 August 1, 2007 That defining event that you wish you had your camera for - who knows what it will be, or when it will occur, but Fate's tangled skein has you destined for something interesting, so you had better be prepared to document it. Otherwise, you might look the fool. Quoted straight from the camera page... "Fate's tangled skein" would very much be around your camera mount in a bad deployment.Add to that the fact that it's terrible resolution with a crappy mjpeg codec that is difficult to edit, it's $100.00 of junk, unless you're wanting to put it on YouTube and nowhere else. On a television it's horrible. And everyone else mentioned the distraction. You fly differently when you wear a camera, especially in the early jumps. It's unfortunate, but it's natural, IMO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mktoson 0 #13 August 1, 2007 Around a card table, quietly playing Texas Hold 'Em, sits Amelia Earhart, D.B. Cooper, a chupacabra, and Bigfoot. I just like the fact that D.B. Cooper was mentioned in the ad! So far, this is the oldest I've ever been. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fast 0 #14 August 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteit could be mounted with almost 0 added safety risk Wrong. Please go read the camera faq in the camera forum. Just to jump on the bandwagon, as the primary videographer for my dz and with that being one of my bigger focuses in skydiving, I agree that adding ANY camera poses an increase in the danger of any skydive.~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,051 #15 August 1, 2007 Well, that went well and was some constructive feedback. Betcha wanna share more in the future, huh? Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davedlg 0 #16 August 1, 2007 I actually have that camera - I use it for whitewater rafting. It gets reasonable (VGA) picture quality and is 100% waterproof. I dont think I'd strap it on a skydiving helet as-is though. It definatly represents a significant snag risk - signifinatly moreso then even a box mounted camera. Also, I wouldnt trust the mounts on it to hold up to skydiving force winds. I reinforced the mounts to use for whitewater and it works well. edited to add: the other issue with using that camera for skydiving would be that it has a pretty tight field of view - you really wouldn't be able to see much except the middle of wherever you are looking, and it would be pretty jerky with head movements. I started out mounting the camera on my helmet, but ended up putting it on the back of the boat to get a wider field of view and because I look around way too much when rafting to get a good picture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #17 August 1, 2007 Quote I started out mounting the camera on my helmet, but ended up putting it on the back of the boat to get a wider field of view and because I look around way too much when rafting to get a good picture. oooh, vomit cam! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OSOK 0 #18 August 2, 2007 The dude just posted a cool gadget he found... why the flaming? If you wanna get technical, he said "almost 0 snag hazard" and didn't speficify which way to mount it. You're all assuming he meant the way it's on the pic, but maybe he's not. Get the sticks out please. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fast 0 #19 August 2, 2007 QuoteThe dude just posted a cool gadget he found... why the flaming? If you wanna get technical, he said "almost 0 snag hazard" and didn't speficify which way to mount it. You're all assuming he meant the way it's on the pic, but maybe he's not. Get the sticks out please. Actually he said, "with almost 0 added safety risk" which is why people had a problem with the post. If he would have just posted saying, "here is a neat camera I found, check it out" and not added the personal commentary on it coming "with almost 0 added safety risk" then the whole thread would have been completely different. It is often the little things that we think don't matter so much that end up being important. The reason people jumped on him is because new skydivers read threads like these and it gets it in thier head that its ok to strap something like this on "with almost 0 added safety risk" and they show up at thier dz and someone there has to say no. Hell, I had to tell a person with 12 jumps that they couldn't use a camera exactly like this. He couldn't understand why not and was really pissed off at me. Needless to say, his anger prevented him from learning much from me and I didn't get to take him on any more of his coach jumps. I was even nice about it when I let him know he couldn't take the camera. So, the flaming is because he was giving bad advice.~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #20 August 2, 2007 Quote The dude just posted a cool gadget he found... why the flaming? If you wanna get technical, he said "almost 0 snag hazard" and didn't speficify which way to mount it. You're all assuming he meant the way it's on the pic, but maybe he's not. Get the sticks out please. It is not flaming when you point out the obvious irregularities in his statement and the added risks ANY camera poses on guys with low jump #s. Flaming would have been something like "You have no business jumping ANY camera at 130 jumps! yada, yada, yada" I didn't read anything like that. heck the closest thing to that was mine -- it was far from a flame. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr17Hz 1 #21 August 8, 2007 Quoteit could be mounted with almost 0 added safety risk and record potential malfunctions, etc... If you're going to quote me and make assuptions why don't you quote me in context. I specifically included the word mounted for a reason - because it could be mounted in a way that the mounting would not add any safety risk. I didn't say anything about any psycological safety risks. I also didn't say that it would be mounted as seen in the photograph. It is small enough to be mounted in a specially designed helmet or box in such a way that it would not increase that helmet's saftey risk (weight or snag) or size. As for the quality comment of not looking good on TV but maybe just something like YouTube; no shit! If you wanted that kind of a camera you would probably fall into the "people interested in flying camera" cagagory, wouldn't you? Cheap quality low hassle narrow angle footage at no inconvenience can still collect more visual information durring a jump than jumping without a camera.Matt Christenson [email protected] http://www.RealDropzone.com - A new breed of dropzone manifest software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
packing_jarrett 0 #22 August 9, 2007 Quotet could be mounted with almost 0 added safety risk I've seen this same setup that was side mounted. It was pretty funny looking. The camera was about 2 inches away from the helmet when mounted. But really no problems... if anything did get snagged between the cam and the helmet, the plastic base would simpy snap off; much similar to some ringsite mounts.Na' Cho' Cheese Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #23 August 9, 2007 http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/digital-cameras/elmo-suv+cam-micro-video-camera-system-197696.php I jumped one of these for the manufacturer at Oshkosh during the air show....pretty slick, easy to use unit. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
