Jump Shack's "The Use of Handcam"

[parachutist 1]

Quote

The lens I use is a Royal Diamond 0.3x with a 110 degree field of view. With a little practice the student is perfectly centered in frame, and any distotion is minimal.

Let's see it. I would think .3x too narrow to get the full picture, but maybe I'm wrong... show me what you're seeing.

[skyjump122 0]

Hello, I posted some video on Youtube and one here.The one titled handcam sample is the same one here, that way you can download it to watch it in another viewer.
They had to be compressed for posting.
The Handcam Sample video is the most recent and was shot with a brand new lens.
I keep the wide angle on the camera throughout all the shooting - prejump - ride to altitude etc.

A super-wide-angle lens gives the viewer the feel of looking into a convex security mirror at a store. I feel this just sends the quality down the toilet. Everything is so distorted, it makes it difficult to sit through.
When you watch these notice no black corners -
( Vignette ). Some I have seen actually have a round frame from distortion. With the .3 you don't get that at all, and the distortion is not bad.

I do not sell lenses!!! My goal is to elevate the quality of video going out the door.
The people watching our videos, are our would be jumpers.

Some quality lenses can be found at:
http://www.royallens.com/product_description.php
http://www.waycool.com.au/redeye03lens189-p-1.html

My Videos:

Handcam Sample
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8l4ASMNfFk

susanne youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63_rW3m929I

The Screamer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp483N6L05A

Dan Wang - uploaded by student
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy9lq5eUAJQ

Youv'e got 54 lbs. of gear on your back - 160 lbs. of stupid on the front - 5 handles all in the wrong place - And a pilot chute in tow - What could possibly go wrong?

[adamT 0]

Personal preferance really, and that preferance will vary with customers just like it varries between jumpers. I find the .3 to be too narrow for a handcam. It's too constricted, a wider lens gives a better feeling of the vastness of their jump. It also helps make the inevitable instability of handcam less noticable. I'm not a fan of the distortion but I accept it as necessary evil to get the field of view I want. I agree vignette is unaceptable on a paid video, same withe pieces of the helmet of jumpers face in outside video.

I think handcam is horrible for freefall compared to quality outside vid. Allthough after opening handcam wins, until landing that is. But I understand it's need and think it's an important option. In the end though we know that the student is going to be as happy as can be as long as they can see themselvs falling though the sky on vid. They usually don't know any better or have anything to compare it to, so even if it looks like crap to us they still love it. That's not say we shouldn't make the best product possible.

[Rover 9]

I disagree. I've used a .3 lens and currently use a .25 I think the latter is far superior. Just my 2 cents.

2 wrongs don't make a right - but 3 lefts do.

[parachutist 1]

Quote

Hello, I posted some video on Youtube and one here.

Thanks for posting those. I agree, the distortion is pretty extreme in .2 lenses. But it does let the student see the surrounding area, the instructor, student's whole body, all at the same time. So I think it's a 50/50 between the two... personal preference.

[skyjump122 0]

Thank you all,
We will (and should) always have our preferances.
I'm not saying the .3 is the best, only that it can be used, and offers a closer to life view. We can also pan the camera a bit to get more surrounding area.
Ideally the subject would occupy 2/3 of the frame, and surroundings remaining 1/3 in front of them.
This is common practice for video composition. "Rule of thirds" I don't mind cutting myself out - cuz I'm butt ugly anyway

I anticipate having a letter in the February issue of Parachutist - regarding the slamming letter in the December issue.
Handcam is really getting a black eye everywhere lately.
If we are going to take the place of an outside videographer, we need to provide an equally good product - How we accomplish that is up to the person shooting and editing the video.

I haven't seen any forums or threads specifically devoted to handcam, sorry you guys are catching my venting.
Blue skies 2 ya

Youv'e got 54 lbs. of gear on your back - 160 lbs. of stupid on the front - 5 handles all in the wrong place - And a pilot chute in tow - What could possibly go wrong?

[DSE 3]

I don't fly tandem handcam and likely never will. I agree with much of the letter found in Parachutist, I'd like to offer this up;
People that pay for video don't just want to see themselves doing something, they want to see themselves doing it in the environment in which it's done.

The experience calls for the vastness of the sky, the distance to the ground, and their miniscule presence in all of it.

Seeing a pair of faces up close says nothing about the experience itself, and doesn't begin to define the environment in which it's done. Maybe, had film taken its basic steps in another world, another time, viewers wouldn't expect to see an establishing shot, a medium shot, and a close-up to draw them in. From a fixed position, hand-cam simply cannot in now way, ever provide that experience whereas outside video can.
*IF* the hand cam is the only thing to be used, then a wider lens should be the preference, simply because it DOES provide more experiential imagery. Otherwise, it's breaking a basic rule of photography, and that is shooting with an eye-height tripod with a 55mm lens. No one cares to see things as they saw it. They want more and/or different.

A very wide lens (.25.2, .175) provides a view that the student DIDN'T see, therefore allowing them to relive their experience from a point of semireality, seeing new things and re-experiencing the sensations based on personal and new memory.
And that....is what it's all about.

BTW, although your reference to the rule of thirds is of course, correct,I think there is a mis-understanding of the powerpoints and frame composition. Cutting yourself out because you are "butt-ugly" only challenges the frame and provides imbalance. The weight should be at the bottom of the frame, not at the top, and certainly not cutting someone out of the image in favor of a light bottom frame.
If you're going to provide an equal or higher quality product, then shooting (and most likely providing stock media) good footage is critical. An empty foreground generally goes against all rules of photography outside of specific intentionalities.

[skyjump122 0]

Hello again,
First I was joking about the cutting myself out part.
I feel the video should convey to the viewer what the experience is like. I only mean to say that the image need not be badly distorted to accomplish that. By positioning the camera to allow the earth to have some (1/3) of the frame it doesn't look like a face in a box. I also meant to say that the camera need not be pointed only at the student the entire time in droguefall. The drogue shot is from doing my handles check.
A quick pan shot of the horizon and or ground below can lend a sense of the surrounding enviroment.
I am seeing a lot of video that looks like a convex security mirror in a store, that distorted image is what kept me from doing handcam for a long time.
I assumed that was the only possible way to do it.
When you shoot outside video it doesn't look like that.
I keep the .3 on the camera the entire time, establishing shots, interview, ride up etc. and use some stock stills as well. I just don't want handcam percieved as a cheap, low quality video. it doesn't have to be.
Thanx

Youv'e got 54 lbs. of gear on your back - 160 lbs. of stupid on the front - 5 handles all in the wrong place - And a pilot chute in tow - What could possibly go wrong?

[riggerrob 558]

First; thanks to DSE for explaining some of the finer points of framing subjects.

It sounds like we are on the same page, because we are both tired of Tandem Handy-Cam operators shoving the lens up the student's nose and holding it there - rigid - for the entire skydive.

I prefer to show a variety of angles and backgrounds during free fall.

Right after exit, I try to lay with my belly on the wind, but turn right so the airplane stays in frame for two or three seconds, then I focus on the student for a few seconds, but often video the drogue for a couple of seconds - while checking my handles.

Part way down, I stick my camera hand out as wide as possible - and point it in front of the student's nose and do slow turns to show some of the magnificent mountains near Pitt Meadows.
Just before opening, I tilt the camera up so that it sees the top of the student's face and the drogue and film the opening. During opening shock, I allow the camera to sag towards the student's belly so that I can catch their emotions as we slow down.
After that "post-opening interview", I film the student grabbing the right steering toggle, then pause the camera.
I usually un-pause the camera for a spiral under canopy, then pause it again until I enter the landing pattern.
At about 800 feet I tap the pause bottom for the last time and focus on my landing.
With a lot of arm muscle and technique, one can keep the student's face in frame all the way through landing and the "post-landing comments."
Throughout the majority of that sequence, the student's face wandered from corner to center to corner, etc. of the lens. I really only point away from their face when patting the reserve ripcord handle/looking at the drogue.
The trick to great video is telling a story from a variety of angles.

[skydived19006 4]

I've picked up a few things regarding video techniques through these forums, like leaving my left hand out of the toggles for a lot of the canopy footage. One thing I'll try to work in is varying the camera angle while in drogue fall. Once settled in, deal with the lighting, etc., I generally leave it down in front of the student's face.

One thing I don't think that I've seen discussed here is shitty outside video. It doesn't take much searching at all to find a whole lot of really crappy outside video on youtube. For the large full time DZs poor outside video is not much of an issue, but for small weekend operations, quality, and consistency can be a huge issue. In addition to quality issues, and consistency problems, we are small enough that I couldn't even count on video folks showing up, so the other TI and I took over the video, we do it all! Later on, hand cam allowed us to do 14 to 16 tandems a day, all with video as opposed to half than number. When it was all outside video and it got busy, we were actually in a position of discouraging people form purchasing video.

Anyway, I'll link one of mine. One unique shot I get is of the first tandem leaving the 182 (I generally go second), I don't think I've ever seen anyone else get that shot. And as Rob states, you can by simply keeping your wrist angle in the back of your mind keep everything is frame all the way through flair. This is a .25 lens, and the vignette does not show up on a TV, just computers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK1qXDBbKtM&feature=related

Follow the money, in the end, it all comes down to economics. Hand cam makes economic sense for a lot of DZs, love it or hate it, it's here to stay. Best any of us can do is improve the product as much as possible, it's not going away.

I thought about writing a rebuke of the letter in Parachutists as well, didn't do it though.

Martin

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[skyjump122 0]

Yahoo!
This is what I was hoping for, to get people talking about what makes a great handcam video. The reason I made such an issue of the lens is that I think many handcam instructors use the severe wide angle as a crutch. Thinking with a wide enough field of view, all they have to do is point in the general direction of the student and pocket the video fee.

I just feel handcam can stand eye to eye with outside video for quality, if we put the effort into it.
Maybe a thread devoted to handcam would be good? (technique, safety and equipment) I just kind of jumped on the bandwagon here. Thoughts anyone?

Youv'e got 54 lbs. of gear on your back - 160 lbs. of stupid on the front - 5 handles all in the wrong place - And a pilot chute in tow - What could possibly go wrong?

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

Maybe a thread devoted to handcam would be good?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3753066;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[cpoxon 0]

Quote

Riggerrob mentioned a thesis on this subject. I'd like to find that, and asked him if he can lead me/us to it.

Found this HandCam thesis recently and it made me think of this thread. Couldn't find it posted elsewhere.

Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

Quote

Riggerrob mentioned a thesis on this subject. I'd like to find that, and asked him if he can lead me/us to it.

Found this HandCam thesis recently and it made me think of this thread. Couldn't find it posted elsewhere.

I get "The file is damaged and can't be repaired."

Edit:
downloaded and saved with Explorer (as opposed to Firefox). The PDF opened just fine.

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ