'lipstick' cameras

[slowjoe 0]

Being new to skydiving, but having some experience with other activities that require helmet cameras to be video'd, I have noticed a disparity in the approaches. Namely, skydivers tend to mount the whole camcorder on their helmets, where-as other sports such as mountainbiking, motorcycling and snowboarding use small, 'lipstick' cameras (Sony makes quite a few, they are really just CCD cameras that output a analog video signal, normally sealed in a waterproof housing) on the helmets, with small cables for video feed and power leading to a practical place for a camcorder, usually a backpack etc. .
This kind of setup would seem very suited to sky-diving for a couple of reasons:
-the cameras are really small, therefore they can be mounted to catch very little wind and be almost snag-proof
-the bulkier and heavier (than the small camera) camcorder can be placed elsewhere on the skydiver, creating less strain on neck and affecting balance less
-the mic can be placed anywhere (i.e. in-helmet for commentary if you have a full-face that seals real well)
-with DV and a good camera, they don't seem to mean any loss in picture quality and they do have a variety of available lenses.
I can't see any drawbacks for these cameras in a skydiving application and they're not even very expensive (about $120-$200).
So my question:
why have I not seen (or read, or heard about) any skydivers using these?
please solve this mystery for me, thanks

[quade 3]

In the early days of freefall videography, a helmet mounted camera with a chest mounted recorder was sort of the only way to go. See THIS
There are several very good reasons why lipstick type cameras aren't very popular with freefall videographers today, but my guess is that chief among them is ease of use.
With something that is completely self contained, a TRV10 for instance, the camera flyer has everything in the palm of his hand (mounted on his head of course) including a viewing screen for debriefs.
With a lipstick type of camera, the camera itself is mounted on the helmet, then there is a cable that runs to a small control unit and or battery pack, then from there it needs to run to a separate recording deck. Usually all of this extra equipment (control unit, battery, and recorder) gets mounted in some sort of chest pack. Just like the good ol' days. However, back in the good ol' days, they learned that his wasn't the safest configuration, because it's difficult to separate yourself from all that gear if you get something snagged on a parachute line. And there is at least one documented case where a videographer was focused so intently on the camera/chest mount assembly that he boarded an airplane without his rig and then jumped.
In addition to certain safety and easy of use reasons, there's also good solid financial reasons. I seriously doubt that you can create a lipstick type system that comes anywhere near the low-cost of a lower end miniDV system.
And lastly -- image quality. The size of the lens, the availability and choices of wide angle lenses and the camera chips themselves all contribute to much better image quality for even the lower end miniDV cameras.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[CameraGeek 0]

Quade is most correct - and I would add....
You said you're new to skydiving so you may not be aware that these systems do already exist and are in use. In fact, several are readily available in the sport.
It comes down to cost, quality, and safety as previously mentioned. In essence, I can go buy a Sony Mini-DV, a pre-made camera helmet, and I am ready to shoot. Add a 1/4"/20 bolt to mount it and off I go. No wires, no connections, few complications. (Yeah, right!)
And it is affordable, relatively speaking. The quality is good enough to use on TV and the equipment is easy to use.
Simply put, using a lipstick type lens is a complex solution to a simple problem.
HOWEVER - having said all that - you are correct in that they are unique, small, and can be used easily in odd locations - one was mounted on the door of a 727 jet used for jumping a couple of years ago and made for some stunning footage.
Also there are things you can do with a camcorder (effects, etc) that are not easily done using the lipstick camera.
And last - there do not seem to be any with firwire cables so they use an analog signal and lose the digital advantage.
My 2 cents.
Robbie Culver

[daremrc 0]

Well I thought I'd dig this thread back up since it's the only info I could find in a search...

I'm interested in flying camera, but not so interested in mounting a camera to my head. I've been checking out lipstick cam configurations such as visosport's and helmetcamera.com 's using a remote DVR or small camcorder to capture images.

We had a guy that flew one at our DZ and liked it, and I have yet to see anyone else flying anything similar. I figure since this thread was made in 2002, the technology has changed a bit and maybe other people have tried some of the more modern stuff. For less than $1000, it seems I can get an entire setup that will mount to my current non-camera helmet, which is cheaper and seems to me slightly safer than mounting the actual camcorder to your head.

The guy that was flying it at our dz had the guts of the system in a fanny pack with an external button similar to the ones that people mount to their helmets. Anybody else try a setup like this recently? I'm not looking to fly serious camera or chase tandems, just capture fun jumps with my friends for myself or to share online

thanks

Good judgement comes from experience, and most of that comes from bad judgement.

[RossDagley 0]

I saw a guy jumping this setup (and debriefing from it) about a month ago. The image quality was unfortunately... crap, at best. Perhaps he had a shit lipstick camera and a TRV in the fannypack I don't know, but I'll personally stick to decent sized sensors and image quality for now

[daremrc 0]

thats what I'm trying to get at.. One of the manufacturers is advertising a camera with 520 lines of resolution, which I understand to be a bit better than regular TV resolution but about half of HD.

I don't need anything spectacular, but if the image quality is at least comparable to a lower-end camcorder it might be worth it IMHO. I saw a little video from the guy at our DZ who was using it and the quality appeared OK on his camcorder, btu I never got to see it on a ful sized screen. The image stability was pretty solid too, whcih is something I would've thought would suffer.

Good judgement comes from experience, and most of that comes from bad judgement.

[DSE 3]

520 lines of resolution doesn't translate to much...when the codec is garbage. DV does "ok" with these cams, although they're unmatched. 520 lines is a marketing concept made up of measuring the lines between RGB, not each color offering 520 lines. It's a good way of making things sound bigger than they are. Might say that a Sony HC offers 3240 lines of 60i, or 1620 lines of 30p...there are lots of ways to measure this.

unless you're talking about Iconix or other higher end bullet/lipstick, it's generally not worth it for anything beyond fun jumps and debrief, great for YouTube and little else.

[spumoni 0]

I think that unless you are wanting to have extremely high quality video footage, then the bullet cam with mini DV camcorder along with a LANC controller works quite well. If you are sharing on youtube, then this will definately work since it gets compressed down (320x240) to 1/4 the res of the DV once you upload it, anyway. (sometimes, the video can get really crappy, depending on color/contrast,etc of your videos)

I am currently using a 520 line, sony based bullet cam from Chase Cam and it works fine. They also make a Lanc controlled SD memory based video recorder for motor sports racing which is an option to the mini DV cam. It records directly to MP4 on an SD card, I think, so no need for DV video editing apps. Try visiting their web site and seeing some of the posted videos.

http://www.chasecam.com/main/videos.html

Finally, not sure, but I think the motorcycle, snowboarders and other extreme types, would find it very uncomfortable having so much weight and wind resistance on their head for the long duration. I'm sure it would take a toll on their neck, especially after a bad wipeout!

[DSE 3]

Quote

I think that unless you are wanting to have extremely high any quality video footage, then the bullet cam with mini DV camcorder along with a LANC controller works quite well. If you are sharing on youtube, then this will definately work since it gets compressed down (320x240) to 1/4 the res of the DV once you upload it, anyway. (sometimes, the video can get really crappy, depending on color/contrast,etc of your videos)

Very familiar with Chase cam, very familiar with MP4 (FWIW, there is no MP4 editor that isn't DV compliant).
Doesn't matter what the end result is, most skydivers are at least looking for a reasonable image, and resolution is only 1/3 the game. Heavily compressed sources that only carry half the framerate don't make even good YouTube video, but "good" is very subjective. There are a few that are even happy with very low quality 12fps, 640 x 480 MP4 files as source files. Then there is the majority of everyone else looking for at the least, a DV quality image. If it's ever going on a DVD, which is what I'd assume most folks here are looking to do, then anything less than a 5:1 compression @30fps, 720 x 480 will not suffice. For tandems and four way in particular, nothing less than the former is acceptable.
Motorcycles, mountain bikers, etc are often using the Elmo cam, and then there are those that are shooting for broadcast hopes, and they're using at the least, some sort of HD flavor.
Working the video and the GPS is admirable, but the quality I've seen from this system thus far, is less than would ever be acceptable for any but the lowest form of consumer web-stream use.
FWIW, 320 x 240 is only half-DV rez, not one-quarter. DV (NTSC) is 720 x 480 at a PAR of .909

• Quote

[herminiocordido 0]

Not to mention the auto exposure, auto whitebalance, all in focus system.
this leads to color shift in any change of angle in relationship to the sun (imagine how bad it can be for skydiving).

I have had lipstick cameras with good sony ccd's, the resolution is good, but the results with a small camera is just light years better.
As DSE said, the Iconix is the one!

H

[Zee 0]

You can try something like the Oregon Scientific ATC-2K or the GoPro Hero3 for a POV cam to mount on your foot or belly but, neither will work well at all as a main camera unless you really aren't concerend with quality.

I have and use both of them to record time on the track and for that use, they work pretty well. The ATC-2K is sensitve to vibration though so it stops recording once the lap times begin to drop.

The GoPro works great and can take the vibrations without issue but, it has a wide angle lens so it doesn't display actual speed that well.

I've never used either one in freefall but, I'm pretty sure they'd both work ok as POV cam since they both record to SD cards.

Here's a clip of some warm up laps with the ATC-2K

Action©Sports