SportsCam

[MarBrock 0]

Quote

Wow. You sure do like to type, don't ya?

I type for a living. What's your excuse?

Quote

Lemme break it down for ya.

Keep it simple, professor. I'm kinda slow.

Quote

Then you need to edit, let's call it a simple standard cuts only thing with a couple of titles. Some systems render in real time (mine at work does, but that's serious change), let's assume you can afford that or that'll be available soon on the "pro" level (actually it is on the Mac's running the latest version of Final Cut Pro, but that's also some serious coin).

My software captures DV directly to my hard drive through the firewire as I view it. The format doesn't change. It's DV in and DV out. Since I control the camcorder through software, I can also select clips during this capture. I'm starting and stopping the capture as I create the clips. I need not capture the video to my drive and then select clips on a second pass. When I have the clips, I drop them onto a storyboard. This construction of the video from clips requires little time, unless I want to edit the clips further after capture. I then click a button, and the software plays the clips back in the sequence I've constructed on the storyboard. The process takes hardly more time than the time to view the video.

With my equipment, I must then copy the video back to the camcorder to make an analog copy. I can probably copy the video back to the camcorder and make an analog copy on a separate VCR in one pass, but I haven't tried it. None of these operations poses a fundamental, technical problem.

I don't have much interest in the analog tape, because I'm experimenting with streaming media. This approach offers many marketing advantages to the DZ. Compression takes time, but it doesn't take my time, because I don't need to be present. In the U.S., we have the widest adoption of broadband by internet users in the world, 38% of internet users so far and growing fast, so I expect streaming video to be important in the foreseeable future.

You don't need to tell me that the big boys at Perris already do this sort of thing. I don't pretend any originality here. It's not difficult to see where the new media is going. My home DZ doesn't have the resources of a Perris or Quincy or even the larger DZs near Atlanta, and I enjoy exploring the frontiers.

Quote

Anyway, assume your editor makes a 5 minute tape out of the 10 minutes the camera flyer shot -- from the time the tape arrived at the editor to the time it got into the hands of the client a MINIMUM of 20 minutes elapsed.

The tape never leaves the camera. I can capture the video and edit it in one pass and copy it back to tape in a second pass. I don't ordinarily copy to analog tape during this process, so I don't know if this step requires another pass. I know the camcorder will do it.

I must see the video as I edit it, and the student wants to see it before leaving, so two passes are mandatory anyway. I can also spend more time with more elaborate editing, and I would spend more time with two video sources. I've already acknowledged this fact. The student also gets a longer video.

Quote

Same product on an analog system -- about 7 to 10 minutes.

You're skipping presentation to the student. I've never seen a student take a video sight-unseen. We typically gather around the video monitor to watch completed tandem videos, but we aren't a big city tandem mill. We rarely see 20 tandem students in a day, never in my experience, much less 20 students at a time.

Quote

Ok, another 10 minutes doesn't sound like much does it? Well, it starts to add up really fast at a drop zone that does a high volume of tandems and AFFs.

I don't jump at a DZ with a high volume of tandems, so I don't really care; however, in time, I'll find a routine that's fast enough. Nothing in principle prevents me. It's only a matter of finding the right technology and climbing a learning curve. I revamp my skills every few years in my line of work. It's a matter of professional survival. If I ultimately buy new software, that's fine, but I'm not sure my Pinnacle software can't do it, and I know my hardware can do it, except for copying to analog on the second pass. I'm not sure about that step. I haven't explored it, because I have little interest in it.

I've videoed one tandem, for practice without charge. I emailed it to the student. I rarely make more than five jumps in a day, so I don't operate under the time constraints you're discussing. We charge $50 for a tandem video. A videographer gets $25 plus his lift ticket, and he's lucky to do 10 videos in a weekend. We have little weekday business, so no one does video for a living. I imagine instructing or doing video work in a semi-retired phase of my life years from now, if ever, and working gradually toward this goal in the meantime. I understand the day-to-day concerns of your video business as you explain them, but they aren't very relevant to me.

Quote

Maybe you've never seen that sort of operation.

I probably haven't seen the equipment at your DZ. Like I said, my home DZ has analog editing equipment, and I know how fast my DZO edits a video with it. He still uses it, but he's also experimenting with digital editing, and our last principal videographer, who left us recently, was using digital editing before he left.

[MarBrock 0]

Quote

In the time it takes to capture 10 minutes worth of filming on a laptop, the analog editor is 2/3's done.

I control the camcorder from the laptop. I can start and stop the capture process as I'm selecting clips. The capture process occurs simultaneously with the editing. I can capture clips and drop them in the storyboard until the sequence is complete, and I can then immediately play the video. I don't know how your software handles it. I can also spend a lot more time on the editing, of course.

Quote

By the time it takes to sort out the storyboard the analog editor is done, then the digital editor has to do the storyboarding, the rendering of the scenes and the exporting of the final product to a medium that the end user wants.

Dropping the clips into a storyboard requires hardly any time. I do no rendering to play the completed video, unless I want to compress for streaming. Copying to analog might take another pass with my equipment, after copying the video back to the camcorder, but I don't know. It's not a major issue for me, and it has no bearing on the likely evolution of videography, because no fundamental, technical problem prevents it. At one time, titles and musical tracks added more time to the process too. Problems precede solutions.

Quote

If they want it set up for streaming (only people on Broadband want this) thats a lot of time to compress the file to a streaming format.

Compression is slow, but I don't need to attend it. People on broadband are a rapidly growing market. Since I don't make tandem videos now, I'm more interested in the future. I might never make tandem videos, for that matter, but skydive photography will change regardless.

Quote

I'm a very experienced Premiere editor, but there is no way I'd want to do tandem videos on it. I do a lot of streaming video for my website too... but I use the right tools for the right job.

You'll do whatever you like, of course. More power to you.

Quote

We tried using Imovie a few years back at the DZ, the people using it were missing at least 1 or 2 loads a day compaired to the analog editors due to the increased edit time. Missing 4 loads in a weekend is the difference between Ramon noodles and spam for some videographers.

For a DZ with videographers sitting around all afternoon, digital editing is a good possibiliy, but for some place like Skydive Chicago (where the videographers don't have time to edit and they have full time editors...) or Perris or any DZ with 20-30 tandems standing around at almost any time... they just don't have the time to capture and edit. Its an edit on the fly process.

No one jumps for a living at our DZ, not even the tandem and AFF instructors. Only our DZO tries to make his living at it. By the time our DZ has 20-30 tandems standing around, nothing we say here matters, because the technology has changed significantly again.

[quade 3]

A light-bulb just went on in my head . . . you don't care about my position and nobody gives a rip about yours either.

Why don't we do this . . . you go away and work on this for a while and after a reasonable amount of time . . . let's say your experiment runs over the course of the summer . . . come back and prove to us how cool it all is. Keep track of how much time you spent on the average video and let us know how many people don't buy tapes, but do want them emailed to them.

Until then, I don't think you're going to convince anybody here and we're certainly not going to convince you otherwise either.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[LouDiamond 1]

Here,here...I second the motion.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Despite what Paul is saying, IE to let this go, I can't.

Trust me, we seldom see flaming here, even over subtle things, so take this as advice from someone who has been exactly where you are now, only I was standing there in 98.
"No desktop computer is necessary,"
Show me a realtime PCMCIA card and I'll gladly munch on a huge slice of humble pie. By real time I don't mean capturing or viewing in real time, I mean realtime as in title rendering, with basic effects such as wipes, slides, and pushes that are available on an analogue desk with a titler hell you don't really need a genlock but it would be nice.

"You apparently aren't familiar with the most recent technology. I'm not speculating here. I already possess this technology"
Enlighten me, for what its worth I have been using Pinnacle systems hardware commercially, ie to earn money to fund my addiction, since 98, I used a DC30+ card, and later a DV300 on a PII 266 with only 16GB of HD space, they still serve me well. I've humped computers around the world to do this. Show me a PCMCIA card that is capable of realtime editing, as the rest of the world understands the definition of the term, and I'll gladly buy you a slab of beer.
Thats real time as in absolutely no rendering required for seamless timeline playback for say, a cross fade, or a horizontal slide, 2 commonly used transitions in a tandem video, how about a rolling title overlay (say an alpha matte type transparency)without prerendering.

Pinnacle, the company you link to do a 'budget' realtime card called a DV500, you will need a large hammer to install it in a laptop, its a PCI card and simply won't fit, plus it needs an AGP graphics card to support full functionality.

"Maybe you need to review the technology again."
Nope, I can't use footage from these cameras, I have in the past (as a video co-ordinator for national and international events) dealt with the likes of Reuters, CNN, SKY, the BBC etc, they expect the best quality footage, and simply will not accept anything less. The difference in quality may be marginal on vanilla (first generation) copies, but once it has been through a broadcast system, via say a satellite van, the differences in quality become very apparent. But Paul can enlighten further, he actually earns a living in post production (I believe) and could perhaps illuminate the issues of generation loss in a commercial arena. I'm not saying that every time I deal with a tandem, I intend to use the footage for broadcast, but why should I have two camera setups? I might as well film everything in a decent quality format. I also film a lot in marginal conditions, the differences in the camera systems you describe is more pronounced under less than ideal lighting.

"however, the resolution is not bad even at this compression level"
Yes, agreed, compression for web delivery has improved leaps and bounds since I was Beta testing the MS ASF system in 99 at a live event (British RW formation records). Your spycam is indeed ideally suited to this level of compression quality and the delivery format.

"I'm not speculating here. I already possess this technology, and I'm not extraordinarily wealthy"

I've had an OHCI compliant card since 2000, I couldn't use it because my favoured software (Premiere 4.2, and the terrible ver 5, OHCI compliance came with ver 6) was not, at that time, compliant with an OHCI interface. It is now and it does indeed rock, but my DV300 also gave me device control, allbeit limited to camera only, no hard drive chaining was available in those days.

For what its worth I have been editing commercial video on my laptop, a PIII, 700, since 2001.

"but affordable digital equipment is not fundamentally slower."
Yes it is, in a tandem video scenario, which is what we are really discussing here. The NLE based system kicks mixing desk ass when it comes to making longer custom boogie or event videos, and where the accuracy of the edit is more important than the overall face in the frame requirements of a tandem flick. If you were making one tandem video, there probably wouldn't be a whole load of difference, the laptop might even score out on top, but we are talking about repetitive factory style production. The shooting is to a storyboard and the edit is to a story board, and as long as there is discipline from the fliers, and the editors, the analogue desk will prevail.
Hell, good tandem camera fliers like JDHill, who posts here regularly, will hardly need any editing at all, they film with the edit in mind, and most of the work is done in camera.

I fully understand your enthusiasm, but your claims just don't stand up to scrutiny, and I'd hate to mislead the good peeps of the forums with ambitious performance claims.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"With my equipment, I must then copy the video back to the camcorder to make an analog copy. I can probably copy the video back to the camcorder and make an analog copy on a separate VCR in one pass, but I haven't tried it. "

If you connect a vcr to the analogue ports on your cam this should be possible, ie the cam acts as a 'convertor' from the dv stream to the analogue outputs. Its nice to have a tv hooked up on this pass through, set up to see the edit in process, its easier on the eyes than the windows on the pooter.
The Firewire remains connected so you don't actually have to make a dv tape then re-record it. Once you have worked with a cam, computer, and loop thru tv, you won't ever want to go back.I use a 10" high quality portable TV from Thomson, and the picture quality is astounding, the BBC use these mini tvs as professional grade monitors on their outside braodcast suites, and at a pinch you can run them from a car cigar lighter outlet. They even take an SVHS signal in, if you have the right scart adaptor.
"I don't ordinarily copy to analog tape during this process, so I don't know if this step requires another pass."
No, see above, you can make a vcr copy "on the fly".

"You're skipping presentation to the student."
You don't have to be present to show the video to the student, they can watch it when you are done, thus leaving your video room to yourself, most DZs have a VCR set up somewhere apart from the 'video grinder'.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[MarBrock 0]

Quote

A light-bulb just went on in my head . . . you don't care about my position and nobody gives a rip about yours either.

In reality, I've carefully considered the objections here, responded to them at length and modified my position accordingly. It's all in the record. "Nobody" excludes people I know to care about my position, so the word can only be hyperbole.

Quote

Why don't we do this . . . you go away and work on this for a while and after a reasonable amount of time . . .

I'm no more obliged to go away than you or anyone else, but I've already stated repeatedly that I intend to try it without anyone's approval here. Like I said earlier, I hope to be ready by the end of the summer. I'm not doing tandem videos at all at this point. I might work with Jeremy who is doing a few. He's the guy who posted under "I'm cleared for video work!" earlier. Perris guys dominate this forum, and your big city tandem mill experience isn't particularly applicable to us.

Quote

Keep track of how much time you spent on the average video and let us know how many people don't buy tapes, but do want them emailed to them.

I'll probably do no more than one or two by the end of summer, if any, but after I've done a few, I'll let you know how long the last one took. I don't expect to sell anything on these attempts, and people who don't want to pay for a video happily accept any mode of delivery. The mode I imagine is a web page hosted at our DZ's site, not email. This mode allows students to show the video to their herd of online friends anywhere and everywhere. It's the future.

Quote

Until then, I don't think you're going to convince anybody here and we're certainly not going to convince you otherwise either.

I don't need to convince you. I'm discussing the subject to learn something, and I can tolerate all of the arrogant, territorial sniping in the process. You guys are no different than the guys who ripped me for days over the helmet camera several months ago, before an experienced videographer here started advocating the same approach, even selling his own model of a device. Some of you are the same guys.

[AndyMan 7]

Ok, a few ideas....

First, a question. Are you trying to get video from the students perspective, or are you trying to find a new application for a new technology?

If it's the second, which I think most of us suspect... bad idea.

If it's the first, well - there's a few better ways to go about it.

First, add a second camera to the camera flyer, pointed at the ground. Chest-mount the camera, or something. This perspective would be nearly identical to the students one.

Failing that, you could add a camera to the TM's head. Now before everyone jumps on me, I know full well that no TM would go for this, and the manufacturers would probably freak and pull the TM's rating. However, I think it's preferable then putting one on the student....

Lastly, you could just have some stock footage of some first person perspective. But... if you're a good camera flyer you're already doing this. You should have shots of the cameraman in flight, the cameraman opening, maybe the students perspective of the exit. You should already be doing this and mixing it into the video. You are, right?

Once you've got stock footage of the students freefall.... why do you care if it's specific to the student? Why go to all these lengths to get a very minor incremental improvement - that the video not be stock? Why is this minor incremental improvement worth all the added work, never mind the added risk?

Do you really think first jump students and the people they show the video to are aware enough to even KNOW that it's stock footage and not real first person perspective?

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[quade 3]

Quote

You guys are no different than the guys who ripped me for days over the helmet camera several months ago, before an experienced videographer here started advocating the same approach, even selling his own model of a device. Some of you are the same guys.

If you look long enough, you'll almost always find somebody that's willing to agree with your position. I guess the difference is that the majority of us aren't trying to sell you anything -- only tell you how things have been proven to work well in real world situations.

There are a few of us here who, not only fly camera, but are involved in some pretty high-end production and post-production situations. Some of the people here may, in fact, actually know quite a bit more about most aspects of what you're talking about than perhaps you've considered. Some of these people may have come to their conclusions after years and years of practical experience and not theoretical musings.

One last piece of advise;

A wise man learns from his own mistakes, a very wise man, learns from the mistakes of others.

Do whatever you will.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[blazetailman 0]

From the length if the replys this is a very intense forum.

and something I have been reserching for a long time. Bring a computer to the dz to edit video.

I am a multimedia producer. I've been using photoshop/streming media/broadcast video since 1995. Back when the computers needed to render everything. We now have powerful computers. Yes.

but the term "real time" is not in non-linear editing. The only real time is an anolog board with 2 sources.

Non-linear editing is great. Very precise and accurate. But you can only do one thing at a time with a mouse. Add a transition, fade aduio, etc. On a linear system I can transition between video sources, and fade out audio all at the same time. That's True "REAL TIME"!!!

A computer based system is much slower 3x or more.
I did tests timing my tandem edits. Linear vs non-linear. It takes longer to capture and edit. The kicker. The video was not better.

Granted as a professional I guarentee a product/project so quality is important. I dislike technology that degrads quality.

Don't mistake cool technology over expereince to do it right.

I could write pages on how computers crash. So I won't go there. Another reason not to use them for tandem editing.

I'm using a P4 2.4 with a gig of ram. And have done some nice edits. ( I think)
you can see them here.
http://www.petergallistudios.com/skydive/videos.html
A few old ones to the most current. Edited on a non-linear. I love non-linear. Using the DV Codec video quality on tv is ok. not quite broadcast but good. A $1500 editing board will make it better. The windows media codec for web is great. But lets thank broad band for the improverment in quality.

I'm advacating quality. And want technology and expereince to help move it forward not backwards.

Quote

I don't need to convince you. I'm discussing the subject to learn something, and I can tolerate all of the arrogant, territorial sniping in the process. You guys are no different than the guys who ripped me for days over the helmet camera several months ago, before an experienced videographer here started advocating the same approach, even selling his own model of a device. Some of you are the same guys.

Marbrock, you might want to listen to some advice from some of the posts. I like that you have a strong opinion for the camera systems and camera flying. But your level expereince is something to question. Skydiving is a very special sport and takes many years and many jumps to become proficent. Many.

Quote

A lot more skydivers will jump with cameras in the future. Flying with a camera will soon be routine, and the quality and sophistication of professional video must increase as a consequence. Tandem students will wear cameras, and the tandem video will mix the student's point of view with the videographer's, for example. Digital editing is becoming very inexpensive too.

Yes, skydiving systems, tandem gear, camera gear have goten better, safer, but a tandem student should not wear a camera. Flying a camera should never become routine. Remeber we are plumting at the earth. Skydiving has progressed over the years, gear and flying abilities. but it still takes hundreds of jumps to become profient.

I'm not trying to flame ya, but remeber where your words and opinons might reach. I don't want to hear a jumper with not enough expereince goes in from misrouting of camera equipment,etc from misinformation . We are all still learning and experimenting. Learn and share knowledge. That's what progress is.

www.canopyflightcenter.com
www.skydivesac.com
www.guanofreefly.com

[KawiZX900 0]

I think it's called Liquid Silver and it'll run you 25-30,000 dollars

Accelerate hard to get them looking, then slam on the fronts and rollright beside the car, hanging the back wheel at eye level for a few seconds. Guaranteed reaction- Dave Sonsky

[MarBrock 0]

Quote

If you look long enough, you'll almost always find somebody that's willing to agree with your position. I guess the difference is that the majority of us aren't trying to sell you anything -- only tell you how things have been proven to work well in real world situations.

I didn't need to look very much. The guy put an ad in Parachutist, and this thread appeared without any effort on my part. I have nothing against selling, but I think Swain's price is too high. He tells me he's doing quality, professional work with his camera now, and I have no reason to doubt him. I frankly doubt that his camera will be a great commercial success, because I expect an affordable camcorder soon to be small enough and light enough to mount inside a helmet for the price he expects.

Quote

There are a few of us here who, not only fly camera, but are involved in some pretty high-end production and post-production situations. Some of the people here may, in fact, actually know quite a bit more about most aspects of what you're talking about than perhaps you've considered.

Many people know more about both flying and video than I do, and I've acknowledged the fact repeatedly. Digital video is the future, and I'm interested in the future precisely because I'm still learning and don't anticipate professional video anytime soon if ever. I could do occasional tandem videos this year if needed, but I certainly won't make a living at it. Our DZ doesn't have a legion of guys with thousands of jumps. Some of our regular tandem masters don't have a thousand jumps. Even if I didn't expect digital video to replace analog, analog editing makes no sense for me. Analog equipment is expensive, and I use a laptop computer anyway.

Quote

Some of these people may have come to their conclusions after years and years of practical experience and not theoretical musings.

My musings are not theoretical. I've used the equipment I've discussed. The professionals here tell me that analog still beats digital editing, and I believe them, but I don't see how it can last. I know that computers crash, and I know that some of the PC digital editing systems are buggy, including mine, but software improves. I don't think general purpose computer hardware is a limiting factor in digital video anymore, even on laptops. A lot can happen in a billion cycles. I'm not a video producer, but I worked in an astrophysics lab for years and have done very computation intensive image processing on computers slower than the laptop I'm using right now.

Quote

A wise man learns from his own mistakes, a very wise man, learns from the mistakes of others.

If I couldn't learn from the mistakes of others, I wouldn't be here. I fly very conservatively, and I wear a camera very conservatively. I can't agree that most people, including students, must never wear cameras, because I've actually seen affordable cameras the size of my thumbnail and a camera plus solid state recorder smaller than my hand and lighter than my helmet. This equipment doesn't produce professional quality video yet, but the highest quality isn't necesssary for every application, and one of these cameras can be mounetd inside a helmet so that a jumper hardly know it's there. Some microdv cameras already small enough too. If a jumper doesn't know he's wearing a camera, I don't see how it could possibly impact his safety. It's only a matter of time before a skydiving camera is as common as hip rings and tie die for jumpers who want one, and the camera won't add any significant risk.

[diverds 0]

This thread is starting to look like something that belongs in rec.skydiving...let it go. Some people have to learn from their own mistakes. This guy is obviously convinced of his opinions, so let him run with them. With a little bit of time and experience he may very well change his mind, and even if he doesn't...who cares? If he wants to edit tandems on an NLE system let him. It doesn't mean anyone else has to. Just my opinion.

Skydive Radio

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I think it's called Liquid Silver and it'll run you 25-30,000 dollars "

NOICE! shiney thing with lots of buttons!
Hardly a laptop solution though, which is the current holy grail for itinerant editors.
When you get to this level of technology and budget you are way beyond even a busy DZ's (like Perris or Eloy) requirements.
But I say again...NOICE.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

If he wants to edit tandems on an NLE system let him.

I don't think that was really the big issue here as much as the general concept of tandem students wearing cams and this new camera system. I have seen several people who use NLE computers to edit skydiving video, I personally use a Screenplay by Applied Magic to do my editing however, I'm not making tandem videos.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[diverds 0]

Quote

I don't think that was really the big issue here as much as the general concept of tandem students wearing cams and this new camera system.

Same thing applies. If he wants to use a sportscam let him. As for putting cameras on students, he has no say in that. He can offer up the idea, but we all know that no experienced tandem instructor is going to allow it anyway so why argue it?

Edit for quote.

Skydive Radio

[riggerrob 558]

How is the flame fest going guys?

[quade 3]

99% contained.

I think there are still some smoldering embers, but if we just let them die down it'll be all right.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[dmarce8903 0]

Helmet-camera.com....NAH! The guy there didn't treat us too well. Go to viosport and check out there stuff (viosport.com). Their product is pretty decent and the people there worked with us to the last detail. We've had our cam from viosport for 3 months and nothing but good words for em.