What Camera?

[sammyc 0]

I'm just getting to the stage of wanting to buy my first camcorder for skydiving. I'm looking for some advice on what is a good second hand peice of equipment? I know that Sony is the first choice of just about everybody in skydiving. I have been thinking of the IP7 or the PC1000 although the PC1000 is a little expensive and for some reason was not produced for very long.
i have no idea of all the other models are like HC40 etc. so any advice on a good, user friendly camera are greatfully received.

[Spatula 0]

Go to the photography and video forum. Read the FAQ, scroll through all the past threads, then do a search. Been asked numerous times and recently in fact.

[sammyc 0]

Obviously that is what I did first. The last advice i can find was givern over a year ago. Things move quickly in this technology and advice that was right a year ago may not be right now. Feel free to link me to anything you think may help. Answers to the same question from 2001 are not going to help much. Thanks for your time.

[The111 1]

Here is a post from a couple days ago.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[sammyc 0]

I certainly would not agree that the HC series is the way to go for a skydiving camera as suggested in that thread. Oversized and heavy.

[dunesurfer 0]

I jump an HC-42, which weighs in at about 140z.... the PC1000 is nearly identical in weight. I do not find it to be "oversized" or "heavy".

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

I jump an HC-42, which weighs in at about 140z.... the PC1000 is nearly identical in weight. I do not find it to be "oversized" or "heavy".

I agree with dunesurfer.

While we've come a long way from the -real- heavy cameras of the past (see Tom Sander's set-up!), we have to understand that if a camera is made -too- light something in the quality output is sacrificed.

I started with a Digital8 camera, then less than a year later went for the digital TRV8. Progression to TRV10, then TRV22. I stopped there because the next "TRV-type" series lacked the quality that the 22 had.

If I was to upgrade it'd be HD. IMO the series inbetween lack the lens quality needed for what I use it for. And the HD is heavier...but then again, better quality. :^)

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[The111 1]

Quote

i have no idea of all the other models are like HC40 etc

Quote

I certainly would not agree that the HC series is the way to go for a skydiving camera as suggested in that thread. Oversized and heavy.

So you have no idea about the HC series, but are certain they're too heavy?

PC1000 ~1.1lb
HC46 ~0.9lb
HC96 ~1.1lb

Sorry for butting in...

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

I jump an HC-42, which weighs in at about 140z.... the PC1000 is nearly identical in weight. I do not find it to be "oversized" or "heavy".

I agree with dunesurfer.

While we've come a long way from the -real- heavy cameras of the past (see Tom Sander's set-up!), we have to understand that if a camera is made -too- light something in the quality output is sacrificed.

I started with a Digital8 camera, then less than a year later went for the digital TRV8. Progression to TRV10, then TRV22. I stopped there because the next "TRV-type" series lacked the quality that the 22 had.

If I was to upgrade it'd be HD. IMO the series inbetween lack the lens quality needed for what I use it for. And the HD is heavier...but then again, better quality. :^)

ltdiver

HD is not heavier, or doesn't have to be. And there is no sacrifice of resolution; rather you gain 88% greater resolution in 1080 over DV. And you also get a significantly better DSP, plus a better color sampling scheme with HD.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

And there is no sacrifice of resolution; rather you gain 88% greater resolution in 1080 over DV. And you also get a significantly better DSP, plus a better color sampling scheme with HD.

Sigh. Read it again, DSE. I give props to the HD as being of better quality than those who went before.

Oh, and btw, the DCR-TRV22 weighs 1 lb 2 oz. The HDR-HC3 weighs 1 lb 3 oz. So it -is- heavier.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[DSE 3]

Quote

Oh, and btw, the DCR-TRV22 weighs 1 lb 2 oz. The HDR-HC3 weighs 1 lb 3 oz. So it -is- heavier.

ltdiver

Yes, I misunderstood quite what you were comparing by way of resolution.

The Sanyo HD1 is 7.2 oz. Only 1280 x 720, but it works impressively well if it has good light from which to draw. It does require some time to properly aim though, due to it's odd angle.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Yes, I misunderstood quite what you were comparing by way of resolution.

You're forgiven.

Quote

The Sanyo HD1 is 7.2 oz. Only 1280 x 720, but it works impressively well if it has good light from which to draw. It does require some time to properly aim though, due to it's odd angle.

Interesting for a Sanyo. The low light situation is one of the major reasons I don't like the newer Sony models as well. (exception the HC90, 96 and HD models).

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[DSE 3]

Bear in mind that you're still working with a 1/3 chip in the case of the Sony, slightly smaller with the Sanyo. That chip is providing the same amount of light-gathering real estate whether it's SD or HD, and therefore with HD, you've now made the pixels smaller, therefore decreasing light sensitivity.
Sony has done a great job of programming their DSP, especially in the Z1/FX1 series, as you can seriously punch gain without noise. The HC3 does a good job as well, but folks need to remember it's DSP and not chip-ability giving the better image in low light.
Sanyo has a terrible DSP for gain, so without really solid light...it's useless. But, I'd submit that most skydiving has good light.
The Sanyo does well in skydiving if it's set up right, but otherwise, it's a mess due to the encoding/compression. You MUST have it set for high action. For 650.00, it's worth a looksee if you want HD on the cheep. I bought one for messing around the barnyard and shooting goofy little things, cuz it's not much bigger than a pack of cigarettes.

[ltdiver 3]

And I thought women were the ones with too many words...

Aside here: In competition you're most likely running the rounds clear up to the sunset load...which is low light. I'd hate to have to wonder if my video cameras where up to the task.... And that beautiful sunset load tandem....when you reach the ground and the shadows are very long (or even a bit going away)....I'd love to know my camera is fail safe in that situation as well. No guessing game.
ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[DSE 3]

The HC3, HC1, A1U, FX1, and Z1 will all be just fine for sunset dives. I could explain why, but I guess I explained too much earlier.

[ltdiver 3]

From my post above: "(exception...HD models)"

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[DSE 3]

Quote

From my post above: "(exception...HD models)"

ltdiver

Alright, since you'd prefer to be argumentative...
All of Sony's HDV camcorders have a significantly lower LUX rating than any DV camcorder they've ever made. How is it that you'd say "You don't like the new Sony camcorders for low light excepting HD?" That makes no sense, and deserves to be challenged. HDV, whether it's Sony, Canon, or JVC, and the new Panny HVX, all have bad low light numbers. Same with the Sanyo as mentioned before. Could you explain how that turns into you "excepting HDV with regard to low light?" My previous comments are based on knowledge of poor numbers in low light, which is why I've kept to that point. You seem to feel differently.

[The111 1]

Quote

All of Sony's HDV camcorders have a significantly lower LUX rating than any DV camcorder they've ever made.

I'm a little lost here. How does lux rating work?

From the specifications listed on the Sony page, "minimum illumination":

HC26 - 5 lux (DV)
HC36 - 5 lux (DV)
HC46 - 7 lux (DV)
HC96 - 5 lux (DV)
HC3 - 5 lux (HDV)

Are these numbers accurate? What do they mean?

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[DSE 3]

The HC3 is 5Lux Japan, where the others are measured as "Lux US". In the US, if Sony were to rate the HC3, it's 7 Lux just like the others.
Lux measurements vary from region to region, with a swing of up to 2 value ratings.
Why the HC3 and other HDV (Sony only) measure up reasonably well in low light is not their native lux rating, it's how they process gain and noise reduction while processing gain. A bit of time on HDVInfo.net will show you a number of demonstrative images.
It's unfortunate that we don't have a worldwide LUX rating system, because this discussion, and often debate, comes up often in other fora.

[ltdiver 3]

Stats of Sony examples:

DCR-TRV22
Imaging Device: 1/4", 680K Gross Pixels Advanced HAD™ CCD
Video Actual: 340K
F: 1.7-2.2
Filter Diameter: 30mm
5 Lux


HDR-HC3
Imaging Device: 1/3" 2100K Gross Pixels
Video Actual: 1990K
Aperture: f1.8-2.9
Filter Diameter: 30mm
5 Lux

DCR-HC26
Imaging Device: 1/6" CCD Pixel Gross: 680K
Video Actual: 340K Pixels
Aperture: f1.8-3.1
Filter Diameter: 25mm
5 Lux

The 26 has a smaller lens (less light entering capability), a larger f/stop, and smaller CCD. This is the kind of lesser quality that makes for a comparably poorer image.

Although the HD has the same f/stop, the lens size is bigger and the CCD chip is larger as well.

The 22 is what I fly at this time. The HC3 is what a couple of professional cameraflyers fly at our DZ. I've seen the quality of both (and am -very- envious of the HC3's capabilities and quality). We have also seen the upstart cameraflyer with their 26....

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[DSE 3]

Quote

Stats of Sony examples:

DCR-TRV22
Imaging Device: 1/4", 680K Gross Pixels Advanced HAD™ CCD
Video Actual: 340K
F: 1.7-2.2
Filter Diameter: 30mm
5 Lux


HDR-HC3
Imaging Device: 1/3" 2100K Gross Pixels
Video Actual: 1990K
Aperture: f1.8-2.9
Filter Diameter: 30mm
5 Lux

DCR-HC26
Imaging Device: 1/6" CCD Pixel Gross: 680K
Video Actual: 340K Pixels
Aperture: f1.8-3.1
Filter Diameter: 25mm
5 Lux

The 26 has a smaller lens (less light entering capability), a larger f/stop, and smaller CCD. This is the kind of lesser quality that makes for a comparably poorer image.

Although the HD has the same f/stop, the lens size is bigger and the CCD chip is larger as well.

The 22 is what I fly at this time. The HC3 is what a couple of professional cameraflyers fly at our DZ. I've seen the quality of both (and am -very- envious of the HC3's capabilities and quality). We have also seen the upstart cameraflyer with their 26....

Just goes to show you why you can't believe specs. Whilst I'm a fan of the HC3 for skydiving *only* (it's junk for any production use) it has no where near 1990 actual pixels in the display image. You're reading hype, not reality. Can't speak for the quality of the others, because they're not in the realm of cams we deal with here, never shot them on a chart. HDV is another story...own them all, charted them all, and written novels about them.
Oops, I'm doing it again...sorry, LTDiver.
~edited to correct name.

[ltdiver 3]

Just know what I see on the big screen at the DZ (when it comes to other's cameras). Crap is crap (Quality image or not. The actual skydiving is a completely different topic).

When some of the biggest names in our sport put up a production vs. the 'average' cameraflyer vs the new upstart....it is -very- plain to see. Again, I'm not talking the actual flying portion, but the quality of image.

Peace.

Oh, and it's Ltdiver.
ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[DSE 3]

Quote

Just know what I see on the big screen at the DZ (when it comes to other's cameras). Crap is crap (Quality image or not. The actual skydiving is a completely different topic).

ltdiver

What you're almost assuredly seeing is 1440 x 1080 scaled down to 640 x 480. when you view the two compared side by side that way, you're comparing apples/oranges. Believe me, I'm a huge advocate of HD, I've written several books on the subject. But you have to keep things in perspective. Compression of DV is interframe, compression of HDV is intraframe, you've got a lot more happening in HD, but you're still seeing it as an SD signal. Having the additional resolution makes for a better image in some ways, but if not managed right, it's got a much greater potential for failure.
Geez, I sound like people in the Safety forum telling people to not downsize.
HDV is great. HDV can be incredibly awesome. We own around 20 HDV cameras of various models/brands. You've got to understand the format, and how to set it up right. Don't expect to just buy one, set it on your helmet, and start shooting. Add the widescreen component vs the 4:3 you're currently shooting, it can become even more difficult.
If you're *really* interested in going HD, PM me, I'll arrange to get a book to you. "HDV: What You NEED to Know." I know the author. He's a prick, but it's a good book.