cameye + bite switch

[Heathc 0]

Hi,

Does anyone know if there is a cameye + bite switch in one available for the likes of the Sony HDR-HC7E or HDR-HC5E?

The above mentioned cams both have the reasonable resolution while using in video recording and I would like to take advantage of this as it saves me strapping a still onto my head as well. O yea and I obviously would still like to keep the cameye available.

Any feedback is welcome!

Thanks

Heath

[BMFin 0]

Correct me if Im mistaken, but I dont think you can take stills while recording video.

Frame grabs you may take later ofcourse...

[Heathc 0]

Apparently you can. According to the spec sheet there is a function called “Dual record” the exact wording is as follows HDR-HC7E

“While recording video in high definition, you have the ability to capture a 4.6 megapixel still image directly to Memory Stick Duo™ media”

This is why im so excited

• Quote

[phoenixlpr 0]

Cameye is not a simple switch. Its a microcontroller design implementing the LANC protocol. If someone know the (new) codes and willing to make one for you....

[sgt_ludy 0]

Quote

Apparently you can. According to the spec sheet there is a function called “Dual record” the exact wording is as follows HDR-HC7E

“While recording video in high definition, you have the ability to capture a 4.6 megapixel still image directly to Memory Stick Duo™ media”

This is why im so excited

damn!!! that´s the news i´ve been waiting for... is this true? 4.6 megapixels gives you a pretty good pic, good enough for tandem stills, that is...

has anyone more info´s about this feature? is it availiable a) only when recording in HD and b) only on the HC7E? or also on the 3 and 5 series?

[PhreeZone 15]

Only on the HC7 at this point. Issue is that no one has posted they have been able to do this via a remote switch. Someone still needs to design and build a switch to take the pictures since it would have to be done over the LANC port that involves designing a circuit board and figuring out the correct LANC commands to operate that feature on the cameras. I am not even sure if Sony put that functionality into something that could be LANC controlled. IF not that means pushing the still button in freefall

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[DSE 3]

The RMVD1 will do this, I have one, but haven't been motivated enough to tear into it to see if I can modify it. You'll need to run two cables, one to your helmet to indicate status, and one cable to trigger stills from your hand.

[Heathc 0]

One of the accessories for the cam is a remote switch so I gather that the feature must be included in the cam. Just a matter of time till someone can make one that we can use.

I don’t know if the cam will work well for Tandem stills as I’m sure it will only be able to take and process one at a time which means no burst shots. However if you have time between loads maybe you can pull a few more stills at 6.1mega pixel. (according to the spec sheet)

[champu 1]

Here's a breakdown of pretty much all the LANC control words, and frame format.

I would probably use a PIC12F509 microcontroller. It's small (8-pin DFN), plenty fast (4MHz), can be easily powered off the 5.8V LANC terminal, should have plenty of flash memory (1KWord), has 6 I/Os which is enough to give you your comm, a remote shutter release, a couple status LEDs, and a start/stop button.

The PIC instruction set isn't too bad to work with, but if you're squeemish you can always get a model with some more memory to give you wiggle room and use a C compiler. Also, I'm not sure if you'd need any kind of additional line driver/receiver as I don't know LANC all that well, you'd have to look into it.

Best of luck!

[PharmerPhil 0]

Don't dump your still camera too fast, and don't confuse mega-pixels and "reasonaable resolution" with quality still images like you can get from a dedicated SLR.

I have not seen a still from a video camera compare with stills that even a basic DLSR set-up is capable (or film SLR for that matter). There are many technical reasons for this (obvious ones being a puny sensor and less than stellar lenses). Spec sheets can be enticing, but they do not tell the whole story in this case. If you go this route, you better give a significant discount.

[velvetjo 0]

Quote

Just a matter of time till someone can make one that we can use.

You might be overestimating the current market demand for something specialized like this. The few switches/controls for miniDV and stills that cater to skydive photography all cross over between lots of models currently in use.

Anybody out there working on using the firewire port for a control? Seems possible, since most editing programs can control the camera that way. This might be a hot ticket if Sony ditches the LANC totally at some point.

Lance

[DSE 3]

Sony? Ditch LANC? Not likely.
Firewire/iLink=royalty to Apple and Sony Electronics.
LANC-wholly Sony, no royalty.

The firewire protocol doesn't carry as many opportunities (although it obviously could), but it's meant as a data Xfer, not a control. Capture from a tape device is not really different than a transfer from an HDD.
Additionally, LANC doesn't need the speed that iLink/1394/Firewire offers.
Finally, the LANC connection has a lot more integrity than a 4pin iLink does.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Anybody out there working on using the firewire port for a control? Seems possible, since most editing programs can control the camera that way. This might be a hot ticket if Sony ditches the LANC totally at some point.

It does not make sense. Both are serial, but for different purpose.

LANC is a low speed serial interface for remote control only. It could be just a wired IR protocol. ITs cheap to implement a LANC device.

Firewire is a high speed protocol for data exchange. It requires more expensive hardware.

Although Sony might not provide LAND on cheaper devices.

[bofh 0]

Quote

It does not make sense. Both are serial, but for different purpose.

But the fact remains that you can control the camera via firewire. There are also some microcontrollers with firewire connectors that could be used to build a "cameye", but obviously it is going to cost more than a LANC "cameye"-ish remote would cost. Dito with USB for DSLR's without remote controls.

[DSE 3]

I don't think anyone disputes that you can completely control (and update software, etc) via iLink. But we also probably all agree that the connector isn't solid, and likely never will be. Further, iLink is a lot more susceptible to voltage jumps/mismatched connectors, and this will blow the circuit. It's expensive to repair.
~More expensive/cost inefficient
~Less integrity
~Easily damaged
All add up to great idea, not so great in practicality, IMO.
Work with Canon's new Console software to get an idea of how un-fun this can be. It's very nice, but it can get weird depending on the computer controlling the cam. With a programmed chip in a self-contained control, this wouldn't happen, but it still ain't easy.

[champu 1]

Quote

There are also some microcontrollers with firewire connectors...

Essentially all the embedded devices out there with 1394 interfaces that I've seen are a little more than "microcontrollers." TI makes one such device to communicate with consumer electronic devices (see attached) that you'll find is actually a 50MHz ARM processor, though it would probably be your best bet. Similar devices exist by other semiconductor manufacturers for high-speed data transfers and such, but they might not be as friendly to work with in this application.

Meanwhile, implementing a 9600bps LANC interface on a $0.50 part with some LEDs and a couple buttons is a weekend project.

[velvetjo 0]

Quote

Sony? Ditch LANC? Not likely.
Firewire/iLink=royalty to Apple and Sony Electronics.
LANC-wholly Sony, no royalty.

Okay, so what about the cameras identified in this thread? Sony's already removed the LANC feature from some of their mini-DV consumer models. There was some speculation a year or so ago about Sony dropping LANC entirely, but I'm glad to see it hasn't happened yet.

Quote

The firewire protocol doesn't carry as many opportunities (although it obviously could), but it's meant as a data Xfer, not a control. Capture from a tape device is not really different than a transfer from an HDD.
Additionally, LANC doesn't need the speed that iLink/1394/Firewire offers.
Finally, the LANC connection has a lot more integrity than a 4pin iLink does.

All good points as well, but possibly moot if the firewire port is the only on-board port offering any kind of remote control features. The only other realistic (non-IR) option without a LANC would be hacking a hardwired control inside the camera - not something that gives most folks a warm & fuzzy feeling about a piece of expensive electronics. The other interesting part is that it would open the possibility of effectively controlling cameras other than Sony models.

So, it sounds like there are some reliability, licensing, and complexity issues with a firewire-based control. Is there anything that a firewire-based control could do significantly better than a LANC-based control that would give it advantages for skydiving? One often-lamented feature now gone is the dedicated exterior "fade" button. Maybe a firewire-based controller could incorporate that feature or others desirable to video jumpers? And, back to the OP's question, could this hypothetical controller incorporate a still capture switch?

Sorry for the partial hijack, but thanks for the responses!

Lance

[DSE 3]

Sony have always made lo-cost consumer cams that didn't offer LANC. The Electronics division at Sony pays a royalty to the OEM division for the inclusion of LANC. I wouldn't say they "removed" as much as "didn't include." Canon doesn't offer LANC on their consumer cams either.

Most of the protocols and features of the various camcorders can be reached via the 1394 port, but, I'd doubt many of the products would share the same access, and so the chips would require programming per camcorder model. If the skydiving industry is the only industry that would embrace this, then it likely wouldn't happen.
Damn, I sure sound negative, yeah? Sorry.
From the ground video side of the world, I don't know that I'd ever give this up. Firewire ports are used for other, more important functions on the ground, such as feeding HDD's during the shoot.
Eventually, that too will go away. Live Data transfer isn't as important as camera control, and given the number of controls available via low cost, low speed connects like LANC...LANC be around for a while.

[peckerhead 0]

I think camera flyers keep wishing for one camera that does both jobs of video and stills at the same time. It would sure make it much more comfortable to jump with just one camera.

Instead of trying to shoot video and stills through the same lens wouldn't it make more sense to make a camera that has two lenses? One for video and one for stills, basically two cameras built into one unit.

Something kinda like the attached photo? This is the Samsung SCD6040 Mini DV Camcorder. I think Panasonic makes a similar model. Obviously some improvements would need to be made. I envision a SLR type still camera that can accept different lenses combined with a hd/sd mini DV video. Seperate inputs for each. Could this be the future?

[Fast 0]

Quote

I think camera flyers keep wishing for one camera that does both jobs of video and stills at the same time. It would sure make it much more comfortable to jump with just one camera.

Instead of trying to shoot video and stills through the same lens wouldn't it make more sense to make a camera that has two lenses? One for video and one for stills, basically two cameras built into one unit.

Something kinda like the attached photo? This is the Samsung SCD6040 Mini DV Camcorder. I think Panasonic makes a similar model. Obviously some improvements would need to be made. I envision a SLR type still camera that can accept different lenses combined with a hd/sd mini DV video. Seperate inputs for each. Could this be the future?

I don't understand the benifit of having seperate lenses.

~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

[DJL 232]

Quote

Don't dump your still camera too fast, and don't confuse mega-pixels and "reasonaable resolution" with quality still images like you can get from a dedicated SLR.

I have not seen a still from a video camera compare with stills that even a basic DLSR set-up is capable (or film SLR for that matter). There are many technical reasons for this (obvious ones being a puny sensor and less than stellar lenses). Spec sheets can be enticing, but they do not tell the whole story in this case. If you go this route, you better give a significant discount.

To summarize this, 4.8 MP of fuzzy shit is still a picture full of fuzzy shit.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[DSE 3]

Quote

I don't understand the benifit of having seperate lenses.

Because video glass doesn't need to resolve the same number of lines as still imagery glass in small formats. And, the sensors on vid cams are junk compared to the much larger and more sensitive sensors on still cams.
This is changing, and as CMOS continues to develop...it will change, one day. But we're a long way off. The RED will be the first low-cost vid cam with a monster sensor that has decent sensitivity, and even at $80k (glass, storage, body) it won't be as good for stills than an XTi.
that said, you can get great stills for the web from your vid cam, if it shoots true progressive frame modes.