GoPro haters

[Zlew 0]

I really haven't made up my mind on this, and I am interested to hear what you guys think. I am getting back in the sport after having a few years off, and this weekend at a boogie I saw the GoPros all over the place. I have read so many threads on here over the past few weeks with people with all sorts of anger and issues towards the little camera (from t-shirts that they kill, to we need to not sell them to low timers, snag hazards etc. etc.). I was on a jump with a guy who had one on his Z-1 and was very surprised and impressed with the video quality.

What I want to know is what is the real issue? Is there a real issue above the common problems we have had forever in this sport (low timers doing things before they are ready or understand the risks from canopy type, shape, size, landing style, camera, freefly (in the old days) wing suits etc. etc. etc)?

I get that we need to protect our own and help make sure they are aware and prepared for the risks of our sport (and this photog forum is famous for maybe over protecting with the "you are going to kill yourself!" threads). But is this camera really so bad? Is it just that it is so cheap, small, and easy to mount that there isn't a barrier of entry and now we are worried that more folks who aren't ready will be drilling holes in their z-1's and flying these things?

Or is it that for years and years, we "camera guys" have been somewhat elite... had to spend a lot of money on expensive cameras, expensive helmets, expensive controllers, switches, ring sights and such, camera suits. We have had to be able to rig up our own, do our own soldering and wiring. We have had to risk jumping cameras that made our helmets heavy, buy canopies around the idea of not breaking our necks on opening, and unhook our RSL's because, after all, we were flying camera.... Because of all of that, we could get video and photos that nobody else could get. It is a source of pride.

Now anybody with a drill and 200 bucks can get pretty damn good footage. People can afford to buy a GoPro before they even own their own rig (or altimeter for that matter). What I saw this weekend wasn't as good as the new sony gear, but is 3 times better than the top of the line Sony stuff I was jumping 6 years ago. I wouldn't want to jump one for paid jumps, or competition jumps etc., but for what they are...they take really good video. Is this the issue? Or are there things I am missing that really make these things "killers" and something to be hated. Have there been Incidents (a photo of a jumpsuit snagging on exit doesn't count as an incident in my book)?

What are your thoughts? As we go forward I think this will be the trend. Cameras will get smaller, cheaper and better and there won't be the huge cost barriers to get footage. Are we ready for this, or are we going to keep fighting tooth and nail?

[frost 1]

Quote

Now anybody with a drill and 200 bucks can get pretty damn good footage

Wrong. You need to know what you're doing to get "damn good footage". Everyone thinks their footage is good, but in reality 99% is crap. Even the good footage becomes crap when it's ruined by the nose or the goggle strap flapping in the frame, focus problems, position against the sun or something else. To recognize and know all the potential pitfalls takes a lot of jumps and time, some never get there and even with thousands of jumps with a video camera strapped to their head produce video that's dime a dozen and not worth watching.

Quote

As we go forward I think this will be the trend. Cameras will get smaller, cheaper and better and there won't be the huge cost barriers to get footage.

yes, no question about it. And why fight it?? Embrace the progress. Although i am sure there is some old timer at each dropzone still happily jumping a hi8 TRV, looking for a round jack RCA cable to plug into the HDTV

SoFPiDaRF - School of Fast Progress in Downsizing and Radical Flying. Because nobody knows your skills better than you.

[DSE 3]

I would submit that you're confusing the difference of technical quality (the GoPro and others like it are of bottom to middlin' at best), with quality of composition (best camera in the world can't compose a good frame).

The issue (apparently you didn't read the sticky nor the incident list) has nothing to do with camera size, quality of image, nor even flight skills.

It's not about hating GoPro or any other camera. It's about recognizing that the cameras are small enough that a lot of people get away with being less safe and putting themselves and others in harms way.

[Zlew 0]

Quote

I would submit that you're confusing the difference of technical quality (the GoPro and others like it are of bottom to middlin' at best), with quality of composition (best camera in the world can't compose a good frame).

For sure. My point was the image quality, not the skill of the video flier to make a "great product". My point is that for a very low cost and effort to get setup (compared to traditional camera guys set ups) you can get HD quality video footage. Without all of the hoops, steps, training, experience that used to be more common to be required before you could capture any type of image in the sky. That seems to be the source of frustration/anger as opposed to something wrong with the camera itself.

[Zlew 0]

The sticky is full of distraction type of issues. People getting hurt or almost getting hurt because they were not paying attention to the right things. The same issues they would have if the dropped 1500 bucks on a "pro" camera helmet setup, and similar issues that low times have battled for years with other distractions. So the GoPro is a low cost, easy to set up distraction.

Oddly, most of them that I saw this weekend were on pretty experienced jumpers just shooting it POV. I'm sure there were a few low experienced folks, but I didn't notice them.

[mccordia 73]

Its the general promotion of the camera by sales people (often skydivers) to the low-experience crowd (take a look at YouTube to get a general idea) that most people are protesting.

Not the camera (or use by people with suitable experience levels) in general.
But the fact that 'its small' seems to warent bypassing all general safety advice related to camera flying.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[billvon 2,380]

>My point is that for a very low cost and effort to get setup (compared to
>traditional camera guys set ups) you can get HD quality video footage.
>Without all of the hoops, steps, training, experience that used to be more
>common to be required before you could capture any type of image in the
>sky.

I don't think that's true at all. I've seen some very good footage taken on VHS-C cameras and crap footage from Gopros (and CX100's, HC1's etc.) There is a lot more to getting good video - even getting "HD quality" video - than the number of pixels on the screen.

It takes almost no training/"hoops"/experience to strap any camera at all on to your head and get video. Paragear used to sell a super cheap camera helmet that was basically a Protec with a metal plate on top and an extra chinstrap. Take one of those, bolt a Sony 8mm camcorder to it, and you could start shooting video at 50 jumps back in 1995.

Was it a good idea back then? No; it was just as stupid as it is today. Would you get good video? No - and it wasn't due to the lack of pixels.

[Zlew 0]

I think my point may have been lost. I don't always do the best job of being clear when I write on here. It wasn't about the skill of the camera jumper vs the pixles/formats. Up until now there hasn't been a way for anyone to get a setup for under 300 bucks, or a setup that is so insignificant from a hardware standpoint. Even the protec and hi 8 cameras cost quite a bit more (even 15 years ago) and were still heavy, bulky, with bigger snag/emergency issues. It was a camera rig, not a sport helmet with a zit on it that could record video. You couldn't really use that head bucket for anything else. It was cheap, 200 plus the camera, or so as I remember, but it was still a camera helmet and you would still need another helmet or hat of some sort for general jumps ($$$). All I saw back then still had ring sights, and recording lights (light sensor taped over the "red light" attached to a double A bat and an LED).
IMO, the gopro changed all of that since you can take a 300 dollar camera, drill a hole in an existing helmet, and be shooting HD video with something that weighs a fraction of a lb. and is smaller than our old high 8, digital 8 and mini DV camera batteries. The hoops and costs to get any video (good, bad, HD, SD, hi-8 or otherwise) is amazingly low now compared to what it used to be. And to be clear, I agree 100% that you should still have experience and training before jumping a gopro or any other camera.

[stratostar 5]

Quote

And to be clear, I agree 100% that you should still have experience and training before jumping a gopro or any other camera.

You say all that shit yet then you display the over all problem with your attitude in the thread, and what you claim as "haters" by saying this:

Quote

It was a camera rig, not a sport helmet with a zit on it that could record video

And that is the over problem, people thinking it's nothing more then a zit on the helmet, regardless of size it's a snag hazard and a distraction to many.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[pilotdave 0]

Saw an interesting one the other day. An experienced jumper had a nasty huge bruise on her arm caused by a gopro being jammed into it on a linked exit. Just because they're small doesn't mean they don't get in the way any less than a "real" camera.

Dave

[billvon 2,380]

> Even the protec and hi 8 cameras cost quite a bit more (even 15 years ago) . . .

Right, but you didn't need the fancy Hi8 camera back then. You could have gone with the (very cheap) 8mm or VHS-C cameras. No one wanted them of course since they were yesterday's news.

>All I saw back then still had ring sights, and recording lights (light sensor
>taped over the "red light" attached to a double A bat and an LED).

You need all that with a Gopro as well. Or you can go without a sight and/or tally - in which case you're in the same boat in both cases.

If your point is "things have gotten smaller with better resolution" yes, they have. But they have really gotten no harder or easier to use. You still need a tally light, and that means either turning it on and then putting the camera on, taping a sensor to the LED or having a friend verify recording - and that's true whether it's an old 8mm or a Gopro.

[OG-Tahiti 0]

Just a side note / question about the safety issue of the GoPro.

Are they really such a hazardous snag point? Even if a riser would strike it or get stuck in it on opening I really don't see the plastic mount holding up.

It would probably take just as long to reach for the cam and rip it off as it would be to reach for your chin strap cutaway, or am I way off?

"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Dudeist Skydiver #9

[DSE 3]

Quote

It would probably take just as long to reach for the cam and rip it off as it would be to reach for your chin strap cutaway, or am I way off?

Yes, you're off.
There are several threads discussing the pull force required to tear off small format cameras and double stick tape. It's more than you'd think, and certainly a significant amount greater than the few pounds of force to pull a helmet cutaway.
Get with one of the camera flyers there at S'nore and talk to em. Some of the guys have lots of experience and can share a few good stories with you.

[OG-Tahiti 0]

Thanks DSE, will talk to the guys there for sure.

I agree that you'd need super powers to rip off the 3M double sided tape of those mounts, but from just handling my GoPro I broke the plastic part that slides into the sticky mount. That's the part I think would snap off pretty easily.

But as you said, better get information from experienced people rather than discover the problems of shooting video on your own :)

BTW, great list of how it can take your mind off much more important things, and it shows how much the size of the cam makes no difference...

"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Dudeist Skydiver #9

[skydivefj 0]

Quote

Yes, you're off.
There are several threads discussing the pull force required to tear off small format cameras and double stick tape. It's more than you'd think, and certainly a significant amount greater than the few pounds of force to pull a helmet cutaway.
Get with one of the camera flyers there at S'nore and talk to em. Some of the guys have lots of experience and can share a few good stories with you.

That opinion would be common among those that have spent a small fortune rigging up a cumbersome and bulky flat top pro or similar.

A couple of years ago you could strut around to DZ with a FTP fully loaded and you were da man, now it is not so much of a big deal. In fact big setups look stipud with small cameras on them...

FTP's are not needed anymore, and there seems to be a bitter taste in a few mouths due to this unforseen circumstance.


Go pro's are on one of a few tiny cameras available, they are only getting smaller, more numerous, better quality and less expensive.

That is a real shame for the cool guys that used to be the only ones with the gear...

Breaking the plastic mount on a go pro is easy, very very easy.

a line may not break it on its own but a hand from a competent jumper will.

Do I think sub 100 jumpers should use them?

No, the same has always been the case, but with the Go pro the cameras have become more available for everyone.

This issue is half safety and half ego.

The cool guy is never the cool guy forever.

[DSE 3]

A-Small format cameras don't impact my job at all. Not one whit. I fly one myself when quality isn't an issue.
Anyone who thinks AVC or AVCHD cams that "stick on" offer quality useful in any sort of professional use as a primary is simply showing ignorance. It's like the dude that gets terribly excited about how his DSLR is now an "HD CAMCORDER."

B-Yes, a hand and hard pull can easily break off a small format camera.
If your line is trapped between the camera mount and the helmet, that doesn't help you much.
Suggesting that it's OK to "break the camera off" vs using a cutaway system on a helmet is irresponsible, stupid, and wreckless.

FTP's, like large format cameras, are still needed. Having a stable mounting surface for quality, shudder free or low vibration video is still needed.
Having a solid surface between chin and back of the head is a big part of having the solid structure that keeps things steady and smooth.

But not everyone needs an FTP, in this we agree.

Some people are truly OK with selling low quality pix and video. Others have the desire to match their video gear with their proficiency of flying.

[OG-Tahiti 0]

I think we all agree that those small form cameras are by no means a decent alternative to proper video equipment for pro footage.

But I think they are great for all those jumps where no one would actually be filming anyways.

And honestly on the breaking off the small cam vs cutaway system, in the case of the GoPro mounts which I am familiar with, only the line getting stuck under the sticky mount could be a real issue as DSE suggested, and a small bit of electrical tape on the sides to make it flush solves it really... And you would need some very THIN lines for them to get stuck under there.

I don't like playing the devil's advocate, but want to better understand the risks involved with the mount and this discussion already brought up an issue that is new to me :) Thx

"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Dudeist Skydiver #9

[DSE 3]

Quote

But I think they are great for all those jumps where no one would actually be filming anyways.

And honestly on the breaking off the small cam vs cutaway system, in the case of the GoPro mounts which I am familiar with, only the line getting stuck under the sticky mount could be a real issue as DSE suggested, and a small bit of electrical tape on the sides to make it flush solves it really... And you would need some very THIN lines for them to get stuck under there.

I think they're great for debriefing students, for POV, and for just plain having fun.
Spectra is thin (and the standard on most smaller parachutes) and has no problem getting under the plastic mount with doublestick.

Lookin' forward to seein' you soon at S'nore!

[gearless_chris 1]

They are very easy to break off, I saw two of them lost on two different jumps at Summerfest this year. I barely bumped a guy on exit and off it went. His mount was still in place on the helmet, but one of those tabs had broken. The second was much scarier for me. There was a two way belly base that was spinning a little. One of the divers got into the burble and fell on it, then went about 30 feet low. I saw a little silver flash go by about 15 feet of to my side. His mount had survived the initial impact, but then the whole mount came off the helmet while he was below everybody.

"If it wasn't easy stupid people couldn't do it", Duane.

My momma said I could be anything I wanted when I grew up, so I became an a$$hole.

[rhys 0]

Quote

A-Small format cameras don't impact my job at all. Not one whit.

It doesn't matter if you are a full time skydiving camera guy or a cinematographer.

In both fields and everything in between everything is getting newer, smaller, cheaper, lighter and different models of cameras are becoming more cmmonly available.

You would have to be more clear about your job description as I do not know exactly what it is that you do, so maybe that ‘is’ the case for you, but for skydiving camera people these cameras are having a huge impact (for the good) on price, weight, quality...

Quote

B-Yes, a hand and hard pull can easily break off a small format camera.
If your line is trapped between the camera mount and the helmet, that doesn't help you much.
Suggesting that it's OK to "break the camera off" vs using a cutaway system on a helmet is irresponsible, stupid, and wreckless.

That was not my point at all; I was simply suggesting that they break very easily rather than rather difficultly.

The mounts are snag hazards, we both agree, but I believe they break too easily which is a hazard and it seems you were arguing the opposite...

Quote

FTP's, like large format cameras, are still needed. Having a stable mounting surface for quality, shudder free or low vibration video is still needed.
Having a solid surface between chin and back of the head is a big part of having the solid structure that keeps things steady and smooth.

They are still needed by Norman Kent and the pro guys running super high end gear that has cinema quality etc...

There certainly is a need for FTP's for that type of application.

I know I said there was no need for them which was a silly comment but what I was trying to say is that there is no need for them for everyday commercial skydiving videos.

You may provide HD, cinema quality, super crisp super edited, dvd's for your customers but for how much$$$?

How much do people pay to have that sort of quality made for them in any other application, and how much do they want to pay for a DVD of their first skydive?

I have worked on a 30 second television advertisement that cost well over $4 million and that was relatively low budget. How far do you want to take it?

Quote

Anyone who thinks AVC or AVCHD cams that "stick on" offer quality useful in any sort of professional use as a primary is simply showing ignorance. It's like the dude that gets terribly excited about how his DSLR is now an "HD CAMCORDER."

What sort of professional use are we talking DSE? Do you suggest that the go proHD, contourHD... are not better quality than 95% of the tandem videos made to date?

Most people don’t even have blue ray at home and these ‘stick on’ cameras are filming in 1080… I don’t get your point.

I am excited that SLR's are now doing video, I would much rather the interchangeable glass that is already available for them. I will relish the day when we only need to have one SLR that takes great video and we still can take the still images with a switch. That is not out yet (as far as I am aware) so I don’t have one (yet), but it will be, and I will be stoked. You may turn you nose up at it, but you will always have that new expensive toy that is the ducks nuts, but how many pixles and FPS do we actually need?

Quote

But not everyone needs an FTP, in this we agree.

Yes we do, and the application for them is becoming more and more specialised.


Technology is growing exponentially; you suggest I am ignorant for thinking that a 'stick on cam' can offer 'any useful quality'.

I would suggest that thinking they do not, is ignorant.

You just watch them, I'm sure you already are...

Quote

Some people are truly OK with selling low quality pix and video. Others have the desire to match their video gear with their proficiency of flying.

I have owned many video cameras and at the industry standard. the cx100 and the go pro (past12months) have been the only cameras that have shot in high defnition, for years we used DV tape and were quite happy, now we have HD and it is still not good enough?.

I don't understand how you can actually be saying this when you are talking about selling a $100 product.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[hallux 0]

excellent reply rhys,

DSE is a video professional and too him owning super high end cameras is no big deal. THe issue here is that for a tandem video those big cameras are overkill! and the only reason you need a FTP to stabilize a camera is if the camera ways several pounds. A FTP is not needed to stabilize small cameras.
I own a FTP with a canon XH-A1 mounted on it. Completely stupid to jump that for tandem videos. To tell the truth the quality difference in good lighting is hardly noticeable. Now if its sunset and you want to mount a 700 dollar litpanel to it and shoot badass video in the dark, then yes it is awesome. Otherwise its only good for trying to show off. Its really a pain in the ass to deal with too. I dont know why anyone would want to jump it regularly other than to try to market themselves as something "special".

As far as snag hazzards go....that is total B.S. Hell your arms and legs are snag hazzards! what are you going to do?....cut them off or tape them to your body? If a line goes around your head then you were in bad shape already. Deploying on your back? Yes a unusual situation can happen but that is a risk you need to be able to accept when you skydive. Any situation that presents snag hazzards for your helmet also presents snag hazzards for everything else on your body.
Also a FTP with all kinds of shit on top of it is one of the biggest snag hazzards I can imagine.....if you care about that kind of stuff.

The GoPro breaks away easily and Mine is mounted flush with the helmet so I have no idea how a line could get between the mount and the helmet????

Bottom line...the snag hazzard term is overused! Its become a generic deterrent for video set ups. The truth is that every camera poses a equal snag hazzard because the situations that cause snags are so extraordinary and unpredictable that no one can foresee how said situation will play out or how the lines are going to be presented to the cameras(angle,direction,force,etc). way too many variables exist in the unusual deployment orientations that would leave one vunerable to a snag.
Under normal deployment there should be no hazzard of dangerous snagging.

[DSE 3]

Quote

A FTP is not needed to stabilize small cameras.

Did you really mean to say this, or is that a typo? Small cameras require stabilizing MORE than large cameras. Perhaps what you meant was that super wide (180) lenses such as those on the GoPro don't need stabilization?
Even that is pretty far off the mark of accuracy... but it's closer to the truth than your initial statement.

Quote

To tell the truth the quality difference in good lighting is hardly noticeable.

Now you're just showing either tremendous ignorance or pushing buttons to continue a debate.
Anyone, EVERYONE can see the difference. Gross saturation, macroblocking, smear....these are all standard with all the low bitrate AVC cameras. Even the 15Mbps AVCHD cameras have some of these issues.

Quote

I have no idea how a line could get between the mount and the helmet????

Really???
Truly?
That hallux must be shoved deeply into your eye then...

Quote

Under normal deployment there should be no hazzard of dangerous snagging.

Under normal deployment there should be no need to use a cutaway handle, reserve handle, hook knife, cutaway on helmet, etc etc. Should we do away with those things, too?

BTW, If you paid 700.00 for a LitePanel, you shoulda gotten 3.5 of em', not just one.

Bear in mind, I jump with a GoPro for somethings. I also jump with a CX100, CX7, EX1, and now the NX5. All are tools, all have their place. None of them fit every situation.
BTW, rendering HD AVC to SD DVD is nearly four times as slow as rendering SD MPEG to SD MPEG for DVD delivery. Speed will always be a huge part of my workflow consideration.

[DSE 3]

Rhys, choose which name you're going to post under.
You can't be skydivefj and rhys.
It's against TOS.
It's also silly to have conversations with yourself.

[hallux 0]

well I disagree with the stabilizing platform theory. You dont need a giant fluid head to stabilize a small camera on the ground. But a giant camera on a undersized fluid head is useless. I feel the same about helmets. if your helmet fits right then a small helmet for small cameras is fine. Once again lets keep in mind the need of the average video flyer. I'm not talking about shooting a hollywood big budget movie here.

true the metering and quality on cheaper cameras isnt as good but for the everyday consumer they will never notice or complain. It certainly isnt different enough to be considered unacceptable for the money they paid for the product. Lets keep in mind the investment and health risk for the skydiving videographer.

I dont blame you for taking file format into consideration. Actually that is your most reasonable point when talking about the everyday videographer. Workflow is a very valid concern.

I'm not going to argue over which model of litepanel you use. Yes they range from reasonable to very expensive. that wasnt my point, that was a random example.

I am looking at my GoPro mount now and I assure you that it would take an act of God to get a line between it and the helmet, its such a ridiculous possibility that it seems stupid to be talking about it. Its certainly way less likely than snagging anything on that living room table called a FTP.
And dont think Im discounting the FTP, Im not! If you need real estate then it is great. (lights, strobes, prosumer cameras, multiple cameras, etc....) But for the everyday video guy for normal consumer cameras it is not neccessary.

Lets talk stabilization....What is stabilization in freefall? Why would a FTP be more stable? The only thing that makes it more stable is that it large sturdy tight fitting helmet, basically it balances heavy loads better absorbing vibration. And provides realestate to evenly mount your accessories. True if you are shooting tightly zoomed cameras the FTP might be a better platform. Otherwise it is not needed to shoot "stable" video. The key to stability is tight fitting helmet to prevent shuddering. If the helmet is appropriately loaded and fits tight it will not shudder. The mounts used have alot to do with this as well. Finally, one of the biggest factors is body orientation. how is the camera being presented to the wind.

Of course I forgot the most important thing...you are always right. You might have a load of tech knowledge and experience but I think you relate it to skydiving poorly. you do have a huge ego though.....which is totally skydiver

[Icon134 0]

Quote

Also a FTP with all kinds of shit on top of it is one of the biggest snag hazzards I can imagine.....if you care about that kind of stuff.

It absolutely is... the helmet can also be cutaway if a line gets snagged on some of that stuff mounted on top...

which is the point of the discussion... ultimately it is ok to have a snag hazzard on your helmet (although you want to reduce it if possible) it is important that if you do have a snag hazzard on your helmet that you should have some sort of method to cut away the the helmet in the even of an emergency... where the helmet is snagged.

it's not a good idea to count on the mounting hardware to fail... because it might not...

Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...