GoPro haters

[rhys 0]

Quote

Thanks, looks great. I might try to build a copy of it some day. For now I've got boneheads cutaway kit, and from ground testing it seems to work under pretty heavy load. I tried to build a similar myself, but couldn find a spring that was strong enough to be trusted for the task.

I'm sure bone head did plenty of testing, mine was free just a couple of hours in the loft mucking around, I enjoy problem solving.

Quote

Sweden has similar rules regarding cutaways. Camera helmet must have one, and it has to be proved to work under load before you jump it with cameras. Good idea IMO.

Me too.

I got a granted and sealed patent of the idea of combining the camera and the helmet into one product a few years ago. havn't done anything with it yet.

I might make prototype soon by pulling apart an old go pro. and getting into some fibreglass. Then there will be no snag hazard.!

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

[rhys 0]

Quote

Since a huge number of vidiots (most that I know) are using CX series camcorders, I'm having a hard time reconciling these statements, especially based on past posts.

We all bought CX100's for handicam and ended up spending almost as much on hype eyes as they kept failing on us, and i am talking about 16 TM's, we would have had over 20 failed hype eyes in a 6 month period. evben with some free spare parts from trunk we still ended up paying a signficant mount in servicing them and planty of customers wen;t without thier lifetime memory.

Quote

Audio on a GoPro and the Contour is horrible. People pay for videos in which they can hear themselves speak, shriek, and laugh. Audio is 70% of the picture experience.

When we dub our dvd's we fade the audio in 4 times while fading out the music by about 80% sound sweet, I admit the sound is not cinema quality but neither is the price eh. we give EVERY customer that gets a dvd footage of thier expressions and reactions once the parachute opens while you fall away.

beauty and imprtance is in the eye of the beholder. what you find important, evidently, 90% of people could care less about.

Quote

Picture quality of a GP or Contour compared to a CX is not nearly as good.

We are quit happy with our footage, I just wish we could deliver the quality we get off the camera on a DVD but that is not going to happen until blue ray is mainstream enough.

Quote

Amount of time to transfer, decode, edit, encode AVC is significantly more lengthy than MPEG2 from a CX series camera.

only takes me 4 minutes to render and the same to burn on a $1000 4gb-ram dell.

Not bad compared to the old days when we were capturing DV onto premiere, I bet you are quicker but you are fussier also.

Quote

No preview

yes there is, on a computer.

Quote

No playback

ditto

I have done 1000's of videos, i know what I have filemd and what i have not, I know what my camera sees and the amount of times I actually used those features on cameras that had them we very minimal, i used to like my edit search buttons on my trv18 but now we do that when we edit on the computer.

The fancy gadgets are now on a computer.

Quote

No zoom

Never use it, do you?

Quote

Relatively close in price

cough cough, BS! are you including the lens and swithce and the maintenance of thm?

I poersonally spent over $350 on switches alone in a 6 mount period. How about the case/box...

I very much doubt you would EVER fly a cx with no lens no switch and a $50 screw holding it to your head.

Come back to earth Guy!

Quote

ON snaps on, the other requires a mount that will range from a .50 thumbscrew to a 100.00 plate.

One you can take Pond swooping, snorkling, snowboarding, rafting, kayaking, surfing, fishing, hunting (in the rain) etc etc, with the supplied extras one you have to pay Big $$$$$ to have the ability to do that.

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

[DSE 3]

Quote

[

Quote

Relatively close in price

cough cough, BS! are you including the lens and swithce and the maintenance of thm?

I poersonally spent over $350 on switches alone in a 6 mount period. How about the case/box...

Just spent 300.00 each (same price for GoPro) for four CX100's (I don't like the bottom load on CX110/150) and will install them on helmets that have HypEye's already installed. Not my fault if you can't install your switches so they don't get busted.
And yes...I frequently fly them without the wide lens. but if I do fly em' with a wide lens, I fly a lens that cost half the value of the camcorder, but I come up with video that is a quarter what I'd prefer, but twice as good as the GoPro.

Bottom line is that some folks are very content with delivering schlock to customers and that's just fine. Content *IS* king, and as a pro, I accept that the experience could be shot with a shitty cell phone, too.
But there are people that actually concern themselves with the quality of what they deliver.
No different than dropzones that use mechanics coveralls vs those that have custom jumpsuits with Cordura butts and nice DZ logos.

I happen to believe in doing the best I can within reason for the amount being paid. I will never, ever accept the shit audio of the small format cameras for tandems. I have more self-respect than that.
Poor sucker customers don't know the difference. Until they see/hear a higher quality product.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Just spent 300.00 each (same price for GoPro) for four CX100's (I don't like the bottom load on CX110/150)

So you think everyone can go and do this, are we talking about you or the industry?

Quote

Not my fault if you can't install your switches so they don't get busted.Tongue

The switches came installed by the manufactuer of the handicam gloves (waycool) we tried many different variatons and they kept on failing but the fact of the matter is that the go pro eliminated the need for the extra hassle of the swithces in the first place.

Quote

And yes...I frequently fly them without the wide lens. but if I do fly em' with a wide lens, I fly a lens that cost half the value of the camcorder, but I come up with video that is a quarter what I'd prefer, but twice as good as the GoPro.

So you must fly about 80 feet away, can you still orbit the tandem get under and over and all around shake thier hand interact get them to poke thier toung out, all with no lens on? no wonder you need a big old helmet to keep the footage still.

you mush have shit footage on the step with no lens or do you have a handle on the horizontal stabaliser?

Quote

Bottom line is that some folks are very content with delivering schlock to customers and that's just fine. Content *IS* king, and as a pro, I accept that the experience could be shot with a shitty cell phone, too.

Content is king our DVDs are filled with content you cannot deliver unless you do handicam, you can never deliver the reaction the customer has when they parachue opens, the look on thier face as they steer the parachute. but I am sue you would argue agains handicam also. go pros are perfect for what we need, customers are constantly telling us how impressed they are with the footage and the quality the deliver, we sell 80% camera and every one is happy with it, except for you that is!

Quote

I happen to believe in doing the best I can within reason for the amount being paid. I will never, ever accept the shit audio of the small format cameras for tandems. I have more self-respect than that.

You are very much getting close to the boundry of personal attack, you are a moderator and you should show more respect.

You are entitled to your opinion but you have already called me a moron and unprofessional as well as 100's of others. I don't want this to be personal. It sure is a shame you have gotten past you honeymoon period on DZ.com where you were nice to everybody, it seems you new found popularity has gone to your head.

Please show more respect as you are insulting many more people other than myself when you speak this way.

My respect for you is deminishing at a rapid rate. It seems I am not the only one.

Quote

But there are people that actually concern themselves with the quality of what they deliver.
No different than dropzones that use mechanics coveralls vs those that have custom jumpsuits with Cordura butts and nice DZ logos.

We have custom customer jumpsuituts (with custom cordura butts), our aircraft serviced to air operator certifecte standards the only one in the country, and the best skydiving equipment money can buy. We also have unprecedented views of the most magnificent scenery, if you filmed your groundies in our plane with your Cx100 with no wide angle lens on, you would miss 70% of the scenery, and your footage would be shaky as hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaBBvSBZZ24


This is our promo filmed exclusively with go pro.

Give me a link to your tandem promo or what you consider to be a high quality product that you would sell for $100 I would be interested to see what your Guru-ness has to offer the world.

Quote

Poor sucker customers don't know the difference. Until they see/hear a higher quality product.

Our direct opposition still uses micro MV tapes dubbing linear style with a cd player, you should talk to them about grainy footage, we are state of the art in comparison...

Your standard is higher than most, don't ever convince yourself that you represent the majority. You disrespect a great proportion of the commercial skydiving industry with your arrogant and self promotional comments. I advise you to pull your head in a little.

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

[DSE 3]

Amazon has lots of CX100's quite cheap. The times I fly without a wide are when I'm concerned with picking up a specific depth and width and a wide angle interferes with that. 40mm-50mm is perfectly set for those shots.

I stand by my original statement;
Different folks are satisfied with different qualities of output.
I for one, will never deliver (what I feel is) a bad product where audio can't be heard and is muffled or unintelligible. It is the student's story to tell.
If you're happy delivering bad audio, less than best video for price point, that's your albatross to wear, not mine. My albatross is that I can't reasonably use the cameras I'd like to on every jump due to damage to my neck and/or back.
If you feel that you're being called a moron because you deliver unintelligible audio, you're somehow creating words that weren't used nor inferred.
My self-respect demands that I do the best I can within the boundaries of my activity. For a few bucks more in my camera I can deliver clean audio, a cleaner picture, delivered in a faster transfer and editing process, and send the customer on their merry way.
To me...that's very very important. It's THEIR life experience and it's important to me to deliver in the best way possible.
Your values may be different. Not suggesting they're lesser than nor greater than. Just different. Sorry you find that offensive.
You already know I use GoPro's for AFF and coach debriefs. That's where I think they belong. I don't believe they belong in a place where an unsuspecting public doesn't know that they're not getting the best documentary experience possible for the same price that everyone else charges for higher grade video.

You make so many assumptions it's kinda hilarious. Nowhere did I say I jump tandems without a wide lens, now did I?
I do a lot of wingsuit jumps as well as some background jumps, filler and puff pieces. No lens adapter needed.

I would submit that those using GoPros for tandems are far, far far in the minority. There are a LOT of DV, HDV, and AVCHD cams out there. Many DZ's are opposed to using these lower grade cams for tandems. Byron Bay for instance...Same with Picton. I believe that Toogoolowah isn't accepting them either.
I guess we'll find out soon enough at the next PIA convention

[rhys 0]

Quote

Amazon has lots of CX100's quite cheap.

In pal or NTSC? I saw a few just less than US$500 so you will still need a lens, a mount, a switch/indicator and potentially a box. taking you up over $800, a go pro comes with all this, for $300 and is both NTSC and pal not that it matters so much anymore with computer dubbing.

Quote

I stand by my original statement;
Different folks are satisfied with different qualities of output.
I for one, will never deliver (what I feel is) a bad product where audio can't be heard and is muffled or unintelligible. It is the student's story to tell.
If you're happy delivering bad audio, less than best video for price point, that's your albatross to wear, not mine. My albatross is that I can't reasonably use the cameras I'd like to on every jump due to damage to my neck and/or back.
If you feel that you're being called a moron because you deliver unintelligible audio, you're somehow creating words that weren't used nor inferred.

gee I wonder where I got that complex from;

Quote

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."

Quote

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

Quote

Bottom line is that some folks are very content with delivering schlock to customers and that's just fine. Content *IS* king, and as a pro, I accept that the experience could be shot with a shitty cell phone, too.
But there are people that actually concern themselves with the quality of what they deliver.

Quote

My self-respect demands that I do the best I can within the boundaries of my activity. For a few bucks more in my camera I can deliver clean audio, a cleaner picture, delivered in a faster transfer and editing process, and send the customer on their merry way.

how many cameras, haveyou owned, do you own and how much did you pay for them?

You scenario is extra ordanary and to expect the camera jumper fraternity to have the knowledge and equipment that you have is simply not reasonable, yet you talk down to people that do not.

This is my Issue with your attitiude and also those that have P/M'ed me about your dimeanour pertaining to this subject.

Quote

To me...that's very very important. It's THEIR life experience and it's important to me to deliver in the best way possible.
Your values may be different. Not suggesting they're lesser than nor greater than. Just different. Sorry you find that offensive.

Now that is better, a little more eloquent and less offensive, keep it up.

Quote

You already know I use GoPro's for AFF and coach debriefs. That's where I think they belong. I don't believe they belong in a place where an unsuspecting public doesn't know that they're not getting the best documentary experience possible for the same price that everyone else charges for higher grade video.

We use them for handicam and the built in lens delivers much better quality footage that is focused from edge to edge with the go pro while thise with the CX series and black eyes deliver footage that is blurry and distorted areound the edges and is nowhere near as wide, so the 'content' of the video is much poorer with the cx series than a go pro. With our 360 degree scenery we want to deliver as much as possible of that in focus to our customers, the CX seris would blur tht all out. our subject is the scenery and the customer, with the go pro we get both.

With a hype eye cx series fail, they cost twice as much and the produce less quality footage, I have seen hundreds of dvd's produced with cx and .25 lenses and the footage is NOWHERE near as clear and though the Cx seris are more intellegent with lighting the amount of scenery and focus the go pro has on the CX Far outweighs the lighting issues.

You do have different applications to me, but your comment.

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.

Encopmpsses our company and our integrety, you seem to have no idea of what it costs to run a skydiving business as you are suggesting we spend what little money we make on fancy gear to deliver a product that is not expected from our customers.

Our competition still uses micro mv and linear dubbing, thay also charge much more for their dvd's.
We are the least expensive as far as DVD's go in the country, and we deliver a professional product. We are even going through the process of a contract with a Well known New Zealand Drum and bass band to legally use thier music. We do many things to give our customer a great product, and if I agreed with you we would still have our CX100's and would use them, the fact of the matter is however;

You are wrong, the Go pro produces footage that is crisp from edge to edge, and there are plenty of tandem dropzones using them already this is growing rapidly. CX series cameras are prone to faliure from the shithouse switches, I had a handful of refunds from using CX100's on handicam and the poor customers wen't home with nothing.

We are yet to have a problem with our Go Pros and the simplicity of them make them a great tool for the job.

With the improvement from the first go pro to the HD wide go pro tells us the audio and lighting will be improved over the next short while, the availabily of them is more constant than the CX series of camera that change every 5 minutes.

You can have a higher personal standard and I respect that, but to say these cameras are useless for commercial appilcation altogether is nieve and ignorant.

What about those that pay $70 for a canyon swing? or a bungee jump, do you want to strap an $1000, 2kg camera to them as well? what lens would you use, to get thier eyes and all the scenery in the shot...

Get with the times bro!

[DSE 3]

Let's clarify a couple things, Rhys...

Most of this thread is about helmets and GoPros.
You're talking now about handcams and GoPros.
Shifting subjects and perspectives doesn't make much sense.
Handcams and helmet cams are pretty different things, wouldn't you agree? Or were you advising handcam cutaway systems earlier?

Of course a GoPro is gonna look better than a .25 lens on a CX100 As mentioned numerous times in other threads, there is no HD .25 lens, the best resolving around 240 lines vs 600+ on other low-cost wide angles. With more information, now I understand your position.

You ask how many cams I've owned in my life? Hell, I have no idea. A few hundred. We have 65 in our rental stock right now. How much did I pay for em'? About the same as you, bud. I've never gotten a freebie. I do get long-term loans and review cams that go back after 30 days, but I'm also a consultant to Sony and Canon. What's your point?
I fly the same cameras most everyone here flies. I guess you've missed the reviews I've done on those same cams.

You don't get to change horses in the middle of the stream and still claim the high-horse, Rhys. Make up your mind whether we're talking about GoPro on a helmet with a cutaway or a GoPro on a glove.
On a glove, it's always gonna look OK because you're close to the subject and graded colors don't matter.
It's always gonna sound like shit because it's a GoPro.
It's always gonna take longer to Xfer, edit, and burn simply because of the non-standard formatting of AVC and HD vs AVCHD or MPEG 2 on an apples-to-apples CPU.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Let's clarify a couple things, Rhys...
Most of this thread is about helmets and GoPros.
You're talking now about handcams and GoPros.
Shifting subjects and perspectives doesn't make much sense.
Handcams and helmet cams are pretty different things, wouldn't you agree? Or were you advising handcam cutaway systems earlier?Wink

I'm quite bored with this subject now as you are quite adament about you viewpoint and you are entitled to it, but it was you that moved the subject away from the safety side of things and with comments like;

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.

That encompassed the handicam thing, highlighted you tunnel vision and arrogance towards the subject, this thread is about go pro haters, you appear to be one of them, though you have one for 'aff and debreifs' anyhow.

Quote

Of course a GoPro is gonna look better than a .25 lens on a CX100Crazy As mentioned numerous times in other threads, there is no HD .25 lens, the best resolving around 240 lines vs 600+ on other low-cost wide angles. With more information, now I understand your position.

Maybe you should consider the scope of your statements in future then.

Quote

You ask how many cams I've owned in my life? Hell, I have no idea. A few hundred. We have 65 in our rental stock right now. How much did I pay for em'? About the same as you, bud. I've never gotten a freebie. I do get long-term loans and review cams that go back after 30 days, but I'm also a consultant to Sony and Canon. What's your point?

That most people consider it a big deal what camera they get, and each purchase is a big thing and each camera is expected to last at least a year if not more. If you have had to pay the same as me and have had hundreds of cameras, you either have a big fat silver spoon or you are lying.

Nobody should ever need to have hundreds of cameras.

Quote

I fly the same cameras most everyone here flies. I guess you've missed the reviews I've done on those same cams.

Nah I have seen them and they gave me a great deal of respect for your knowledge and experience. Some of the attitude coming out now is deminishing that however.

Quote

You don't get to change horses in the middle of the stream and still claim the high-horse, Rhys. Make up your mind whether we're talking about GoPro on a helmet with a cutaway or a GoPro on a glove.
On a glove, it's always gonna look OK because you're close to the subject and graded colors don't matter.
It's always gonna sound like shit because it's a GoPro.
It's always gonna take longer to Xfer, edit, and burn simply because of the non-standard formatting of AVC and HD vs AVCHD or MPEG 2 on an apples-to-apples CPU.

There you go again... there is only one of us on a high horse here, and it is not me. I know we could invest more and get more, but I know what we have is the best for price and what is available right now, I would like perfect sound, it will come, but for now everybody is happy on this end customers and company included.

When we do outside camera once our turbine gets here we will decide what camers to use, they will not be go pro, because go pro is too wide for the newer camera guys and i want to bring the scenery closer.

I understand what you say, I am just proving to you that there is commercial value in go pro footage, more than you seem willing to accept.

in fact they make the possibility of comercial videos more viable for many activites.

skydiving is expensive to begin with , but some activities are not and you would have trouble selling a $120 dvd of a $70 activity, these cameras will open up new opportunites commercially where it may have been unfeasbile before.

You can bet that the sound will improve over the next short while and more and more similar and better makes and models will pop up from many manufacturers.

Small format cameras are the future.

I suppose handicam is not worth anything either?

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

[DSE 3]

Quote

That most people consider it a big deal what camera they get, and each purchase is a big thing and each camera is expected to last at least a year if not more. If you have had to pay the same as me and have had hundreds of cameras, you either have a big fat silver spoon or you are lying.

Nobody should ever need to have hundreds of cameras.

Over the course of 30 years in the business? Particularly when a big part of our business is renting cameras?
As far as paying for them...neither a silver spoon nor lying, Rhys.
It's called "work" and being at the least marginally competent at it.
Kinda like telling some skydivers that you can't see a reason they'd own dozens of rigs, even tho you're aware they do all sorts of things ranging from film to CRW to wingsuit, or maybe have been part of a team...
Maybe you need to expand your imagination?


Seems the biggest stick in your craw is the term "professional."
If for some reason you feel wearing a plastic camera on your wrist makes you a "professional photographer," you're correct. I disagree with that.
I would consider you a "professional skydiver who happens to wear a camera to get the best shot he can while attending to other things."
Once again for those in the back that haven't heard;
I don't hate small format cameras. I simply recognize them for what they are and what they aren't. They're not a tool for professional video, by the definition of "professional" in the world in which I work every day. Your mileage may vary.
Either way, this horse has been beaten to death, I agree.

Quote

There you go again

There I go again "where?"
You can't dispute a word in that para.
Unless you've figured out a way to make a GoPro sound good (even GoPro admits the sound is deplorable)
Perhaps you've figured out a way to shift and expand the gamut of the AVC cameras? I'd like to know more about that. Otherwise, accept that the grading is reduced in order to save bandwidth. Less chroma grading means greater light sensitivity and less overall bandwidth requirement for the encoder. In other words, it's over saturated. Some people like that. But it *does* take the camera out of the realm of professional use. AVC and small format cameras are simply the video version of iPods. No "professional musician" would ever suggest that audio compressed for iPod comes close to even CD quality let alone anything else. But it *does* suffice for most. AVC is not dissimilar at all to AAC in terms of how it works on the weaknesses of the human eye/ear.

Perhaps you've figured out some means of Xferring 5 minutes of AVC in HD resolutions faster than 5 minutes of MPEG 2 in SD resolutions (AVC files are larger). Maybe you've figured out a way to decode AVC faster than MPEG (you could be a very rich man should this be the case. Not even USB accelerators for AVCHD benefit the AVC cams).

GoPro's have their place. But they are a camera and should be treated as such by newbies and experienced skydivers alike.
they offer tremendous value for debriefing skydives, practicing jumps, shooting friends, and educational purposes. I don't believe they can be used for RW competition or used ethically for outside tandem (handcam, they're terrific, I have a handcam glove for my gopro used mostly for wingsuiting).
Comparing their quality to higher bitrate, larger sensor, better encoders isn't accurate, and will likely never be.
300.00 for a gopro on a helmet vs 329.00 for a CX100 on a helmet? I'll take the CX please?
For handcam...just give me the smallest thing possible that makes a picture, even if its B/W, that weighs as little as possible.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Over the course of 30 years in the business? Particularly when a big part of our business is renting cameras?
As far as paying for them...neither a silver spoon nor lying, Rhys.

There you go, still non descript but you are in the business of renting cameras, i see where the anamosity comes from now.

That expains a little.

I appoligise for essentially calling you a liar, but you a quite non descript, we can only assume you are talking about skydiving photography when you are a moderator in this forum.

Quote

Seems the biggest stick in your craw is the term "professional."
If for some reason you feel wearing a plastic camera on your wrist makes you a "professional photographer," you're correct. I disagree with that.

Funny though because I was paid about $40k for purly making dvd's in the last last year, some with sony DV, some with CX and some with go pro.

Earnng money from doing something constitutes someone being professional does it not?

I also earned another $40-50k skydiving. that make me a professional at that too.

i don;t blow on about it though, but but is professional if you make a living out of it.

When you are a moderator of a skydiving photography forum, you would be expected to understand this.

Quote

There I go again "where?"
You can't dispute a word in that para.
Unless you've figured out a way to make a GoPro sound good (even GoPro admits the sound is deplorable)
Perhaps you've figured out a way to shift and expand the gamut of the AVC cameras? I'd like to know more about that. Otherwise, accept that the grading is reduced in order to save bandwidth. Less chroma grading means greater light sensitivity and less overall bandwidth requirement for the encoder. In other words, it's over saturated. Some people like that. But it *does* take the camera out of the realm of professional use.

handicam is professonal use, the custimer pays $$$ and we make a living off it = commercial and proffessional.

like I mentioned earlier, you can scale this up to feature length films costing hundreds of millions of dollars right through to a $100 7 minute video of a customer having the time of thier life.

There is not another camera on the market that can deliver a better image from a handicam angle for the price or close to it.

It is the best option for handicam at present.

and it takes me 4 miunutes to render and 4 minutes to burn after a few minutes of editing.

That is not very long and there preson that is doing it has no problems, and this is on a $1000 computer.

You want better faster etc etc, but it is certainly not nessecary.

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

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

Over the course of 30 years in the business? Particularly when a big part of our business is renting cameras?
As far as paying for them...neither a silver spoon nor lying, Rhys.

There you go, still non descript but you are in the business of renting cameras, i see where the anamosity comes from now.

That expains a little.

I appoligise for essentially calling you a liar, but you a quite non descript, we can only assume you are talking about skydiving photography when you are a moderator in this forum.

Quote

Seems the biggest stick in your craw is the term "professional."
If for some reason you feel wearing a plastic camera on your wrist makes you a "professional photographer," you're correct. I disagree with that.

Funny though because I was paid about $40k for purly making dvd's in the last last year, some with sony DV, some with CX and some with go pro.

Earnng money from doing something constitutes someone being professional does it not?

I also earned another $40-50k skydiving. that make me a professional at that too.

i don;t blow on about it though, but but is professional if you make a living out of it.

When you are a moderator of a skydiving photography forum, you would be expected to understand this.

Quote

There I go again "where?"
You can't dispute a word in that para.
Unless you've figured out a way to make a GoPro sound good (even GoPro admits the sound is deplorable)
Perhaps you've figured out a way to shift and expand the gamut of the AVC cameras? I'd like to know more about that. Otherwise, accept that the grading is reduced in order to save bandwidth. Less chroma grading means greater light sensitivity and less overall bandwidth requirement for the encoder. In other words, it's over saturated. Some people like that. But it *does* take the camera out of the realm of professional use.

handicam is professonal use, the custimer pays $$$ and we make a living off it = commercial and proffessional.

like I mentioned earlier, you can scale this up to feature length films costing hundreds of millions of dollars right through to a $100 7 minute video of a customer having the time of thier life.

There is not another camera on the market that can deliver a better image from a handicam angle for the price or close to it.

It is the best option for handicam at present.

and it takes me 4 miunutes to render and 4 minutes to burn after a few minutes of editing.

That is not very long and there preson that is doing it has no problems, and this is on a $1000 computer.

You want better faster etc etc, but it is certainly not nessecary.

Uhh...Rhys....we also rent GoPro's. No animosity at all.
They're tools, nothing more.
Someone needs a hammer, we give em' a hammer. They want a saw, we give them a saw. But what we don't do is hand them a jigsaw and tell em' how they can cut down big rees in a single bound because it's smaller and cheaper.

If I'm asked to design a camera setup for a crash scene, I'll always turn to CX series first because of the quality, controllability, audio (for sync and Pluraleyes) and lens adaptability.
If I know the camera is going to get trashed, I'll turn to the GoPro. We've already destroyed half a dozen, they're disposable (more or less). What they're not is a camera that fits the description, standards, and protocols of "professional video quality."
Then again, neither does a cell phone and we see iPhone content on CNN from time to time. And we all know exactly why the picture looks so crappy.

[4dbill 0]

Rhys and DSE, you guys are trying out-do each other by getting the last word in. There is a bit much personal attack going on, also, for my taste. Can’t we all get along please? The original topic is about GoPro and how it affects the community of freefall photographers.
I will summarize it for you two.

Tandem Videos
1. GoPro is better for handycam due to its profile and size.
2. CX is better on a helmetcam. Shooting a GoPro instead of CX on a helmetcam for tandem videos, in my opinion, is not very wise. The price/weight difference between two setups is negligent compared to the quality difference in low light video performance and audio.
3. In OVERALL video package, outside video almost always tells a better story, but it’s not always practical at some dropzones with not enough resources.
4. Video quality spec level of GoPro, with enough light, is more than good enough for tandem video DVD burns. Audio, on the other hand, hmmm…
5. It should be all about the customer. Whatever the format, the customer should get an exciting video that tells a story with them starring in it. It should flow smoothly with good pacing. It should be short and sweet, with great images that supplement the story. Obviously, the freefall footage must be shot well, which requires good flying. When put together well, most customers will be even happy with Hi-8 dubbed DVD’s!
GoPro is great for specialty jumps, such as inside POV, coach/AFF debriefs and unusually mounted dives. Outside video footage from the ones that are slapped on non camera specific helmets without a good ring sight – well.. it’s great for sh*t for giggles, but has very little artistic and production value, because the footage is usually too shaky, too far, too off centered, etc.
For those who take the art of freefall videography somewhat seriously, would not jump a GoPro for outside video, because the skill levels are usually proportionate to the video spec levels. I, myself, given a choice, would jump a RED ONE on every jump!

Settled? Now, can we shake hands and smoke a peace pipe?
4Dbill
http://facebook.com/4dbill