MarBrock

I'm not thinking of a wrist mounted camera on the student or the tandem master. A student could wear a small, lightweight helmet, like a Gath, with a small camera mounted on the helmet, as I do. The student's camera sees roughly what the student sees, and the student is hardly aware that it's there. I wore my camera this way on a tandem hang glider last year. The student's camera does not replace the videographer. The tandem video combines video from this camera and the videographer's camera. The videographer does all the video work here. He provides the student's camera and edits video from both cameras into a single stream, cutting back and forth between his perspective and the student's perspective. With a laptop computer, this sort of editing is now very easy and not very expensive. A tandem master could wear a wrist camera for a third perspective, but I don't imagine the tandem master being involved. He must focus on flying the tandem rig.

Also, the ZR45MC has a LANC port, and I use a CamEye Sport without a hitch. The camera also has a 1394 (firewire) port, and I've had no problems with it either. I can't address the image stabilization issue, because I don't actually use the camcorder's optics in freefall.

I have a Canon ZR45MC. The nearest equivalent among current models is the ZR65MC. The ZR series is less expensive than the optura200mc you considered, but I'm happy with mine. I don't wear it on my head, however. I use a separate helmet camera (www.helmetcamera.com) similar to the SportCam advertised in Parachutist last month. This setup works well enough for me, but it's not suitable for professional camera work. As you noted, the biggest problem with a non-Sony camera with a conventional video helmet is finding a mount for it. Most mounts are designed for Sony models.

The web address is www.helmetcamera.com (no hyphen). The marketer is a biker rather than a skydiver, but the "lipstick" camera is probably the same hardware, and his price is less than half of Swain's. [The manufacturer calls it a "bullet" camera, and you can also find it at "spy equipment" sites.] Swain's mount is interesting, but you pay a lot for it. The helmetcamera includes a very rugged housing for the lipstick. I don't know about Swain's. I have a helmetcamera, and despite some grief in this forum, I've used it successfully many times. I'm not sure a cutway feature is really necessary, but I cut the cable, stripped the wires, wrapped the ends back together and wrapped electrical tape around each wire and more tape around the bundle. The cable holds together well in freefall, but I can easily pull it apart. Someone in this forum suggested this approach using a jack and plug soldered to the ends of the cut cable, but the soldering job exceeded my patience and skill thresholds. The camera's viewing angle is fixed but acceptably wide. The video quality is ok for recreation or coaching or streaming video, but the camera is not suitable for professional work. Here's an example. http://www.knology.net/~marbrock/Skyball.html Because you wear the camcorder in a pouch on your waist, an external control for the camcorder, like the CamEye Sport, comes in very handy. I think Swain includes one with his system, but the helmetcamera does not. You can get one at www.jumpvideo.com for $65, so the helmetcamera is still much less expensive. Finally, if you don't have a camcorder already, PhreeZone is right about the incredibly shrinking camcorder. The Sony MICROMV fits easily in the palm of your hand, is less than 2.5" wide and weighs 14 oz. The price of slightly larger models is dropping fast. By this time next year, 2kcomposites will probably make a one-piece helmet enclosing these cameras, hardly bigger, heavier or riskier than the helmet you wear now without a camera. [If money is no object, they'll probably make one for you now.] http://www.2kcomposites.com/html/ffx.html 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.

Solid state cameras seem impractical for freefall video at this point, but the technology is borderline and improving rapidly, so I expect to see practical solid state cameras in a year or two. Miniaturization of the camera and optics also suggests interesting possibilities. You can buy a video camera the size of a quarter (but thicker), without any recording device, with decent resolution (500 lines, TV quality) and a 6x zoom, for less than $500. You must attach this camera by wire to a separate camcorder or other recording device, but a wireless connection is also possible. I've seen an even smaller camera (with lower resolution, 380 lines) with a built-in 2.4 ghz wireless transmitter. This camera and receiver (which you must attach to a camcorder or other recording device) is even less expensive. The camera and transmitter operate on 4 AA batteries or an equivalent rechargable. The transmitter's range (2000 feet) is not sufficient for sky-to-ground transmission, but the camera has many interesting possibilities for skydiving regardless. You could actually put this camera in a skyball and transmit video to a recorder worn on your body. You'd then have an automated camera flyer. Obviously, you shouldn't try it without a lot of experience, since you could easily lose the camera.

The cable contains three wires, one red, one yellow and one black. I think you've hit this nail on the head. Thanks.

Thanks for the advice. Sounds like a plan I can accomplish. I'm glad I dropped into the discussion. If I seemed a little defensive at first, that's only because you guys are so offensive.

I would be happier if the camera's cable plugged into the camera rather than being permanently attached. It would be more convenient as well as safer. Unfortunately, it isn't. I can disassemble the camera to see if I can ease breakaway or possibly rig a plug. Another option is to carry a small wire cutter with me, possibly mounted near my cutaway handle. Ideally, I'd thread the wire through the wire cutter, like the cutter assembly on my AAD. Frankly, I don't think the camera will snag anyway, because it doesn't expose much on which to snag. I'm more concerned about the wire wrapping around lines if the camera is dangling. If it wrapped around several lines, the entanglement could be problem; however, if I deploy from a stable, belly-to-earth position, I can't see it happening, because the wire isn't long enough. If I deploy unstable, lines could also snag my shoe or my altimeter or wrap around my neck. I do take these risks seriously. I might also drop another $130 on a pinhole camera and try mounting it inside my helmet. The quality of the video is probably adequate for self-assessment and training to shoot freefall video. It's probably adequate all around for streaming video at this point, since bandwidth still limits the quality for most of us. There's only one way to find out.

Even a not so smart man can learn this lesson from experience, and I've already learned it. Like I said, I'm not concerned with perfect framing at this point, because I'm still working on flying skills. After experimenting, I can place the camera on its mount by hand and frame a subject well enough for now. I've done it several times. I do want a sight at some point. In reality, you're speculating about equipment you haven't even seen. Skydivers with considerable experience, including a DZO/tandem master/AFF instructor/rigger/pilot with more experience, has seen the equipment, has helped me rig the equipment and has flown with me as I used the equipment. Another skydiver with more experience (jumps) now uses this equipment himself. Why I should place greater faith in advice from someone who has never seen the equipment escapes me. I am listening to your speculative scenarios, but even if you had 10,000 camera jumps, your understanding of equipment you've never examined would still be uninformed. I suspect you're right. I have already conceded a problem with the bungies. On the other hand, because the unit has a relatively small cross-section, it's less likely to snag in the first place. If it detached from the mount, it would dangle no more than six inches above my head I only need to clear it if it's tangled in my risers or lines, and the camera housing has very little exposed which could snag a line. The housing is very smooth, no switches, no buttons, no lense, no strap attachment, no folding lcd. I'm looking at my camcorder, right now, and it seems much more likely to snag a line than the helmet camera. I'm reasonably confident that I could grab the helmet camera and tear it loose from the wire, but I think the camera is much less likely than a camcorder to be entangled in a line in the first place. Bad things can happen in skydiving. Apparently, you think I've never realized this fact before. No one has ever suggested that the setup is snag free. I have thought about snags often. I have been through the scenario you've described in my head many times, every time I jump with the camera. I also imagine entanglements and line overs and twists and canopy wraps and cutaways and many other mishaps practically every time I jump. Why you think I don't is a question only you can answer. I've never said it doesn't bother me. I say it bothers me less than having a camcorder snagged in my lines. It seems to me that you are less competent to judge my clues than more experienced jumpers who know me and have seen the equipment I'm using and have used the same equipment themselves. Since I have already stated my ultimate goals in considerable detail, which might involve tandems in a year or so, you can't possibly be reading my posts carefully. Of course, I want to record my experiences and share them with friends and family. Why wouldn't I? I also use video to spot problems with my flying. Maybe, I was intimidated about a real video set up, the risks, and the costs, and decided to try a safer alternative and succeeded. I take you seriously; otherwise, I wouldn't bother responding, but your contrary assertions haven't persuaded me that a helmet camera is risker than a helmet mounted camcorder. No one has denied the risks; however, your assessment of the risks is uninformed. I've never actually seen a "standard video setup". Practically all of the setups I see are very creative, and most seem more snag-prone than mine. The experienced jumpers I have already consulted agree with me. I'd hate to lose the camera, but I'd certainly toss it to save my life. If a helmet mounted camcorder is tangled in my lines, getting rid of it might not be so easy. I assume that's why camera flying can be so dangerous. The helmet camera is the size of my thumb, has very few (if any) snag points, and I can tear it loose from the wire. I'm no "huffier" than you, and the skydivers I've mentioned are more experienced than you, if your profile is accurate, and they have seen the equipment, and you haven't, so I have good reason to prefer their advice to yours. Both my DZO and the guy now using the same device are more experienced than both you and Quade, for that matter. I have already thought carefully about your comments, and some of the comments have persuaded me to change my setup, but I don't need all the mindless, scare tactics. What do you think of the sunglass camera? I certainly couldn't snag anything on it. I could also get a pinhole camera alone, the size of my thumbnail, for only $130, and build it directly into a helmet myself. Camera flyers should be happy with these innovations, because they're coming whether you're happy or not. http://www.surveillance-spy-cameras.com/pinhole-cone-lense.htm

If you have money to burn, and you really want to try something esoteric, check out the offerings from "spy gear" dealers. I thought about this sunglass camera outfit, for example. Believe it or not, the camera is built into a pair of sunglasses. The color version from this dealer is $650, which is the lowest price I've seen, but you also need a miniature vcr or a compatible camcorder. http://www.surveillance-spy-cameras.com/st-137-sun-glasses.htm I've never seen this camera in operation, but I have seen video from the pinhole CCD cameras which this product uses. The video quality is not comparable to a camcorder with quality optics, but it's better than you might think. For amateur freefall video, it could be a good choice, and you could easily wear this camera under a full face helmet, so you'd add no snag risk whatever. You don't need a sight, because the camera is literally between your eyes. In the near future, you'll probably be able to capture video from a device like this one directly to a solid state device, like a Palm or a Pocket-PC, but you shouldn't buy this camera expecting to do it.

That's why I used the bungies. The attachment has been tested in 200 mph winds, but the test was on a motorcycle, so the wind was parallel to the length of the camera. The seller was very up-front about it. I'll try jumping with only the velcro at some point, but I share your concern. The wire from the camera to the camcorder is not large, so I'm also worried about losing the camera. The camera wouldn't dangle far above me, because the wire is threaded through my chest strap without a lot of slack. The other guy at my dropzone with one of these cameras secures it to his helmet further with duct tape, and I'll probably follow his lead. Snags are a concern with any setup, but I don't think snagging is a particularly large problem with my setup. I think my setup is less likely to snag than most helmet mounted camcorders I see. Experienced skydivers who have actually seen the device agree. You're right, but the camera housing doesn't expose much on which to snag. The camera lense is inside the housing. The housing has a transparent window with no ridges. It does have small screws, but I can't see a line snagging one of them. Writing "kill yourself" over and over again doesn't impress me; otherwise, I wouldn't be skydiving at all. I'm not oblivious to the risks, and I'm not a reckless skydiver. Again, the risks of this discipline are relative. I'm not avoiding all risk of snags, but I'm not taking the risk of a camcorder on my head either. Clearly, I need to attach the camera to my helmet securely, and I better appreciate the need to remove it quickly now. That's right. Showing off doesn't bother me as much as the condescension. If you think I haven't already considered most of the issues you've raised, you're mistaken. I read extensively about the risks of camera work before my first attempt. I'm 40, old man, so I guess that makes me a newbie. Being an "old man" has more to do with one's willingness to consider new possibilities than with time on the planet. Anyone who thinks Sony must always produce the best camcorder, because it produced the best camcorder in the past, is an old man. Everyone in this forum may say whatever they like, but in a few years, new skydivers will take cameras on their first jumps, because the cameras will be small enough and light enough to mount inside a helmet and will add no hazard. These cameras already exist. It's only a matter of economies of scale. Outside of its housing, my camera is already small enough. I appreciate sound advice, and I'm already persuaded to change my setup, but if you want my respect, you must show me some respect. I think you don't know me from Adam and can't possibly have an informed opinion of the scope of my understanding.

So far, the velcro attachment is holding up well, but I expect to replace it at some point. I can remove the velcro from the camera mount and helmet and replace it. The Gath fits very snugly, so I haven't noticed much camera shake. I've only done one video close enough to another skydiver to notice, a two-way to practice swooping. The close-up was as steady as the camera flyer, which isn't saying much. http://www.knology.net/~marbrock/Swoop180.wmv I'm not using a sight at this point. I spent several dives finding a good position for the camera on the helmet. Since I'm not focusing on close-ups currently, I'm not so concerned with perfect framing, but I'll need a sight eventually. My flying still needs a lot of work, so a sight is the least of my problems. Until I can reliably frame an exit, I'm not ready for tandem videos. Thus far, I'm happy with the performance. My ultimate goal is to offer streaming video as an alternative to, or in addition to, the conventional tandem video. I'll shoot a video and hand the tandem student a web address rather than a video tape. They'll find their video on the web, so they can mail links to their friends, and their web page could also feature freefall stills, other media of the dropzone, their instructor, links to other skydiving sites and so on. In the not-too-distant future, I expect this approach largely to replace conventional videos, although many students will also want tapes for quite a while. I know the web technology, but I won't do anything professionally for at least a year, because my flying skills aren't good enough. By the time I'm ready, solid state, digital camcorders could also be ready for this application, but I need to train now. In the near future, I expect tandem students also to wear cameras. Solid state cameras will be small enough for this application, so a typical tandem video will combine shots from two cameras. I flew with a tandem hangglider and wore my camera a few weeks ago, so I have the experience on tape from my own perspective. More skydivers generally will wear cameras in the future, and professional videos will become more sophisticated as videographers use multiple cameras and focus more on multimedia and the web.

I have great respect for Jennings and Martijn and would never try to use the gear they use. That's my point. On the other hand, my DZO is one of the best camera flyers I know. His tandem videos are the consistently among the best I see. I have good reason to respect his advice. Dude, you don't even know who my DZO is. You've probably never met him. You've never seen his video work. You don't know him from Adam. Your advice couldn't possibly be well-informed. I'd love to talk to Joe Jennings. Good Stuff is one of my favorite DVDs. I'll get a lot more attention from my DZO and other local camera flyers. My DZO and another professional camera flyer are two of the guys tossing the ball in the video I linked. I have already consulted the professionals in my area. Why you think I haven't is a question only you can answer. That's why I'm here. So far, I'm not getting much specificity, only a lot of knee-jerk negativity. Which belly mount gear? Why don't you explain it? My camcorder pack is six inches long and three inches deep. I know plenty of skydivers with bigger pot bellies. http://www.knology.net/~marbrock/Pack.jpg Considering the tension in my lines, the camera probably breaks loose from the wire and falls to the ground, but I don't really see what on the camera a line could snag in this way. http://www.knology.net/~marbrock/Camera.jpg If the wire wraps around a line, I don't expect anything very terrible to happen either, but if a tangle were bad enough, I might have a problem. Obviously, I'd try to clear it. I'm not ignoring the risks of camera work, but my risk seems much smaller than the risk a conventional helmet mounted camcorder, not to mention the gear a professional like Jennings flies. My reserve might fail after a cut away too, and I might wrap lines with another canopy, and I might turn too low and hook in. I'm careful to avoid all of these risks, but I might die in a skydiving accident tomorrow. I might die in an automobile accident too.

Here's a newbie's naively snag-prone death trap contrasted with professional camera gear. http://www.knology.net/~marbrock/Camera.html

I will see over time, but the past is prologue. Canon makes a good product in my experience. Since I've acknowledge this point many times now, you'll probably never think so. Only a piece of duct tape attaches the wire to the helmet. The wire attaches to the camera which attaches to a camera housing. The camera housing attaches to the helmet with heavy-duty velcro, ignoring the bungies. I've been convinced to remove the bungies. I can easily pull the camera from its velcro mount with one hand. If a line did snag the camera, the line itself would probably pull the camera off its mount. I don't need to unplug the camera. I can pull the whole camera mount from the helmet with one hand. Only a strip of velcro remains. I considered the hazards carefully before getting the gear. I chose the smaller, detached camera because I'm a novice. I fly very cautiously. As I've already noted repeatedly, I've discussed the setup with my DZO, who is a tandem instructor, an AFF instructor, a rigger, a pilot and a camera flyer himself. He has actually seen the setup. He has seen me use it. He has jumped with me as I used it. He helped me rig the camcorder harness I wear around my waist. He even expressed interest in a similar setup himself. Another very experienced skydiver at my DZ has already bought the same device. I take the advice of these guys much more seriously than advice I'm getting here, because these guys know me, and I know them, and they have actually seen the equipment in operation. I've done the forums thing, so I know how much forum advice is worth, especially when a bunch of old-timers strut their stuff for a newbie. Quade may say whatever he likes. I'm not easily offended. I'm very cautious. I'm know I'm in the very early stages of learning this discipline. Look at the video I linked. I'm nowhere near the other skydivers, and I throw out on my belly.

Removing my helmet with one hand is not a problem, and after this discussion, I'll drop the bungie cords.

I've never seen a camera mount as disposable as you suggest, but I've already acknowledged this problem with my setup. It's easily remedied. The velcro attachment alone is rated to hold the camera in place in 200 mph winds. Sony gets high marks from everyone I ask, but I've had good luck with the Canon, and a mountain climber recommended it to me. If I were sheepish enough to follow this advice, I wouldn't by skydiving. I wouldn't pay you to jump with it, so we have at least one point of agreement. So does my mother, but you haven't offered much practical criticism of the device. The cute one-liners go in one ear and out the other.

My name and address are in my profile. I jump regularly at Skydive Alabama in Cullman. We're a friendly crowd, but sensitive types and the politically correct might be happier avoiding the place.

Welcome to America. I am listening, dude. I'm also interacting as I listen. In my experience, this approach is much more educational than listening alone. Welcome to the web. If you don't want interaction, share your expertise in a book.

The clarity escaped me. "Blah... and Uh..." weren't beacons of enlightenment either, Mr. Manners. I know. Another skydiver at my dropzone already uses an older version of the concept. His helmet camera is only slightly larger than mine, and his detached recorder is not a camcorder. It's a small VCR with no optics. His system retailed for over two grand when he bought it. Most of the helmet mounted camcorders I see don't appear to jettison easily anyway, but the setup I use can be improved in this respect, and I've already acknowledged the fact. The camera in your example is much larger. The cable attaching my camera is very small, requiring little force to break it from the camera. Technology improves. I also considered a Panasonic SV-AV10, which is even smaller and lighter than a PC 9, uses solid state memory and requires no tape or moving parts at all. The SV-AV10 doesn't quite have the necessary resolution, frame rate or storage capacity for this application, yet, but it's very close to the mark. Within a year or two, I expect solid state technology to improve enough to be useful for freefall photography. At that point, one could build the camera completely into a helmet without wires, adding little weight and almost no entanglement risk. I've already seen these helmets, in fact. As this technology improves, freefall photography becomes less expensive, safer and more accessible to less experienced skydivers. Old-timers will still have an advantage, because most of the skill in skydive photography is flying skill, but free fall photography is becoming more accessible, and this progress is a good thing. I've heard the story. I'll watch myself. Thanks. I'll let you know. I've already noted a slight decrease in video quality compared with a camcorder alone, but I'm very happy with the video quality. I linked an example. The recording format is mini-DV, not analog. The detached camera uses the sort of optics and CCD which digital camcorders use, although the signal isn't digital between the camera and the camcorder. I'm most interested in streaming video, so I wasn't looking for the highest possible video quaility, but the quality with the helmet camera is better than my first camcorder alone. The optics and CCD are not the most complex, expensive or fragile elements of a camcorder, so detaching those elements from the recording elements offers many advantages. I've seen pinhole cameras the size of a button built into sunglasses which would fit under a full face helmet.

When have I not listened? How is one supposed to respond to "Uh . . ."? I have every respect for Paul's experience, but "Uh . . ." doesn't express very much of it. I described a particular, novel alternative which no one else has discussed, and I provided an example of its use. I don't pretend to give experienced advice. I've gone out of my way to avoid pretending experience. I call it a "good natured jab", the sort of thing skydivers exchange all the time in my experience, but you may characterize the remark however you like, and Paul may ban me if he likes. I hope he won't, because I'm sure I have a lot to gain from his experience.

Look, more experienced skydiver, I have plenty of respect for experience, but I don't need your condescension. I've made no secret of my skill level, as your own quote clearly demonstrates, and I don't pretend to offer the advice of an experienced camera flyer. I suggested an alternative the initiator of this thread probably hasn't considered before. That's all. The helmet camera I'm using does put less weight on my head and does have a lower profile than a camcorder. I have already discussed the subject with several experienced camera flyers, including the DZO at my home dropzone, who encouraged me and expressed interest in the device himself. The friend I mentioned is also a very experienced skydiver. Enforce any rules you like. I saw your moderator designation. I'm not threatening your turf. What am I supposed to rethink, specifically?

Uh . . . Go piss on a tree, old man.

I thought about entanglement. The bungies don't expose much on which to snag. Most of the helmet mounted camcorders I see expose much more, but it's worth considering. I could rely more on the velcro attachment and cover some exposed gaps with duct tape. The camera could then peel off easily enough. I could be going overboard with the bungies, so I mentioned my friend who uses tape. A Sony PC 9 sells for nearly twice the price of my Canon, and I'd need a mount and probably a new helmet to wear it on my head. The lowest price I find online for a PC 9 at the moment is $999, and that price is already higher than both the helmet camera and Canon. I'd have more weight on my head and a higher profile if I wore any camcorder top mounted. The world is full of good video options, but a Canon ZR-45 is quite good for general video needs.

If you're a camera novice, like me, I suggest you try something different, a small helmet camera with optics and CCD only on your helmet and a camcorder in a pouch around your waist. www.helmetcamera.com sells the camera, and I've had good luck with it. A friend at my drop zone bought one soon after seeing mine, and he seems happy with it too. The price is right at $259, but you also need a camcorder. The price is lower than I expect for skydiving equipment, because the seller markets the camera primarily to bikers, rather than skydivers, and bikers are a larger market. The camera housing is extremely tough. You could literally drive a truck over it without damaging the camera. The helmet camera adds very little weight to your head and has a very low profile, so your risk of whiplash or entanglement is small. The video quality is not comparable to a good camcorder, but the quality is very good. For amateur freefall video, it's fine. I have a video online at www.knology.net/~marbrock/Skyball.html. Of course, the video quality directly from tape is better than the streaming media. Since you won't wear your camcorder on your head, you can choose a larger model, to save some bucks, but I'd still get a digital video model. I use a Canon ZR-45 MC, which is reasonably small, and I'm very happy with it. I could wear this camcorder on my head with the right helmet, but if I were buying a camcorder to wear on my head, I might choose something else. Shop online for your camcorder. You'll save hundreds over brick and mortar stores. I paid $525 for my Canon at dbuys.com, and I have no regrets. Dbuys had a special on Canon's five hour battery when I ordered, and I recommend this option. The standard battery lasts only two hours (less for recording), and you'll want a spare. You don't need to spend big bucks on a helmet for camera work. I wear my camera on a Gath helmet, which you can buy from a skydiving site for less than $100. I have a picture online at www.knology.net/~marbrock/HelmCam.jpg. The helmet camera package includes a heavy-duty, velcro fastener to attach it to a helmet, and the camera vendor says it'll hold the camera at speeds of 200 mph; however, I haven't tested the claim. I also secure the camera to my helmet with small bungie cords to be safe. The Gath helmet has small slots on the top which are well suited for attaching the bungies, but I needed to drill two additional holes to place the camera far enough back on the helmet for the right camera angle. My friend uses duct tape instead of the bungie cords.