Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Camera Choice Advice Please -- Unusual Usage

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:33:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you take a look at the URL it will give you an idea of the
requirement and the abuse it will have to take :)  Would this erudite NG
kindly give me some idea of what's suitable for the purpose. Yeah, I
know, it hasn't been made yet:

http://www.pentode.demon.co.uk/aero/stupid/

If you peeked, I think you will agree that the camera should be:

1) Lightweight.
2) Robust.
3) Ideally no phallic, protruding lens mechanism (best if fixed).
4) Wide angled (reasonably).
5) Able to lock out inactivity timer.
6) 640x480 preferably.
7) Useful video format; AVI? Definitely not locked into MOV format!
8) No lock-in to Apple and its Quicktime :( 
9) fairly cheap.... one day it may not return :( 

I am currently using a ViviCam 3650. The only problem is that the lens
is a little long in the focal length, and the video is 320x240 and
possibly not of the first water.

I bought a CoolPix 4600 and thought I had hit paydirt. The promised
640x480 turned out to be a cheat done by vertical interlacing. That
introduces vertical jitter into the vid when there is relative motion
between camera and subject. The exposure was of disappointing quality
compared to the ViviCam! Worst of all, the MOV files are locked into
the proprietary Quicktime software that is supplied. Any means of
useful editing is denied. The 4600 went back to the shop in disgrace
(it hadn't flown!) and the owner apologised for what we both thought
would be a great little camera.

I wonder if you guys would have any useful suggestions! (yeah, give up
the hobby) Also, if I have it totally wrong with the CoolPix, could
kindly you advise, the hardware was excellent!

Thanks
John
--
JC Morrice
john@pentode.demon.co.uk
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:33:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

How much weight will the plain accomodate?

Tim
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:03:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <FDEVYKAcm3LCFwa7@pentode.demon.co.uk>,
JC Morrice <John@pentode.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Worst of all, the MOV files are locked into
> the proprietary Quicktime software that is supplied.

I do believe any video editing software can work with .mov files.

m-m
Related resources
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:13:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"JC Morrice" <John@pentode.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FDEVYKAcm3LCFwa7@pentode.demon.co.uk...
>
> If you take a look at the URL it will give you an idea of the
> requirement and the abuse it will have to take :)  Would this erudite NG
> kindly give me some idea of what's suitable for the purpose. Yeah, I
> know, it hasn't been made yet:
>
> http://www.pentode.demon.co.uk/aero/stupid/
>
> If you peeked, I think you will agree that the camera should be:
>
> 1) Lightweight.
> 2) Robust.
> 3) Ideally no phallic, protruding lens mechanism (best if fixed).
> 4) Wide angled (reasonably).
> 5) Able to lock out inactivity timer.
> 6) 640x480 preferably.
> 7) Useful video format; AVI? Definitely not locked into MOV format!
> 8) No lock-in to Apple and its Quicktime :( 
> 9) fairly cheap.... one day it may not return :( 
>
> I am currently using a ViviCam 3650. The only problem is that the lens
> is a little long in the focal length, and the video is 320x240 and
> possibly not of the first water.
>
> I bought a CoolPix 4600 and thought I had hit paydirt. The promised
> 640x480 turned out to be a cheat done by vertical interlacing. That
> introduces vertical jitter into the vid when there is relative motion
> between camera and subject. The exposure was of disappointing quality
> compared to the ViviCam! Worst of all, the MOV files are locked into
> the proprietary Quicktime software that is supplied. Any means of
> useful editing is denied. The 4600 went back to the shop in disgrace
> (it hadn't flown!) and the owner apologised for what we both thought
> would be a great little camera.
>
> I wonder if you guys would have any useful suggestions! (yeah, give up
> the hobby) Also, if I have it totally wrong with the CoolPix, could
> kindly you advise, the hardware was excellent!
>
> Thanks
> John
> --
> JC Morrice
> john@pentode.demon.co.uk


that video is great!
March 10, 2005 3:30:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Terrific how you took that video!

Looks like your landing could use some work, though ;-)


"Fitpix" <David@delawarestudioNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:liMXd.2776$jW6.1674@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>
> "JC Morrice" <John@pentode.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:FDEVYKAcm3LCFwa7@pentode.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> If you take a look at the URL it will give you an idea of the
>> requirement and the abuse it will have to take :)  Would this erudite NG
>> kindly give me some idea of what's suitable for the purpose. Yeah, I
>> know, it hasn't been made yet:
>>
>> http://www.pentode.demon.co.uk/aero/stupid/
>>
>> If you peeked, I think you will agree that the camera should be:
>>
>> 1) Lightweight.
>> 2) Robust.
>> 3) Ideally no phallic, protruding lens mechanism (best if fixed).
>> 4) Wide angled (reasonably).
>> 5) Able to lock out inactivity timer.
>> 6) 640x480 preferably.
>> 7) Useful video format; AVI? Definitely not locked into MOV format!
>> 8) No lock-in to Apple and its Quicktime :( 
>> 9) fairly cheap.... one day it may not return :( 
>>
>> I am currently using a ViviCam 3650. The only problem is that the lens
>> is a little long in the focal length, and the video is 320x240 and
>> possibly not of the first water.
>>
>> I bought a CoolPix 4600 and thought I had hit paydirt. The promised
>> 640x480 turned out to be a cheat done by vertical interlacing. That
>> introduces vertical jitter into the vid when there is relative motion
>> between camera and subject. The exposure was of disappointing quality
>> compared to the ViviCam! Worst of all, the MOV files are locked into
>> the proprietary Quicktime software that is supplied. Any means of
>> useful editing is denied. The 4600 went back to the shop in disgrace
>> (it hadn't flown!) and the owner apologised for what we both thought
>> would be a great little camera.
>>
>> I wonder if you guys would have any useful suggestions! (yeah, give up
>> the hobby) Also, if I have it totally wrong with the CoolPix, could
>> kindly you advise, the hardware was excellent!
>>
>> Thanks
>> John
>> --
>> JC Morrice
>> john@pentode.demon.co.uk
>
>
> that video is great!
>
March 10, 2005 3:30:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you check out the http://www.rcuniverse.com/ they have an aerial photo
forum where you can find what others are using.
I use an Aptek pencam. http://www.aiptek.com/ Cost $50 1-1/2 years ago, now
$40. There are several flavors and they take video also and weigh about 47
grams with 1.3mb resolution pictures and 640x480 10 fps movies. Some with
built in memory and some that take flash cards.

Similar to
http://www.aiptek.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PRO...

..

Many others use them also and there is extensive info at the forum how to
mount them and modify them to use your transmitter to force a picture to
take with a servo or with other modifications. Most use them with Electric
planes.


"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:myMXd.162674$JF2.132509@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Terrific how you took that video!
>
> Looks like your landing could use some work, though ;-)
>
>
> "Fitpix" <David@delawarestudioNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:liMXd.2776$jW6.1674@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>>
>> "JC Morrice" <John@pentode.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:FDEVYKAcm3LCFwa7@pentode.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>> If you take a look at the URL it will give you an idea of the
>>> requirement and the abuse it will have to take :)  Would this erudite NG
>>> kindly give me some idea of what's suitable for the purpose. Yeah, I
>>> know, it hasn't been made yet:
>>>
>>> http://www.pentode.demon.co.uk/aero/stupid/
>>>
>>> If you peeked, I think you will agree that the camera should be:
>>>
>>> 1) Lightweight.
>>> 2) Robust.
>>> 3) Ideally no phallic, protruding lens mechanism (best if fixed).
>>> 4) Wide angled (reasonably).
>>> 5) Able to lock out inactivity timer.
>>> 6) 640x480 preferably.
>>> 7) Useful video format; AVI? Definitely not locked into MOV format!
>>> 8) No lock-in to Apple and its Quicktime :( 
>>> 9) fairly cheap.... one day it may not return :( 
>>>
>>> I am currently using a ViviCam 3650. The only problem is that the lens
>>> is a little long in the focal length, and the video is 320x240 and
>>> possibly not of the first water.
>>>
>>> I bought a CoolPix 4600 and thought I had hit paydirt. The promised
>>> 640x480 turned out to be a cheat done by vertical interlacing. That
>>> introduces vertical jitter into the vid when there is relative motion
>>> between camera and subject. The exposure was of disappointing quality
>>> compared to the ViviCam! Worst of all, the MOV files are locked into
>>> the proprietary Quicktime software that is supplied. Any means of
>>> useful editing is denied. The 4600 went back to the shop in disgrace
>>> (it hadn't flown!) and the owner apologised for what we both thought
>>> would be a great little camera.
>>>
>>> I wonder if you guys would have any useful suggestions! (yeah, give up
>>> the hobby) Also, if I have it totally wrong with the CoolPix, could
>>> kindly you advise, the hardware was excellent!
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> John
>>> --
>>> JC Morrice
>>> john@pentode.demon.co.uk
>>
>>
>> that video is great!
>>
>
>
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 9:57:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <422fcb51$1_1@news.vic.com>, meow <com@com.com> writes

>If you check out the http://www.rcuniverse.com/ they have an aerial photo
>forum where you can find what others are using.
>I use an Aptek pencam. http://www.aiptek.com/ Cost $50 1-1/2 years ago, now

Thanks guys for kind comments.

Thanks meow. I was aware of that, but I prefer http//www.rcgroups.com.
I have read there about the Aiptek and found it interesting. I was
casting around further to get other opinion; it's amazing what you can
find if only you ask!. Am also aware of the Slow Stick scene, but it's
not really appropriate to here at my location.

The first vid was shot with my ViviCam as an example of usage. Our
flying conditions are more like:

http://www.morrice.org.uk/

This one was shot with the CoolPix and you can see what concerns me.
Any suggestions for vid editing suite other than MS Movie Maker?

John
--
JC Morrice
john@pentode.demon.co.uk
March 10, 2005 9:57:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

yes I forgot to mention that group also, some guys get amazing pictures with
mounted cams. There was a guy from Holland that took some great shots of the
Tulips in bloom. I see your point about the slow stick How many plans have
you lost in the water?


"JC Morrice" <John@pentode.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a65CGRAr$+LCFwrO@pentode.demon.co.uk...
> In article <422fcb51$1_1@news.vic.com>, meow <com@com.com> writes
>
>>If you check out the http://www.rcuniverse.com/ they have an aerial photo
>>forum where you can find what others are using.
>>I use an Aptek pencam. http://www.aiptek.com/ Cost $50 1-1/2 years ago,
>>now
>
> Thanks guys for kind comments.
>
> Thanks meow. I was aware of that, but I prefer http//www.rcgroups.com.
> I have read there about the Aiptek and found it interesting. I was
> casting around further to get other opinion; it's amazing what you can
> find if only you ask!. Am also aware of the Slow Stick scene, but it's
> not really appropriate to here at my location.
>
> The first vid was shot with my ViviCam as an example of usage. Our
> flying conditions are more like:
>
> http://www.morrice.org.uk/
>
> This one was shot with the CoolPix and you can see what concerns me.
> Any suggestions for vid editing suite other than MS Movie Maker?
>
> John
> --
> JC Morrice
> john@pentode.demon.co.uk
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 6:02:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 22:33:00 +0000
JC Morrice <John@pentode.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> http://www.pentode.demon.co.uk/aero/stupid/

Can't help with the question, but I just wanna say...

Awwww... I Wanna fly again! Been over a year since I got my
thumbs on the sticks... My Slopie (Advancer 2000) is still not
fully built, and my powered plane is gathering dust :( 

Wish we had cliffs like that to soar off around here! Got some
river cliffs, but nothing that nice!

-Chris D
March 10, 2005 6:02:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

try an electric. A slow stick is cheap about $35 including motor and LiPoly
batteries last from 5-30 minuets per flight. I have a couple of packs and
after an hour of looking up I'm tired anyway. I fly from my front yard.
Electrics have come a long way since Lithium batteries. I saw a plane fly at
180mph clocked with a radar gun. Helo's with 6ft rotors, all electric.

"Chris D" <dicko-news@riverland.AAARRGNOMORESPAM.net.au> wrote in message
news:20050310150208.45868c29.dicko-news@riverland.AAARRGNOMORESPAM.net.au...
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 22:33:00 +0000
> JC Morrice <John@pentode.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> http://www.pentode.demon.co.uk/aero/stupid/
>
> Can't help with the question, but I just wanna say...
>
> Awwww... I Wanna fly again! Been over a year since I got my
> thumbs on the sticks... My Slopie (Advancer 2000) is still not
> fully built, and my powered plane is gathering dust :( 
>
> Wish we had cliffs like that to soar off around here! Got some
> river cliffs, but nothing that nice!
>
> -Chris D
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 10:27:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <ITNXd.26163$Sn6.13700@lakeread03>, Destin_FL
<mounttimmy@yahoo.com> writes

>How much weight will the plain accomodate?

10) Max weight about a Cannon Powershot A70/A85.
11) *Not a Cannon because the video cuts out.

*It appears to be a Cannon decision that on their models you will get 30
sec max 640x480, or 3 min in low resolution. This is regardless of the
size of memory card. I rang Cannon HQ(UK) direct and they confirmed
this.

Thanks
John
--
JC Morrice
john@pentode.demon.co.uk
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 2:07:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 22:45:26 -0600
"meow" <com@com.com> wrote:

> Electrics have come a
> long way since Lithium batteries.

Yes, Electrics are certianly getting better and better! Have a
few friends that fly them more than glo planes thesedays, I Just
don't have the time or money to do much with them :( 

-Chris D
!