I know nothing about SLR cameras, how do they capture video? Are they going to Jello like a GoPro? Or are they made like a CCD camera that doesn't care about vibrations?
Well PP sorry for the late response ... ... but given I have NO first hand experience flying a DSLR (or for that matter, no experience flying ANY camera) I didn't feel I should be the ONE to answer your questions. Yup I intentionally LET your question SIT waiting for others to answer! But as I also HATE an 'orphan' thread I have a little knowledge I can offer when talking DSLRs. Although I think you already know most ALL this anyway ... Anyway, anyway ... ... I'll will offer what I do know ... ... Most if NOT all DSLR currently in production use the cheaper to manufacture CMOS sensor with their 'rolling shutter' and ALL the negative baggage that implies! However IMO our saving grace is their speed, unfortunately for the best speed we have to PAY-for-IT. Truth be told with the current state of the technology there is NO discernible difference (although MANY a 'Pixel-Peeper' would argue) in image quality if given the same or equal LENS between the low-end verses high-end DSLR! To see the LARGE differences in images quality we have to look at the different camera 'TYPES' e.g: Moving up in quality, Key-chain, Helmet-cam, Point'n shoot, 4/3 type sensor, DSLR and the VERY large sensor. Also it's worth pointing out due to the weight issues flying any camera the image quality GAP especially between our High-end Poin'n Shoot, 4/3 type sensor and DSLR's is closing rapidly. It's becoming increasingly harder to see a difference in image quality between those three types thus ALL we are being left with to judge between different types is their speed and the camera's ergonomics. If the choice is for 'flying' that equal in image quality, lighter, cheaper Point'n Shoot might be the smarter option over flying a DSLR !?! In a professional DSLR we are simply paying for the high speed and ruggedness, two of three things the 'Pro' needs and thus is looking for when they look to a new camera. A 'Pro' is also looking for good or great 'ergonomics' or ease of use or how FAST can he SETUP his shot. That aside if the 'Pro' wants better 'quality' in his images he will look at the 'VERY large sensor' cameras such as those offered by Hasselblad H4D-60. Anyhow back to 'CMOS' sensors as I said due to the 'rolling shutter' and ALL they imply with respect to the 'jello' effect the camera's imaging speed or speed at which it's able to process the images and camera 'vibration' isolation are the two KEY features we're looking for. In short the more we'z PAY the better a given camera will be at hiding the undesirable effects of the so called 'rolling shutter' ... I say "hiding" because a DSLR's high speed doesn't eliminate it's issues it only hides or masks them, might even be better to say "it tries" ... As for vibration in general which for our purposes is it's elimination or at least it's reduction is also important to photographers and video photographers for a well focused and sharp image or video. There we would take a page from Hollywood, ever notice the gadgets they use when walking and shooting with their cameras!?! They will use devices such as the Steadicam Merlin but that is one type available, there's many, many more to choose from just by looking at your typical 'Pro' level photographic outlet. Similar devices are used in Hollyw00d and Tv Movie production when an out of helicopters or airplane shots is required, only difference is they are larger and of course they do COST much more. Nevertheless these type of device's are VERY effective at stopping vibration and motion issues. An interesting side note, at the time 'Steadicam' technology was an innovation to behold for the movie production industry but that bit of history is a subject for another day. Outside of spending copious amounts of '$$$,$$$.[size=0.8em]¢¢[/size]' {LOL} IMO for the best in camera and vibration reduction gear, DIY vibration reduction would be the obvious alternative to that spending. Well I'm sure we could write a book dancing around the dreaded 'Jello effect' question but I really can't say firsthand if anyone would be better off with a DSLR over other camera types? Knowing the answer to these questions requires hands on or at least the input from someone who's been there, done that ... ... and as I said "that's NOT Smeagol" Thanks for reading this far, LMAO [acronym=EYE See! "w00d's Photo Musings" LINK to my BLOG][shadow=grey,left][size=1em]w[/size][size=1.25em]00[/size][size=1em]d[/size][/shadow][/acronym] [hr]
Thanks wood, i sort of knew the answer because I already figured that it would be too good to be true that a DSLR would be some magical device that you could bolt onto a engine block and have perfect video from it. I was going to try mine, but I lost it last night on a forest fire I looked for it, but I am sure it was smashed into the earth by the tracks of a dozer :'(
Yup PP I thought you would have known this stuff ... and sorry for your loss Have a look at this lecture from Yale, good viewing. ... 'Talking head' and he mumbles a little but still it's an easy digest. ... He talks the truth with respect to image quality and the CMOS w00d [hr] Eric Fossum Inventor of the CMOS Sensor at Yale [size=large]Photons to Bits and Beyond: The Science and Technology of Digital[/size] [size=small]The Yale School of Engineering & Applied Science presents the 2011 Victor M. Tyler Distinguished Lectureship in Engineering with Eric Fossum, Professor of Engineering in Dartmouth's Thayer School and a consultant to Samsung Electronics' Semiconductor R&D Center. Dr. Fossum, who earned a PhD in electrical engineering from Yale in 1984, is one of the world's leading solid-state image sensor device physicists, best known for inventing the CMOS image sensor. His "camera-on-a-chip" technology is used in nearly all camera phones and webcams, digital-still cameras, high-speed motion capture cameras, automotive cameras, dental x-ray cameras, and swallowable pill cameras. [/size] [size=small]An entrepreneur as well as inventor, Fossum's transfer of his own IP portfolio to industry has yielded one of Caltech's greatest licensing revenue streams, and he has served as CEO of two successful high-tech companies. His work was included on Reuters' list of "Baby Boomer Inventions that Changed the World," and Forbes calls him an inventor who has "changed your life." [/size] [youtube]JkBh71zZKrM[/youtube]
Sup PP, when searching for 'High-end CAMS that are still or are currently using a CCD Sensor' the following company keeps popping up WOW, as always with me it's not the BODY that impress me but the LENS option they offer impresses me more. Remember the question of 'resolution' has reached it's plateau, the deciding factor or better to say the 'limiting factor' as to image quality in this day and age is the LENS - Eric Fossum This company, ALLIED Vision Technologies look's like it's being smart about their LENS option and they are is using CCD Sensors within their offerings ... ... This is also ONLY one example I found but what that's implying is if ONE can be found there must be MORE ... ... Forget the Hobby Shops, forget 'retail' LOL No word on price BUT I'll bet they are expensive... ... but who says you can't have GREAT Lens on a small package !?! teh manta, only an example: ALLIED Vision Technologies, Family Brochure [PDF] Hint: 'Sony' seem to be leading, are continuing and manufacturing 'State of the ART' CCD sensors Until I find more, FYI ... [acronym=EYE See! "w00d's Photo Musings" LINK to my BLOG][shadow=grey,left][size=1em]w[/size][size=1.25em]00[/size][size=1em]d[/size][/shadow][/acronym] [hr]
Interesting link - Go Pro Lenses http://ragecams.com/shop/gopro-hero2-lenses-c-72.html?osCsid=467d127452d0eed4a06e5a0d13de9207 I am in the process of learning the Go Pro 2HD. A couple of things I am not crazy about. Number one, I lost interest in fish eye many years ago. Nice, for special things, but not every day. Number two, flare from the sun, or bright objects, due to the lack of a lens shade. Setting the camera for 120 degrees makes it livable, but I would like even less for straighter lines, plus a narrower field of view, would make the subject larger, in effect giving you more detail on the ground and making it a better tool for Search and Rescue - lost planes. First question, Has anyone tried any of their lenses, and were they satisfied With the quality of the lens? It wouldn’t be very productive to remove a high quality lens and replace it with poor quality ( Poor Resolution ) The first thing that caught my eye, was polarization filters. That would solve many problems. Another good idea I found, Was the DIY flat 35mm UV filter, to get away from the curved glass in front of the lens. That should help with some of the flair. About the only information they post for products, is a few, are listed for 5 mega pixels, another for more. My understanding, the pixels relate To the electronics ( sensors and chips _ and have nothing to do with Optical quality??? What am I missing here? Not quite ready to butcher a quality camera, with very little information. LEM
Hi LEM I know of 5 people on Southern Oregon RC alone that use the GoPro but I don't know of any who use any add on lenses. That said I'm sure they work much 'tele-converters' of our DSLR's. So if we can use those as an indicator, tele-converter's work very well, they will get the J.o.B done in so much as the result are acceptable. And I don't think there is any danger to your GoPro as the Add-on-Lenses FITS over the original factory lens, I believe !?! Best get conformation on that before you buy ... And NO it's NOT a perfect world, whenever we ADD a LENS over another there will always be some loss in image quality but that's not to say your not going to get a good picture. Best advice would be to try em out and if the lens don't meet with your expectations then simply return it But really you shouldn't take my word for it, as for HOW these LENSES actually FIT to the GoPRO I would fire of an eMail to the retailer as ask them, or better, demand MORE information. I agree they are very short with actual information we can use Sorry if I'm sounding a bit over cautious, but I always am with products and retailers I don't know ... ... Yes it's an interesting idea and at the least they are worth more investigation Also as to this 'retailers' overuse of the words "mega pixel extreme" don't be to overly concerned with such wording as that just their Marketing BS at work and as with ALL marketing BS, it means NOTHING! FYI: [acronym=EYE See! "w00d's Photo Musings" LINK to my BLOG][shadow=grey,left][size=1em]w[/size][size=1.25em]00[/size][size=1em]d[/size][/shadow][/acronym] [hr]
If there was a way to reduce the fish eye and have things not look so far away with the GoPro I would be willing to try. It makes FPV so hard when a house 200' feet away looks like it is 600' away and curved!
I agree PP, with the GoPro but they are NOT they only ones that do it but I think they went with too wide and angle of view. And as with ALL 'wide angle', and especially with the supper 'wide angle' lenses 'barrel' distortion as a fact of life ... A LENS to FIX the GoPro's short coming would be a great idea My problem is with 'this' retailer and their lack of useful information for the products they are offering ... Maybe better if this retailer could provide the 'product' documentation (anything!), this might help with our questions, yeah
The problem is these are not an add on, but a lens replacement. Some required modification of the camera, so there may not be any going back to the original lens. There is also the possiblity the camera won't fit back into the case. That would really upset me! Oh well! It's only money, and I'm gadget happy, so sooner or later they will have a victim- A buddy has an interesting system. It seems that everything needs a bit of improvment ( hacking?) His plan - keep screwing with it until it doens't work, and then only go half as far the next time. I may need two cameras -- LEM
Hi again LEM I'm not being facetious, but can you show me were you found this information saying those LENSES are NOT an add-on but a replacement ... The site you linked to is not forthcoming with ANY information, or I simply missed it ? Just curious, curious mind needs to know Thanks [acronym=EYE See! "w00d's Photo Musings" LINK to my BLOG][shadow=grey,left][size=1em]w[/size][size=1.25em]00[/size][size=1em]d[/size][/shadow][/acronym] EDIT: My apologies, your right, I wouldn't like the idea of screwing around with the original LENS either ... I found the info http://ragecams.com/shop/gopro-1080p-camera-lens-change-guide-p-326.html?osCsid=467d127452d0eed4a06e5a0d13de9207 [hr]
I think the real gold mine on their site, was the Polarizing filters. $12 They must be what we called gelatin filters, but simple. Just stick it between the lens and the bubble on the case. ( Go Pro calls it a lens ) The other thing that looked interesting - think I found it on You tube, or Vimeo. They were using a screw on UV filter, from the 35 MM camera days, glued to the front of the case. I don’t think they were even taking the bubble out. It might help keeping some of the sun off the bubble, and eliminate some of the sun flair. The Go Pro 2 will let you change the angle of view, down a step, which helps with the fish bowl, but I would still like a larger image. Sure would be nice to have both, without a major overhaul. I guess what I want, is an SLR with changeable lenses, about the size of a wrist watch --- Of course it would have to be cheap. I do crash from time to time. Dream on, and on -- LEM PS If you guys still fly at the School. Sundays in Grants Pass, I would like to connect. I seem to be getting into this, over my head-
Here's a tutorial on polarizing filters, I thought you might be interested. ... http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/polarizing-filters.htm A polarizing filter could help with 'flaring' but I don't a think a Uv Filter will help ya much ... I use UV filters on all my cameras and I don't see them doing much, most only use them as lens protectors as I do also And here's another tutorial covering all filters including polarizing and Uv filters ... ... http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lens-filters.htm [acronym=EYE See! "w00d's Photo Musings" LINK to my BLOG][shadow=grey,left][size=1em]w[/size][size=1.25em]00[/size][size=1em]d[/size][/shadow][/acronym] [hr]
You are right about the UV filter and flair. My thinking, is to cover the bubble with something flat, so the reflections will only come from one direction. Might help, might be a waste of time -- A good lens shade would probably do more good than anything. I guess the best solution is to keep the sun behind the camera. LEM
Here's something I just noticed in the second link I posted Quote: "However, UV filters have the potential to decrease image quality by increasing lens flare, adding a slight color tint or reducing contrast. Multicoated UV filters can dramatically reduce the chance of flare, and keeping your filter very clean minimizes any reduction in image quality (although even invisible micro abrasions will affect sharpness/contrast). High quality UV filters will not introduce any visible color cast" I guess it depends on how much money we want to spend on a Uv Filter, apparently a quality 'Multicoated' UV Filter can reduce 'flair' ... hehe, live and learn eh. Nothing is ever quite black & white, he even used the word "dramatically" ... Would make sense though as it's the 'multicoating' of the LENS that is supposed to reduce the 'flair' EDIT: Re "A good lens shade would probably do more good than anything" Yes I agree and easy to DIY your own for just about free
Yup for most of us 'Rolling Shutter' is undesirable and to be avoided, However, there are on occasion those who would operate outside of BOX It's as they say "Learn the RULES then LEARN HOW to break them!" [youtube]TKF6nFzpHBU[/youtube] [acronym=EYE See! "w00d's Photo Musings" LINK to my BLOG][shadow=grey,left][size=1em]w[/size][size=1.25em]00[/size][size=1em]d[/size][/shadow][/acronym]
