onboard camera shots

[s.hood]

Hi All
I have a cullman universal clamp that I use to mount my Canon MV200 to my mountain bike. But the camera shake even with the built-in optical stabilizer, renders the image useless.

I have seen many onboard camera shots - like those inside a rally car - where camera shake should wreck the shot but the image is perfectly stable. Any idea how they manage that?

------------------
regards
Steve

[ O U T L A W : S D G ]

[ChrisBitz]

Hi,
We encountered a similar situation...

We used to use a Hi-8 TRV65 on a tripod, securely mounted in a car going round a racetrack. We then upgraded to a TRV 900 MiniDV camera, and no shots were useable. We tried mounting the tripod on large foam blocks to no avail.

Since then, we have tried filming out of the side of an aeroplane and also no good shots. The plane shots were perfectly smooth, as you can imagine, but there was a 100 mph wind blowing around the cockpit.

Our conclusion is this:
The old hi-8 camera has a digital stabiliser and the trv900 has an optical stabiliser.

My only guess is that the optical stabiliser is less effective in hostile environments - high frequency vibration and wind blowing around inside the camera must disturb the moving parts(?) of the optical stabilising set-up. We have located a miniDV camera with a digital stabiliser, but not yet tested it in these environments...

Does any of this ring a bell or sound believable?

Chris. http://www.coulsonmedia.co.uk

[Richard Choroszewski]

That's an interesting observation

A lot of my shots have been in moving trains and cars etc., and the reuslts are perfectly ok (well not perfect, but useable)

I use 2 Panasonics both with digital stabilisation, and although this type gets a regular panning in comparison with optical types, I'm very happy with what it does and how it does it. I've read the theory behind the objections to digital processing of the image and understand the cons, but like with Hi Fi sound cannot see/hear what the purists are seeing/hearing.

Maybe it's just me.

Keep us posted on how the new cam handles the moving shots, it would be interesting to hear your observations

[Alan Roberts at work]

I've done quite a lot through the wind-screen of normal road cars, hand-held. The inertia of the camera helps to keep it steady, isolating it from the vibration of the car and the effects of suspension. My first experiments were with the camera on a tripod on the passenger seat, held in by bungies. The car (then) was a 2CV and it work up to a point, but vibration was still a problem. All that went away when I started doing it hand-held. You'll be amazed how easy it is to do, particularly if you have a flip-out lcd monitor to watch.

Recently I did some with the camera hand-held on a stabiliser (pendulum type, Hague) and got vibration-free results even without the camera's image stabiliser. They look like they were taken on a motor bike (swinging on corners), which is fortunate because I want to use it speeded up, it should look just right.

Cameras in racing cars are rigidly mounted to the body, usually by large, heavy clamps, or replacing head-lamp bulbs. Most tripod heads are too floppy for this, you'll always need a really heavy duty camera mount and a really solid clamp to avoid vibration.

------------------
alan@mugswellvillage.freeserve.co.uk. Delete village for a spam-free diet.

[TLTony]

I have used a pan ds11 mounted solidly to a motorcyle fuel tank. The image is viewable upto an indicated 170mph as read on the speedo filmed by the cam. I did have the digital image stabiliser turned on. look in the gallery section of www.tl1000r.net (http://www.tl1000r.net) also try this www.helmetcamera.com (http://www.helmetcamera.com) And if anyone knows how I can use an external lense or if one exists for a dv-in cam let me know.

[This message has been edited by TLTony (edited 01 September 2000).]

[This message has been edited by TLTony (edited 01 September 2000).]

[This message has been edited by TLTony (edited 01 September 2000).]

[This message has been edited by TLTony (edited 01 September 2000).]

[tom hardwick]

Richard - the digital image stabilizers (DIS) that I have tried have all been more powerful than the optical variety, ie they stabilize the image better and disguise more camera movement.

The problem has been that this power brings with it movie-making side effects. If you're just out to take stills then DIS (as long as it's not the Panasonic/JVC type that electronically zoom into the image before stabilization) can be very good indeed. It's just that this power can be self defeating, and an intentional zoom or pan away from the still can have the DIS "tugging" at the picture.

Once you've seen this you'll turn DIS off.

tom.

[s.hood]

mmmm this is interesting - esp that helmetcam setup, but like TLTony I need DVin also. That mounting board has given me an idea to try to minimise the amount of vibration (which seems to be the picture-killer). I wonder if switching off the OIS will "improve" the image also? I was under the impression that Optical stabilisers were better that digital.

------------------
regards
Steve

[ O U T L A W : S D G ]

[tom hardwick]

The optical stabilizers ARE better than digital Steve, but only in the movie making sense - they're more transparent in that the vibration is smoothed to a "slow motion sine wave". The DIS can be rock steady but "tugs" when you intentionally move away from the still scene.

tom.

[chris thomas]

(slightly different topic)
I'm gutted that those Helmetcamera people exist! I've not long spent £200 on a little microcamera that I can attach to the bonnet of a car for 'incar' footage. Plus I only finished a webpage for it yesterday! http://cptv.co.uk/minicam Bum!

Chris

[ChrisBitz]

Excellent news!!!

Two small issues though....

The helmet cam is only 380 lines, whereas Chris's masterpiece is >450 lines... How much difference is that in REAL world usage?

The TRV900 isn't listed on the compatibility list, although I'm fairly sure it would work....

On the other hand, I much prefer the shape of the helmet cam... but if it's low resolution, then it's not all that good after all.....

Chris.

Footnote:
Just got a mail from the helmetcam people - it's only NTSC and will be a while before something that small does more than 380 lines... so it looks like Chris Tomas's idea is still by far the best...

[This message has been edited by ChrisBitz (edited 09 September 2000).]

[ChrisBitz]

just remembered something else....

I spoke some model making people at the weekend, and they told me about this special vibration absorbing foam called something like G-pac or G-pack..

Apparently it's the dogs danglies, and nothing at all like normal foam...

Anyone else heard of this, or better still, where can I get some from?

thanks,
Chris.

[Chirpy]

Chris.
Typing 'gpac' into the Netscape search engine brought up some 'interesting' websites! - None of them had anything to do with your 'Wonder-Foam' though, although there could be a link somewhere...Makes the mind boggle!

Chirpy