theskydiveguy 0 #1 September 11, 2007 Ok ok.. I come here everyday and read and think and search.. What's the next big PC1000? I'm not talking about "just wait and see what Sony offers" i'm talking about the next big camera that every tandem video guy is going to scour ebay and craigslist for.. I was at Crosskeys over Labour Day and some Aussie there was jumping with a JVC 3CCD HDD camera that worked flawlessly and he didn't have it in a box? I suppose I am looking for the best, most reliable small camera that's going to replace my PC1000 in the next few months with equal or better video quality/features.. Thanks ~Jeff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #2 September 11, 2007 I'm very happy with my Sony HC5. I shot both the HC5 and a PC1000 during Nationals. I found both reliable, and but prefer the quality of the HD on the HC5. What I dislike about the HC5 is that the aspect ratio is natively 16*9, so when I put it in 4*3 mode it ends up chopping off the sides, requiring a wider angle lens. Hopefully 16*9 tv's become more common on DZ's so that I can always shoot 16*9. That said, I shot 16*9 with a Sony .6 lens at Nationals, and didn't have any problems with framing. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fast 0 #3 September 12, 2007 QuoteI'm very happy with my Sony HC5. I shot both the HC5 and a PC1000 during Nationals. I found both reliable, and but prefer the quality of the HD on the HC5. What I dislike about the HC5 is that the aspect ratio is natively 16*9, so when I put it in 4*3 mode it ends up chopping off the sides, requiring a wider angle lens. Hopefully 16*9 tv's become more common on DZ's so that I can always shoot 16*9. That said, I shot 16*9 with a Sony .6 lens at Nationals, and didn't have any problems with framing. _Am Why not always shoot in 16:9 and let it letterbox on the TV or chop the sides off in post? I would think it would be a waste to throw away the data at record time when you can easily do it in post.~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theskydiveguy 0 #4 September 13, 2007 Not getting the responses I thought I might! DSE - what do you think of the HDR-CX7? Thanks ~Jeff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #5 September 13, 2007 "Fix it in post" doesn't work too well in reality. Most dz's don't have a NLE system handy, nor do USPA judges like edited video. That said, leaving it in 16 * 9 is exactly what I do - because i've got 16 X 9 at home. The bigger downside is that when you switch from a camera that's natively 4 X 3 to one that's 16 X 9, you do lose real estate off the top and bottom. You need to compensate by going to a wider lens, or shooting from farther away. Personally, i don't like the appearance of the uber wide lenses. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fast 0 #6 September 13, 2007 QuoteNot getting the responses I thought I might! DSE - what do you think of the HDR-CX7? Thanks ~Jeff What I don't like about that camera is that it has optical image stabilization which sucks for freeflying.~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #7 September 13, 2007 Quote The bigger downside is that when you switch from a camera that's natively 4 X 3 to one that's 16 X 9, you do lose real estate off the top and bottom. You need to compensate by going to a wider lens, or shooting from farther away. _Am You also lose a full third (or more, depending on the method) of your resolution. As far as the OIS, you can switch it off. Did some sit in Deland this weekend, and didn't have any issues with it. No head down, mine sucks, so can't offer good commentary there. I also think *some* of the stability issues are helmet related, and had long discussions on this subject over the weekend with a friend. He flies an OIS camera in sit, stand, headdown, backfly on a daily basis and has no issues, but his helmet is huge, and camera doesn't get hit with the burble that some helmets might not protect from as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #8 September 13, 2007 DSE, sorry if this has been covered before but what is the technical reason why a burble would cause OIS to go haywire? Also, is there a good resource for info on the physical and system level differences between OIS and its alternative (DIS?)? Thanks.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #9 September 13, 2007 uneven air pressure with steep shifts coupled witth an unstable environment is cited as one of the causes. As far as EIS/DIS vs OIS...there are several methods of how the EIS can work ranging from pixel tracking to vector mapping. OIS doesn't affect resolution to the extent that EIS does, and therefore it looks "worse" because there is more information there. Cheaper OIS systems only measure pitch and yaw, no third dimension/roll is part of the system, and I *believe* this is part of the cause as well. EIS isn't as prone to roll issues, because it's measuring redundant pixels vs pixels that have moved in previous frames. I don't have empirical data to support my belief, and until the day arrives that I can spend the $$ to jump with a measuring chart and a few cams...I likely won't know for certain. but I'd sure like to try it.There are a LOT of pages out there dedicated to how various OIS systems and EIS systems work. Canon has quite a bit of information on their frequency damping method, and there are pages dedicated to piezo systems, servos, etc. It's pretty easy to get lost in it. In the past, EIS was so terrible that you'd always disable, and JVC's OIS was so horrid, you'd glue the servos with Krazyglue, because disabling it didn't kill the sensors, only the compensation. I wish I could throw away the cash on the new Canon HV20 to glue down the piezos, cuz I'd like to see that camera work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fast 0 #10 September 14, 2007 Quote I wish I could throw away the cash on the new Canon HV20 to glue down the piezos, cuz I'd like to see that camera work. I have totally thought about doing that ~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites