Wingtip Camera

[NG[_2_]]

Anybody have a recommendation for a small thin digital camera with
decent quality that might be suitable for taping to a winglet for
inflight down-the-wing shots, with a connection for an rf remote?
Have not been able to find a small camera with remote option.
Thanks...

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

Actually normal small camcorders can be used, that often do come with a
remote control. You really need to make some sort of proper mount out of
aluminium sheet or fibreglass that fits round the front of the wing. Then
hold it in place with gaffer tape. There is surprisingly little effect on
the handling or performance of the glider, but don't let the FAA or EASA
catch you doing it!

Derek Copeland

At 23:42 02 April 2009, NG wrote:
>Anybody have a recommendation for a small thin digital camera with
>decent quality that might be suitable for taping to a winglet for
>inflight down-the-wing shots, with a connection for an rf remote?
>Have not been able to find a small camera with remote option.
>Thanks...
>

[Simon Taylor[_2_]]

At 23:42 02 April 2009, NG wrote:
>Anybody have a recommendation for a small thin digital camera with
>decent quality that might be suitable for taping to a winglet for
>inflight down-the-wing shots, with a connection for an rf remote?
>Have not been able to find a small camera with remote option.
>Thanks...
>

Canon IXUS compacts capable of running the 'CHDK' software (third party
software for your digital camera, no matter how odd that sounds) allow the
shutter to be triggered by applying a voltage to the USB port on the
camera.

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK

The RF remote would have to be adapted from something suitable; to trigger
an old 35mm camera I used a wireless doorbell. Of course, keep in mind that
nowadays there's always the lazy option of setting the camera to interval
shooting and letting the multi-gigabyte card fill up!

Simon

[vic20owner]

On Apr 2, 7:42 pm, NG > wrote:
> Anybody have a recommendation for a small thin digital camera with
> decent quality that might be suitable for taping to a winglet for
> inflight down-the-wing shots, with a connection for an rf remote?
> Have not been able to find a small camera with remote option.
> Thanks...

ATC-2000 from oregon scientific? Has the advantage of including the
power, memory and camera in one unit so no cables and its relatively
cheap.

See example here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzIvCa1E2vs

[cernauta]

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:42:28 -0700 (PDT), NG >
wrote:

>Anybody have a recommendation for a small thin digital camera with
>decent quality that might be suitable for taping to a winglet for
>inflight down-the-wing shots, with a connection for an rf remote?
>Have not been able to find a small camera with remote option.
>Thanks...

many digital cameras support infrared remote control. My samsung
NV(8,10,11,15 etc.) for example.

they claim up to 10m range. I never tested this feature.

The suggested USB-wireless remote seems to me a promising solution

Aldo

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

The video below was made with a Mini DV Camcorder that comes with an Infra
Red remote Control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Qh95I_YM0

And this one was made using a 7.1 Megapixal Fuji S5700 still camera in
movie mode, recording onto a 2 Mb SD Card. Unfortunately no remote control
with this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_7ClqhOeDw

The quality in both cases is quite acceptable for Youtube purposes, where
they seem to apply quite a fair bit of compression. It is better in the
originals.

My choice for gliding videos, if I was starting from scratch, would be a
small HD camcorder recording onto a built in HDD, mini DVD or SD card.
These are getting quite cheap these days, but I would recommend making a
proper mount for wing or tail mounted shots, so that you don't lose it in
flight!

Del Copeland


At 22:12 04 April 2009, cernauta wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:42:28 -0700 (PDT), NG
>wrote:
>
>>Anybody have a recommendation for a small thin digital camera with
>>decent quality that might be suitable for taping to a winglet for
>>inflight down-the-wing shots, with a connection for an rf remote?
>>Have not been able to find a small camera with remote option.
>>Thanks...
>
>many digital cameras support infrared remote control. My samsung
>NV(8,10,11,15 etc.) for example.
>
>they claim up to 10m range. I never tested this feature.
>
>The suggested USB-wireless remote seems to me a promising solution
>
>Aldo
>
>

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

Whoops Sorry, The SD card in the Fuji camera is 2Gb, not 2 Mb.

D.C.

At 07:00 05 April 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>The video below was made with a Mini DV Camcorder that comes with an
Infra
>Red remote Control.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Qh95I_YM0
>
>And this one was made using a 7.1 Megapixal Fuji S5700 still camera in
>movie mode, recording onto a 2 Mb SD Card. Unfortunately no remote
control
>with this.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_7ClqhOeDw
>
>The quality in both cases is quite acceptable for Youtube purposes,
where
>they seem to apply quite a fair bit of compression. It is better in the
>originals.
>
>My choice for gliding videos, if I was starting from scratch, would be a
>small HD camcorder recording onto a built in HDD, mini DVD or SD card.
>These are getting quite cheap these days, but I would recommend making a
>proper mount for wing or tail mounted shots, so that you don't lose it
in
>flight!
>
>Del Copeland
>
>
>At 22:12 04 April 2009, cernauta wrote:
>>On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:42:28 -0700 (PDT), NG
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Anybody have a recommendation for a small thin digital camera with
>>>decent quality that might be suitable for taping to a winglet for
>>>inflight down-the-wing shots, with a connection for an rf remote?
>>>Have not been able to find a small camera with remote option.
>>>Thanks...
>>
>>many digital cameras support infrared remote control. My samsung
>>NV(8,10,11,15 etc.) for example.
>>
>>they claim up to 10m range. I never tested this feature.
>>
>>The suggested USB-wireless remote seems to me a promising solution
>>
>>Aldo
>>
>>
>

[noel.wade]

Just a quick FYI:

Hard-drive based Camcorders are a bad idea, as most of them are not
qualified for use above 10,000' MSL (thanks to Kempton Izuno for
pointing this out and saving me some $$)... The problem is the
cushion of air that the hard drive read/write heads float on, above/
beside the platters... as air density goes down these things become
more susceptible to striking the spinning hard drive platters - not a
good thing!

--Noel

[Jim White[_2_]]

I doubt it Noel. The heads do ride on air but for sterility reasons in a
sealed air capsule which was sealed in a clean room. The most likely
problem is that the air tight capsule which is sealed with a sticky label
will be compromised. This will ultimately lead to contamination and disk
failure. The smallest mite of dust etc will cause a head crash.

Jim


At 08:02 08 April 2009, noel.wade wrote:
>Just a quick FYI:
>
>Hard-drive based Camcorders are a bad idea, as most of them are not
>qualified for use above 10,000' MSL (thanks to Kempton Izuno for
>pointing this out and saving me some $$)... The problem is the
>cushion of air that the hard drive read/write heads float on, above/
>beside the platters... as air density goes down these things become
>more susceptible to striking the spinning hard drive platters - not a
>good thing!
>
>--Noel
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Apr 8, 10:30*am, Jim White > wrote:
> I doubt it Noel. The heads do ride on air but for sterility reasons in a
> sealed air capsule which was sealed in a clean room. The most likely
> problem is that the air tight capsule which is sealed with a sticky label
> will be compromised. This will ultimately lead to contamination and disk
> failure. The smallest mite of dust etc will cause a head crash.
>
> Jim
>
> At 08:02 08 April 2009, noel.wade wrote:
>
> >Just a quick FYI:
>
> >Hard-drive based Camcorders are a bad idea, as most of them are not
> >qualified for use above 10,000' MSL (thanks to Kempton Izuno for
> >pointing this out and saving me some $$)... *The problem is the
> >cushion of air that the hard drive read/write heads float on, above/
> >beside the platters... as air density goes down these things become
> >more susceptible to striking the spinning hard drive platters - not a
> >good thing!
>
> >--Noel

Having worked in the HDD industry quite a bit I suspect the
aerodynamics of the head would be an issue if the sealed platters were
exposed to ambient pressure at well above 10,000'. The cold might be
an issue too if you were flying in wave. Dust is an enemy as well as
the heads fly REALLY low over the platter. Then there's shock/
vibration. All are arguments for using a solid state camcorder - no
moving parts aside from an optical zoom if you go that way. I just
ordered a Canon VIXIA HFS10 HD Dual Flash Memory w/32GB Internal
Memory & 10x Optical Zoom. It shoots True HD and is supposed to have
great low light performance, rapid autofocus and lots of other useful
features. You can get really good small, light HD camcorders that
record to SDHC cards these days for very little $.

9B

[Darryl Ramm]

On Apr 8, 10:30*am, Jim White > wrote:
> I doubt it Noel. The heads do ride on air but for sterility reasons in a
> sealed air capsule which was sealed in a clean room. The most likely
> problem is that the air tight capsule which is sealed with a sticky label
> will be compromised. This will ultimately lead to contamination and disk
> failure. The smallest mite of dust etc will cause a head crash.
>
> Jim
>
> At 08:02 08 April 2009, noel.wade wrote:
>
> >Just a quick FYI:
>
> >Hard-drive based Camcorders are a bad idea, as most of them are not
> >qualified for use above 10,000' MSL (thanks to Kempton Izuno for
> >pointing this out and saving me some $$)... *The problem is the
> >cushion of air that the hard drive read/write heads float on, above/
> >beside the platters... as air density goes down these things become
> >more susceptible to striking the spinning hard drive platters - not a
> >good thing!
>
> >--Noel
>
>

Nope. That is a common misunderstanding. Most hard drive units are not
sealed and are vented via a very fine filter. The reduction in air
density and head flight height is the reason those hard drives have an
altitude limit. Some people with hard disk drive based iPods trying to
use them in gliders found out the hard way. While you might get lucky
for a long time I would worry about the vendor's max altitude specs.
Some specialist drives are pressure sealed, not likely the ones you'll
find in consumer equipment.

Darryl

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

Not a problem in the cloudy little UK, where we dream of getting above
4000ft AMSL due to our generally low cloudbases!

Thanks for pointing this issue out though. So I guess it's Mini DV, Mini
DVD or SD card camcorders. Any known problems with these?

One other issue we have found with exterior mounted cameras at high
altitudes, or on cold days, is that the cold affects the battery
performance. Make sure that the batteries are fully charged up before you
start, and don't expect them to last for too long.

Derek C

At 08:02 08 April 2009, noel.wade wrote:
>Just a quick FYI:
>
>Hard-drive based Camcorders are a bad idea, as most of them are not
>qualified for use above 10,000' MSL (thanks to Kempton Izuno for
>pointing this out and saving me some $$)... The problem is the
>cushion of air that the hard drive read/write heads float on, above/
>beside the platters... as air density goes down these things become
>more susceptible to striking the spinning hard drive platters - not a
>good thing!
>
>--Noel
>
>

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:42:28 -0700, NG wrote:

> Anybody have a recommendation for a small thin digital camera with
> decent quality that might be suitable for taping to a winglet for
> inflight down-the-wing shots, with a connection for an rf remote? Have
> not been able to find a small camera with remote option. Thanks...

It might be worth looking at the FlyCamOne, which was developed to take
pictures from RC models. It is small, light (37g), records to an SD card
and can be remotely tripped via an el-Cheapo RC set or configured to take
a shot every few seconds. The resolution looks to be adequate and the
cost is pretty reasonable.

http://zoogz/reference/reference/misc_photo.html#fco



--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[kestrel19]

On Apr 9, 8:34*am, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:42:28 -0700, NG wrote:
> > Anybody have a recommendation for a small thin digital camera with
> > decent quality that might be suitable for taping to a winglet for
> > inflight down-the-wing shots, with a connection for an rf remote? Have
> > not been able to find a small camera with remote option. Thanks...
>
> It might be worth looking at the FlyCamOne, which was developed to take
> pictures from RC models. It is small, light (37g), records to an SD card
> and can be remotely tripped via an el-Cheapo RC set or configured to take
> a shot every few seconds. *The resolution looks to be adequate and the
> cost is pretty reasonable.
>
> http://zoogz/reference/reference/misc_photo.html#fco
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showatt.php?attachmentid=1377552

Not bad for what it is.

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

>> It might be worth looking at the FlyCamOne, which was developed to take
>> pictures from RC models. It is small, light (37g), records to an SD
>> card and can be remotely tripped via an el-Cheapo RC set or configured
>> to take a shot every few seconds. Â*The resolution looks to be adequate
>> and the cost is pretty reasonable.
>>
>> http://zoogz/reference/reference/misc_photo.html#fco
>>
Sorry - that should have been:
http://www.flycamone2.com/

or

http://www.blip.com.au/item.aspx?itemid=49

which shows prices and another video. BTW, anybody fancy a small, light
backup logger?

http://www.blip.com.au/item.aspx?itemID=62


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |