Need to buy a camera soon...

[turboman]

Alright I am shooting some footage for indoor cycling series DVD. I need to get a camera that is small obviously. No one wants to ride with a heavy camera. Also how should I mount it so it doesn't get shook apart?

Now I would like a camera that does widescreen. But not just cutting off the top and bottom but doing a nice anamorphic shot.

At this point I am complately open to any suggestions. I don't want to spend to much since more then likely the camera will get destroyed.

Thanks!

[Royor]

The Sony TRV460 is somewhat bigger than MiniDV ones of course, since it's Digital8, but it's about the cheapest Digital camcorder around ($399 or less) and possibly the mechanism might be somewhat sturdier then MiniDV.
As for your purpose, it has Steadyshot (every little bit helps ) and can also record in 16:9 WIDE. While recording, there's a black stripe above and beneath the LCD (since that's obviously not Widescreen), but shown on a Widescreen TV, there are no stripes at all.

[andkiich]

I have definitely been Sony biased for a long time(have a still and video camera from Sony).

That being said, I've seen some pretty nice stuff from JVC that is reasonably priced as well.

[cbkilner]

Camera mounts can get expensive and the camera weight will cause vibration and bike-handling problems:
http://www.ultracameramounts.com/tube.html
http://www.b-hague.co.uk/Mounting%20Brackets.htm

A bullet or helmet camera is easier to mount and attaches to the analog input of a camcorder (that can be carried in a backpack or jersey pocket):
http://www.sports-camera.com/helmet_cam_ntsc.htm

I'm not sure if 16:9 is possible with an external camera.

[turboman]

Thanks for the help. I was wondering about the helmet mounted cameras also. Not sure which would give you the best view and not shake as much.

I got a few more weeks before I have to shell out cash so this is some stuff I need to think about.

I actualy have the In car mount for racing. Much easier to get someone to lend you a camera for car racing then mounting on a bike.

[goat]

WARNING !!!!!
Anybody looking for a helmet camera
Do NOT buy from http://www.bulletcam.com/
I purchased a camera from bulletcam.com that was defective and they have not replaces it and are dodging my emails & phone calls !!!
They are not reliable or trust worthy!!!!
I'm going to purchase another camera from either Viosport.com or HelmetCamera.com
Goat

[Richard_G]

Rather than mounting a camcorder on the cycle, which is going to be bulky and heavy, why not do it as the broadcasters do? Use a bullet cam, helmet cam or whatever, mounted however you see fit and then feed that into one of the cheap 2.4 GHz video transmitters. There are 4 separate channels available so this will work with 4 cameras simultaneously. As you are working indoors, install the receiver high up in the roof and feed that into a VCR or, better still, an DVD recorder.

I get involved in broadcasting Formula 1 motor racing and they use this method but the receiver is in a helicopter at 3,500 feet. This receives the video from the cars and then transmits it back down to the production vehicle on the ground. They also use a telemetry system from control to car, again via the helicopter to select individual cameras, adjust settings and control which uplink channel they will use. A lot more complicated than you want to do, but it keeps the equipment in the car to a minimum and gives real-time footage.

[Quantum]

Rather than mounting a camcorder on the cycle, which is going to be bulky and heavy, why not do it as the broadcasters do? Use a bullet cam, helmet cam or whatever, mounted however you see fit and then feed that into one of the cheap 2.4 GHz video transmitters. There are 4 separate channels available so this will work with 4 cameras simultaneously. As you are working indoors, install the receiver high up in the roof and feed that into a VCR or, better still, an DVD recorder.

I thought I had read someplace that for cameras that are in motion a 900 megahertz solution for wireless was better than 2.4 ghz. Your thoughts, if any?

[jdizzy40]

Buy the standard Sony Hi 8 camera and then buy their wide angle lens that screws on to the front threads (for 30 dollars). This is what I did and it increases focal range by about 2 to 3 feet on both sides. Could be a little more but thats my guess.

[Richard_G]

I thought I had read someplace that for cameras that are in motion a 900 megahertz solution for wireless was better than 2.4 ghz. Your thoughts, if any?

The propogation of a 900MHz radio transmission would give better coverage, particularly if the receiver point is going to be alongside a track or something like that. 2.4 GHz propogation is virtually line of sight. This is probably why someone has said that 900 is better for a moving transmitter. The longer wavelength of 900 MHz will also give less problems due to multi-path too. However, there are a couple of downsides to 900 MHz. It is a US only standard so the amount of available equipment is much less and prices are that much higher. I think the spec allows for higher power levels too. In the UK we have a video allocation at 1394 MHz which I have also used but 1394 equipment (the frequency, not to be confused with IEEE 1394 Firewire) cost about 6 times the price of 2.4 GHz equipment. 2.4 GHz is a worldwide allocation so there is much more kit available (although some of the Chinese stuff is absolute rubbish).

In the situation asked about, 2.4 GHz would be ideal as flat panel antennas intended for use on Wi-Fi networks can be used. Pointing straight up from the cycle and in the roof pointing straight down. Perfect line of sight, no multipath or reflections. Probably the easiest situation to engineer and get right. I've done a similar installation in an indoor kart racing circuit (but using upside down 5 dBi colinear antennas as the receive footprint of flat panels was too small) which worked fine. The same installation on a similar sized but outdoor circuit just didn't work as the receiver had to be at a much lower level alongside the track.

[BSR]

Tru widescreen cameras are very expensive.
Basic cameras just crop the top and bottom to give you the fake widescreen look. But you are wasting pixels or quality(if the camera does it's resize internally).

You would need an anamorphic adapter, not a wide angle adapter to use all the pixels as they are recorded.

Even adapters for 4:3 cameras that will allow you to use the full 720x480 pixels for the 16:9 are around $700.

You can check out this thread and it's links for more info.
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=246489
http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen
Again, I guess it all depends on what your budget is and what quality you are looking for.
Good luck.