So do you want a lower speed fps to reduce prop warp or higher?

I bought a newer version of Z's today. It's in the Panasonic Lumix line. Wish I had a plane to go fly to see how the video through the prop is.

Tadpole wrote:I bought a newer version of Z's today. It's in the Panasonic Lumix line. Wish I had a plane to go fly to see how the video through the prop is.

I read that the LX5 is an awesome camera. Let us know if you like it and post some pics.

mountainmatt wrote:

Tadpole wrote:I bought a newer version of Z's today. It's in the Panasonic Lumix line. Wish I had a plane to go fly to see how the video through the prop is.

I read that the LX5 is an awesome camera. Let us know if you like it and post some pics.

I didn't get that one, looked at it but chose the FP2

Reasons I chose the Lumix LX3 (predecessor to the Lumix LX5):

Ultra fast, ultra wide lens (F2.0 24-60mm Leica)
Shoots RAW format for max post-processing flexibility.
HD video 1280x720 @ 24fps
Hotshoe attachment for bounce head flash or rangefinder-style viewfinder.

I love it. The only thing I sometimes get annoyed by is the weak zoom, but I'd rather have the wide angle.

swixtt wrote: what i need now is some better video editing software now. Windows 7 version is junk.

I am surprised to find out I really like Windows 7, but... you are right swixtt. The "new and improved" Movie Maker is completely ruined. The MS knuckleheads made it unusable. The good news is you can install MM6 for Vista on the 7 op system and it runs beautifully. I got my download from cnet.com and was back to editing in no time.

mountainmatt - Great vid.

Tadpole wrote:So do you want a lower speed fps to reduce prop warp or higher?

Tadpole - If the goal is simply to reduce or eliminate prop warp, then you want either higher or lower shutter speed. With fast enough shutter speed, you can reduce or eliminate the prop warp, resulting in an unwarped prop blade captured in the frame. But it's still visible as a blade. If you go for a slower shutter speed, you get the blurring effect that your naked eye naturally perceives - i.e., no prop warp, no individual prop blades showing at all.

Most of the cheapest HD videocams don't allow the operator to set shutter speed ... but you may be able to control shutter speed indirectly, such as by putting a neutral density (ND) filter over the lens, which reduces the amount of light passing thru the lens and thus tricks the camera into increasing exposure time, which results in more blurring of the prop disk. The cheapest HD cams don't allow the use of filters, but some of the mid-priced ($300-$600) mini-HD cams do accommodate standard photo filters.

Duane

24 fps will improve results vs 30 fps or 60 fps but motion is not as smooth. Greater the frames-per-second, the smoother the motion. Unfortunately this reveals the interlaced frame creation of each "picture" that makes up the "motion picture." Imagine your inkjet printer, making a single image line by line. The prop moves too fast for your slow printer to capture its position before it has reindex its position. Somehow a slower frame rate makes a more appealing effect, but does not really fix the problem.

high frame rate + slower shutter speed and appropriate aperture for correct exposure will net the best results.

For my little camera I just bought a kit of ND filter paper. They come in sizes of 4"x4" and usually have 2-8 stop sheets, then just cut to size and apply tape.

I have used both Vegas and Magix for editing with good results. (currently using Magix 17 Pro Plus HD)

Mornin Matt
Is the Zx3 what you got?
Gary

MM

I give... what's the "ND filter paper" you mentioned to help with the prop flicker?

OC

"ND Paper" is Neutral Density film. It's used in photography and videography in front of the lens of the camera to darken the exposure without adding a color cast or increasing or decreasing contrast. Putting some in front of one of these little HD cameras would make the camera thinks it's darker outside than it really is. To compensate, the camera will do one of three things, or a combination of all three: increase the effective f-stop to let more light in, decrease the "shutter speed" or adjust the gain or sensitivity of the sensor. My guess is, and it's only a guess as I don't know much about how these small automatic cameras work, that it would first decrease the shutter speed which would effect the way the prop is rendered in the video. A slower shutter speed would tend to blur the prop out instead of "stopping" it in each frame, which may make it appear more smooth. I've never used one of these smaller hd cameras, but it would be worth trying to see if an nd filter would help.

Data point mat - I used an ND2 filter on my Kodak Zi8, and it had almost no effect on prop artifact - still bad. I think you should start with ND4 or higher. I only had an ND2, so did not try anything higher, but I have seen results on the ND8 that are dramatic - posted here before I think

shortfielder wrote:Mornin Matt
Is the Zx3 what you got?
Gary

Yes Gary, the Kodak Playsport Zx3 is what I'm using. It takes a little work, but gives a good picture.

I actually use a ND8 (3stop) and a ND2 (1stop) stacked together for inside filming. I just tape it on the lens prior to flight. Thanks amacbean for explaining what a ND filter is (I have really no idea what it is, but it works).

Here's the ND filter paper that I use: http://www.amazon.com/Norman-Neutral-De ... 12&sr=8-27

the Kodak Playsport Zx3 is what I'm using. It takes a little work, but gives a good picture.

Matt
Does that mean not very user friendly, and I should look for something simpler?
I'm not very hi tech, but I am pretty lo tech
Gary

Oldcrowe wrote:MM

I give... what's the "ND filter paper" you mentioned to help with the prop flicker?

OC

Oldcrowe as I read the numerous blog about minimizing prop flicker I have wonder why you all are even shooting through the prop? If you don't want the prop in your shot, then how about moving your camera so the prop is not in the shot?

shortfielder wrote:

the Kodak Playsport Zx3 is what I'm using. It takes a little work, but gives a good picture.

Matt
Does that mean not very user friendly, and I should look for something simpler?
I'm not very hi tech, but I am pretty lo tech
Gary

Gary, by no means hi-tech. You just need to make a sturdy mount and most likely get a remote. The mount in the most important, so it takes a little work to make it solid. Nothing a 6 pack of local brew can't solve though.

If anyone is interested a camera setup, I can get the GoPro HD and Countour HD cameras in my little online store: www.skymountaingear.com. Send me a PM for discounted price.

qmdv wrote:This looks pretty good. Probably for use in the plane only so you end up with the prop in the vids.

http://www.goprocamera.com/products

Anybody out there use one of these. Looks pretty good for under 300 bucks.

Tim

Our Motocross and Road Racing teams use the GoPro camera's all the time. The road race bikes get up over 150mph with lot's of vibration and the video's come out great. And the units stay on the bikes. I've always worried about the unit falling of my plane. That's why I never used my GoPro on my plane yet. The only thing I don't like about the GoPro I have, is it don't have a remote start/stop button for videoing.

Has anyone had any issues with the FAA on the use of camera mounts on the exterior of the airplane? I could see them wanting to have a field approval or STC for mounting cameras.