Bikecams - replacement or second front camera



I

Ian Jackson

Guest
I have just got around to trying out the L30 `disgo' camera I bought
from Curry's a few weeks ago. I jury-rigged it (firmly!) alongside
the old front camera (also firmly attached!) and went for a quick
trundle at 5ish this evening.

The results:
* The disgo's field of view is about 40-50% larger.
* The audio track is nice and clear.
* The resolution is much, much poorer (320x240).
* It doesn't do nearly so well in poor light.
* It's extremely light - around 75g not including the 2xAA batteries.
* It's obviously much less rugged, not waterproof at all, etc.
* It looks very much like a camera - much more so than the ATC2K
which miscreants of various kinds seem to think is some kind of
weird light.
(These latter two problems can be solved with gaffer tape I think.)

You can see some stills from the videos here:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/disgo-test/
disgo-scaled.png is scaled up so that the features are the same size,
roughly, and allows comparison of the field of view. (It doesn't
match up exactly because the disgo was mounted at a slight angle.)

I've found taking the cameras on and off the bike, carting them about,
etc., to be irritating and I'm willing to risk the odd theft of an SD
card. So I've definitely decided to fix the cameras permanently to
the bike and power them from my existing battery (6V sealed lead-acid)
which I have for my main lights. I'll just use dissipative voltage
regulators to get rid of the excess; 6V->3V converters are expensive
and only about 65% efficient anyway. Operating current seems to be
about 300mA per camera.

It's clear I think that the ATC2K makes a much better rear camera.
Field of view isn't so important, one good audio track would be
sufficient, and good shots of tailgaters' number plates seem valuable.


The question is, what should I do on the front ?

I've found that the ATC2K on the front seems to have a tendency for
interesting things to happen just out of shot - 2007-07-02 `T809DLW
pulls out without looking'[1] is an excellent example.

OTOH the disgo has some serious downsides. So I wonder whether I
should keep both with the ATC2K pointing somewhat to the left but
still including straight ahead, and the disgo somewhat to the right,
with a small overlap. Extra field of view seems more relevant on the
right as I seem to get more trouble from the right than the left - in
particular, close passing, and people from side streets on the right
turning out into my path because they feel I should be in the gutter.

Does anyone else have any constructive suggestions ? I'll take
`make sure that whatever you do is firmly attached' as read :p.


[1] http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/ or
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/events/2007-07-02-Giveway/

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email protected]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
 
"Ian Jackson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:RWg*[email protected]...
>I have just got around to trying out the L30 `disgo' camera I bought
> from Curry's a few weeks ago. I jury-rigged it (firmly!) alongside
> the old front camera (also firmly attached!) and went for a quick
> trundle at 5ish this evening.
>
> The results:
> * The disgo's field of view is about 40-50% larger.
> * The audio track is nice and clear.
> * The resolution is much, much poorer (320x240).
> * It doesn't do nearly so well in poor light.
> * It's extremely light - around 75g not including the 2xAA batteries.
> * It's obviously much less rugged, not waterproof at all, etc.


A) Will it bounce?

B) How will it fare as it passes through the front spokes.

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
 
In uk.rec.cycling Ian Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:

> with a small overlap. Extra field of view seems more relevant on the
> right as I seem to get more trouble from the right than the left - in
> particular, close passing, and people from side streets on the right
> turning out into my path because they feel I should be in the gutter.
>
> Does anyone else have any constructive suggestions ? I'll take
> `make sure that whatever you do is firmly attached' as read :p.
>


Does the camera have a filter thread on it ? If so, you might be able
to fit a wide angle converter lens. Pretty cheap on ebay if you don't
want high quality.

-adrian
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Adrian Godwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>Does the camera have a filter thread on it ? If so, you might be able
>to fit a wide angle converter lens. Pretty cheap on ebay if you don't
>want high quality.


No. It's all integrated lenses and no provision for enhancement.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email protected]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
 
In article <8vE*[email protected]>,
Ian Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Adrian Godwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Does the camera have a filter thread on it ? If so, you might be able
>>to fit a wide angle converter lens. Pretty cheap on ebay if you don't
>>want high quality.

>
>No. It's all integrated lenses and no provision for enhancement.


Might there be scope for supergluing a filter adapter on the front?
(you can get N mm to M mm filter adapter rings, for most N and M that
correspond to usual lens and filter sizes ...)

-patrick.
 
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:12:11 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

>
> Does anyone else have any constructive suggestions ? I'll take
> `make sure that whatever you do is firmly attached' as read :p.
>

Given this new camera seems quite cheap, have you considered having one as
a wearable camera ? It might be quite useful if you have cause to have a
conversation with someone about an incident as well.
J
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Patrick Gosling <[email protected]> wrote:
>Might there be scope for supergluing a filter adapter on the front?


Doesn't such a thing need to be in extactly the right place, and
depend very much on the optical properties of the camera behind ? The
disgo's lens is only a few mm across and is a several mm inside a kind
of conical depression, hidden behind what looks like a protective
plastic bezel.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email protected]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
 
In article <[email protected]>,
John Burnham <[email protected]> wrote:
>Given this new camera seems quite cheap, have you considered having one as
>a wearable camera ? It might be quite useful if you have cause to have a
>conversation with someone about an incident as well.


The audio on the new camera will do fine for that I think. I don't
want to have anything on my head and it doesn't seem worthwhile having
something elsewhere on me, particularly as then I lose the ability to
conveniently power it from the bike's battery.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email protected]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
 
On 30 Oct, 00:19, Ian Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
> The audio on the new camera will do fine for that I think. I don't
> want to have anything on my head


But sometimes you are collecting evidence that drivers did
things you couldn't foresee by good observation. So having
the cyclist's eye view would be more convincing than a view
a couple of feet above the road. Helmet cams are light
enough for jockeys and American footballers to use, surely
it's the best option here?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Al Grant <[email protected]> wrote:
>But sometimes you are collecting evidence that drivers did
>things you couldn't foresee by good observation.


I don't think that's generally true. In fact I find that few of the
idiotic things I capture on camera come as a surprise to me.

> So having the cyclist's eye view would be more convincing than a
>view a couple of feet above the road. Helmet cams are light enough
>for jockeys and American footballers to use, surely it's the best
>option here?


I'm not engaging in a sport, where I'm prepared to spend half an hour
before and after with special equipment. I'm just getting from A to B
and I dislike faff. If you feel a headcam would be worthwhile then
please feel free to wear one yourself.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email protected]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
 
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:33:22 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:

> I'm not engaging in a sport, where I'm prepared to spend half an hour
> before and after with special equipment. I'm just getting from A to B
> and I dislike faff. If you feel a headcam would be worthwhile then
> please feel free to wear one yourself.


Hmm. I'm not sure that half an hour prep is necessary - I'm sure a quick
conversion to a Petzl-alike headtorch would be easy to equip. But it's
your call, of course. And you're definitely correct in it being too much
effort if you wanted to run it from your bike's battery pack - plus having
a head mounted device attached to your bike by a cable strikes me as
potentially unsafe (although I'm sure some form of quick release device
could be rigged).
Anyway, good luck in putting together a new front mount for your camera. I
hope you come up with something good.
J
 
In uk.rec.cycling Ian Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Patrick Gosling <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Might there be scope for supergluing a filter adapter on the front?

>
> Doesn't such a thing need to be in extactly the right place, and
> depend very much on the optical properties of the camera behind ?


Don't think so, it just affects the field of view somewhat, doesn't
seem to hurt the focus. I've got one you can try if you like, but
you'll have to just hold it in place - I haven't got a suitable
mounting ring.

> The
> disgo's lens is only a few mm across and is a several mm inside a kind
> of conical depression, hidden behind what looks like a protective
> plastic bezel.
>


That might be difficult, then. This one has a 37mm mount and seems
to work better the closer it is to the lens. Still, it might prove
a point.

-adrian