The "GumCam"

[Dusty]

Got mine and tested it out yesterday! Well for the price you cant go wrong! The quality is good; acceptable and well worth the US$16.00 or whatever...

 

I strapped it my mates composite ARF Extra U/C with some insulation tape, obviously the position was not great but a test it did the job! I did another flight today on my ZLIN 50 with it taped to the tailplane strut but the vibrations made the view looks as though the model was flying through a CB cloud!

 

Anyway, thanks Tim this is a good find! Once I get a suitable mounting place I will be chuffed as a bunny on Easter!

 

 

 

 

[Pete B]

Having started with the 'Gum Cam', I couldn't resist going for a Lighter Cam with its claimed 1280 x 960 resolution compared to the Gum Cam's 720 x 480. At about £11 delivered, you can't go wrong, can you? Well, I'm not so sure..........

 

Here are the two side-by-side:

Here is a short compilation showing the relative performance of the two:

 

To say I'm disappointed with the Lighter Cam is an understatement. Far jerkier motion and a very contrasty, poorly resolved image. The same Emtec 2Gb Micro-SD card has been used in each case. Not knowing much about video, I'm wondering if the card may not be fast enough for the camera? Suggestions gratefully received!

 

Pete

 

[Tim Mackey]

Hmm, looks more like 3 FPS doesnt it ! Idoubt its the card, as the gum cam claims 30 FPS too, and the resolution shouldnt affect things?

[Pete B]

My only thought is that the card may cope with the write speed of the lower resolution cam but not with the greater amount of information from the higher resolution. I seem to recall from my digital SLR knowledge that a faster card can file the buffered images quicker.

 

It seems my card has a write speed of up to 6MB/s. Now I might be spouting a load of tosh but I'm reasoning that if I multiply the number of pixels by the frame rate I might get the number of bits of information per second being written to the card, thus:

 

1280 x 960 x 29(frames/second) =  35,635,200 which I assume is approx 3.56MB?

 

The video properties are as follows:

 

PICT008.AVI Properties

Video
Length 00:15:59
Frame width    1280
Frame height     960
Data Rate    70912kbps
Total bitrate    70976kbps
Frame rate     29 frames/second

Audio
bit rate    64kbps

File
Type     Video Clip

Size    1.13GB

 

I'm confident there will be a video whizz-kid somewhere on the forum who may be able to shed some light on this..............

 

ps right at the end of the video you can see my legs walking very jerkily towards the model.........I don't walk like that normally........but I won't show you it as it's upside-down..........the Fournier's prop (which is very near the ground) errr, tripped over some long grass upon landing.................

Edited By Pete B on 05/04/2010 22:58:54

[Bruce Richards]

Your calculation will not give the bit rate firstly because you need to take into account the number of colours each pixel and secondly AVI is a compressed format so will be much smaller than the raw bit rate would suggest.

 

35 635 200 bits is 35m bits and the data rate stated on the file is 70.9 m bits.

 

My guess is that the card is too slow.

[Tim Mackey]

Interesting....thanks Bruce

Lately, it seems like the forum platform is using the same card

[Pete B]

Thanks, Bruce, as I suspected. I'll wait for some feedback over the net from other users and then decide whether it's worth spending more pennies!

 

Pete

[Danny Fenton]

What was the outcome of the lighter cam? was it rubbish or was the card too slow that was being used?

 

Cheers

Danny

[Pete B]

Blimey, I don't work that fast, Danny! I've found out that my card is a Class 4 and there's a Class 6 which is faster. They looked pretty expensive to start with (£15-30) but I think I've found one for under a tenner. The still photo performance of both is pretty naff (not that I need it) but that's what I'd expect now we're used to 8-12Mb images so I'm pondering whether to invest further.

 

Pete

[Danny Fenton]

Hi Pete, whats keeping you mate shops have been open hours.......

 

Only kidding its my fault for not reading the thread properly, I didn't notice the date.......

 

Thought this was older as I hadn't seen it first before. Anyway caught your bit at the end after i had ordered one of the lighter cams. John seems to have got one and seems pleased with it. What's the score with yours John? 

 

Cheers

Danny

[Fly_Boy_Rez]

Hello,

 

I've been reading this thread with interest and am looking to get a couple of lighter cams but I'm somewhat put off by the jerky video Pete posted.

 

Has there been any progress on determining if this is a fault with the lighter cam or if it's a memory card issue?

 

Thanks!

 

Rez

[Pete B]

Hi Rez (or, given the nature of the problem, should it be hi-res?...........),

 

Unfortunately the only way I can give you an answer is to cross someone else's palm with silver, so I've tonight ordered a Class 6 Samsung card from here.

Even more unfortunately, they've stung me for an extra £1.20 to send it to me in France.....

 

Should be with me by the end of the week and I'll let you know, unless anyone else can report sooner.

 

Pete

 

[Fly_Boy_Rez]

Cheers Pete!

 

I hope it works out for you (and ultimately for me too!)

 

Rez

[Danny Fenton]

Well I have had my lighter cam arrive and with an 8Gb sd card the quality is not very good. Very contrasty.

 

Anybody found the original Gum Cam Timbo mentions in the UK?

 

Cheers

Danny

[Tim Mackey]

I got mine from a UK seller actually via Ebay - about £12.

[Danny Fenton]

Thanks Timbo, ordered one from Hong Kong

 

Note to self......try not to be so impatient.......

[John Horsfield]

Ive finally got round to trying the lighter cam on saturday and I have to agree with Pete B, the quality is not as good as the gum cam videos I have seen. Mine didnt seem as jerky as petes and the quality wasnt awful, but it did struggle with exposure when moving from bright sky to darker ground.  Intrestingly, I found the quality a lot better and a lot less jerky when using the cam hand held, so im wondering is the lighter cam might be more sensetive to vibration? Any way hopefully I'll be able to try it again this weekend and this time I'll alter is position so that it look down to the ground more in the hope of getting a better exposure.

All being well Ill post a Video for comparison.

[Reg Tyson]

I have had a Gum Camera for awhile now - and they are darned good for the price.

 

My latest "toy" is a keychain camera. These give a bit better result. There is a great loooooong series of posts on the A.P forum at RC-Groups. These cameras have attracted quite a following !

 

Found on Ebay there are various versions. The best one - so far - is version 3. This one displays the date and time in yellow and needs a seperate micro SD card, it has no internal storage. The previous version had internal storage but there is a noticeable difference in image quality.

 

Compared to the Gum Camera it is smaller, gives a crisper image and the colours are much better. Takes still photos or video. It is more convenient to velcro to a wing or fuselage as the lens is in the end of the camera and is looking forward when the camera is laid flat.

 

This version 3 camera is the best one so far and does a pretty good job. Be carefull when buying a card for it as there appears to be a lot of "fake" micro SD cards around on Ebay. Get a well know brand from a reputable source.

 

Camera costs approx £7-50 (including postage from Hong Kong), a decent card will be about the same price.

[John Privett]

I have one of the "version 3" keyfob cams and I have to say it's amazing value for money.  Mine was 1p short of Reg's £7.50!

[John Horsfield]

Reg and John, can you confirm that this is a version 3  ebay link

It has no internal memory and req an sd card as Reg mentions.

[John Privett]

Well it certainly looks the same as mine, and has the date/timestamp in yellow in the bottom-right corner.  I think it probably is the version 3. 

 

However it's possible they may supply something slightly different - but for £7.16 I think it's worth a go.  It's even 33p cheaper than mine!  Don't expect super-quick delivery though - mine took about two weeks to arrive,  but for the price you can't complain.

[Pete B]

Thanks, Reg, that's just what I wanted to hear, particularly as I'm waiting for a faster Class 6 card to arrive for my Lighter Cam.........

There's a thread over on RCGroups about the Lighter Cam, where it is suggested that the claimed 1280 x 960 is only gained by 'upconverting on the fly from 640 x 480', which would explain the poor performance.

 

I'll post some results when I have them.

 

Pete

[John Privett]

The other factor suggesting it's a version 3 is the video resolution of 720x480.

 

Lots more info on these here including info on how to set the date/time.

[Reg Tyson]

Posted by John Horsfield on 16/04/2010 22:53:29:

Reg and John, can you confirm that this is a version 3  ebay link

It has no internal memory and req an sd card as Reg mentions.

 

 

 Certainly looks like one. The advert, including photos, is just the same as the one I bought.

 

 

 

Posted by John Privett on 16/04/2010 23:08:21:

The other factor suggesting it's a version 3 is the video resolution of 720x480.

 

Lots more info on these here including info on how to set the date/time.

 

 That is a brilliant site. Everything you ever wanted to know about the different versions of these cameras.

[John Horsfield]

Okay, managed a flight or two yesterday evening with the lighter cam attached so heres a quick clip (no comments on the iffy flying please...)

 

 

The image quality is fairly good, especially when you consider how bright the sun was. I also made a little mount out of scrap balsa, and the extra foam padding really did make a BIG difference to the jerkiness of the video. overall Im happy with last nights results.

 

 

 

Edited By John Horsfield on 17/04/2010 22:44:15