Is it just me, or does this look like a cheap rip off of Tony Stark's chest piece?

Hmmm... Kid's Woot? Would this be good for my (adult) brother? He would use it for hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, that sorta thing. I really want to get him one of these cameras to mount on his helmet or something, but I don't wanna wind up in the "spent too little" category.

I have seen several reviews for the SD one as an alternative to the GoPro. From what I have seen it may not be too bad of an investment.

I believe this is meant to be more for the kid at heart crowd, you don't want to let anyone under at least 8 play with this because they will destroy it. And I mean, 8 year old's these days are pretty much all grown up if you let them watch HBO...

Who doesn't want to buy something that looks like Star Wars and steampunk had a baby?

ThunderThighs wrote:I would love to see some footage from those thought bought this when it was up on Woot.

Oh you mean this time?

Edit: Also, Is kids.woot loading extra large for everyone else? Or is it just me?

IMO, this is too much to spend on a kid, unless they are REALLY into photography and REALLY into gadgets, and I wasn't planning to get them anything else at the same time.

ThunderThighs wrote:I would love to see some footage from those thought bought this when it was up on Woot.

I bought one, but I am currently studying for my finals that are tomorrow. If no one has posted a video by noon, I'll try to make one. Is there any specific features or shots people want me to demonstration? (I honestly haven't tested it that much so I am also curious to see how well it works)

I can't let you do that, Dave.

MiataDooU wrote:Is it just me, or does this look like a cheap rip off of Tony Stark's chest piece?

No, it looks like an Awesome rip off of Tony Stark's chest piece.

What is the lens angle? 135 deg? 170 deg? 5 deg? Tell me or sit on it.

Is this just as good as the GoPro Hero cameras? I'm sort of thinking about buying this.

Let me get this straight... in HD mode it can only shoot in 30 fps?

30 fps is going to look pretty bad in any scenario the camera or subject is moving, meaning you will spend most of the time shooting in standard def at 60 fps. In that case why even drop the extra money on the HD version?

I was so excited about getting this too. oh well.

tljx wrote:I can't let you do that, Dave.

It would be fun to let your kid watch 2001 Space Odyssey, then give them this as a present. Not in the box, just sitting on their bed facing the door when they walk in.

]

Edit: Also, Is kids.woot loading extra large for everyone else? Or is it just me?[/quote]

Nope, loading fine for me. But I'm in the "Size doesn't matter camp ".

Since it's on Kids Woot, I'd read "Pacific" as "Pacifier"...

I thought it was a bit on the expensive side, but still pretty cool to get baby pov movies by attaching a video cam to their pacifiers.

Here's footage with the SD cam.

cfox612 wrote:Here's footage with the SD cam.

Holy cow that is terrible.

I revise everyone's earlier opinion. You should probably just buy this for children.

DaZoneRanger wrote:Is this just as good as the GoPro Hero cameras? I'm sort of thinking about buying this.

Judging by the video a few comments down from yours, not even close by a mile. It doesn't handle light changes very well, and is pretty grainy.

To the comment about it being only 30FPS, most new smartphones (including iPhone 5) only record HD in 30FPS, so that's not really that bad.

This looks like it belongs on Kids, because it is a fun toy with a fair amount of potential but not for making anything resembling real attempts at filming.

Wolffhardt wrote:Holy cow that is terrible.

I revise everyone's earlier opinion. You should probably just buy this for children.

The one on Woot is HD. Will be able to get equally nauseating video but in clearer def.
Making friends and family watch it would be cruel and unusual punishment.

sanmo wrote:The one on Woot is HD. Will be able to get equally nauseating video but in clearer def.
Making friends and family watch it would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Unfortunately, as everyone else said, most people are not going to use the HD Function because it films at 30 FPS instead of the 60 FPS the SD films in.

Your videos are most likely going to loook much like the video posted above.

That is the scariest looking camera I have ever seen. I feel like it is sentient and may join the robot revolution.

Functionally it works as described, but the video isn't the best, even a little grainy. But... it is for kids after all.

Wolffhardt wrote:Unfortunately, as everyone else said, most people are not going to use the HD Function because it films at 30 FPS instead of the 60 FPS the SD films in.

Your videos are most likely going to loook much like the video posted above.

LOL! not sure if serious. you understand that most current movies are filmed at 24/25 or 30FPS, right? 60/120FPS are used almost exclusively for those slow-mo footage that all the action cam manufacturers use for their commercials. not saying that this jakks cam will be awesome, just adding some perspective.

Bought this to give to my boyfriend for snowboarding. Will also be cool to strap on the dog or mic stand while on stage.

lochnesmonster wrote:LOL! not sure if serious. you understand that most current movies are filmed at 24/25 or 30FPS, right? 60/120FPS are used almost exclusively for those slow-mo footage that all the action cam manufacturers use for their commercials. not saying that this jakks cam will be awesome, just adding some perspective.

I was just going off the fact that my iPhone is around that, and I wouldn't ever dream of filming myself doing anything where everything is moving, including myself, with it.

Also - Having used the GoPro, and other high dollar similar cameras, everyone hoping that this will satisfy their wants and match those for a cheaper price?

It simply wont.

Anybody know if this could make a "cat cam"? I would love to see where kitty goes.

msmetz wrote:Anybody know if this could make a "cat cam"? I would love to see where kitty goes.

Just a glop of industrial adhesive and your kitty cam will be all set!

I purchased this when it was a regular woot item. The video quality is fair to good at best, but for this price, it's worth it, IMO. The mounting kit is great minus the angle bracket, which doesn't stay in position worth a crap. I bought it to use for biking and snowboarding, and haven't gotten the chance to use it in those conditions as of yet. The headband isn't large enough to fit over my snowboarding helmet so I'll have to figure out a way around that.

lochnesmonster wrote:LOL! not sure if serious. you understand that most current movies are filmed at 24/25 or 30FPS, right? 60/120FPS are used almost exclusively for those slow-mo footage that all the action cam manufacturers use for their commercials. not saying that this jakks cam will be awesome, just adding some perspective.

Yes movies are shot in 25 fps and screened in 25p (which means progressive FYI, which this will NOT be capable of), not to mention the cameras are on $5000 swivel setups and using very advanced techniques that you will not be using lol.

To quote since I don't feel like explaining all of this:
"About film techniques, YES, this is the big difference maker. In films, the camera almost ALWAYS keeps the subject framed consistently so that even if it's a car racing through the streets of San Francisco, the actual car in the frame isn't "moving" much at all...the filmmakers have kept it framed pretty much near the center the whole time. The background elements are what is primarily moving, and for the most part, you're probably not paying any attention to those background elements because they make up a smaller portion of the screen....and, well, they're the background. Go back and watch a car chase film and completely cover the center of the screen (or wherever the fast-moving subject is) and watch only the background. You'll see horrible strobing effects on all of it.

Sometimes.

Well, another part of it also has to do with depth of field. If the background elements are flying around at a rapid pace but they are not sharply focused (due to being behind of or in front of the focal plane of the subject), then it lessens the strobing effect substantially. With your Kodak camera, EVERYTHING is in sharp focus because of the way the lens is designed (very small lens, no depth), so the strobing effect of items in the frame is much more noticeable as motion in the frame increases. So the depth of field is another technique utilized by filmmakers to reduce strobing when shooting/displaying 24p."

Just adding some perspective

jmaguire64 wrote:Yes movies are shot in 25 fps and screened in 25p (which means progressive FYI, which this will NOT be capable of), not to mention the cameras are on $5000 swivel setups and using very advanced techniques that you will not be using lol.

To quote since I don't feel like explaining all of this:
"About film techniques, YES, this is the big difference maker. In films, the camera almost ALWAYS keeps the subject framed consistently so that even if it's a car racing through the streets of San Francisco, the actual car in the frame isn't "moving" much at all...the filmmakers have kept it framed pretty much near the center the whole time. The background elements are what is primarily moving, and for the most part, you're probably not paying any attention to those background elements because they make up a smaller portion of the screen....and, well, they're the background. Go back and watch a car chase film and completely cover the center of the screen (or wherever the fast-moving subject is) and watch only the background. You'll see horrible strobing effects on all of it.

Sometimes.

Well, another part of it also has to do with depth of field. If the background elements are flying around at a rapid pace but they are not sharply focused (due to being behind of or in front of the focal plane of the subject), then it lessens the strobing effect substantially. With your Kodak camera, EVERYTHING is in sharp focus because of the way the lens is designed (very small lens, no depth), so the strobing effect of items in the frame is much more noticeable as motion in the frame increases. So the depth of field is another technique utilized by filmmakers to reduce strobing when shooting/displaying 24p."

Just adding some perspective

good info right there. we cannot expect a $60 action cam to perform like a RED camera but we can use techniques like panning to greatly improve video quality. but let's not discount that even iPhones can take good video when it's in the hands of an experienced user.

ThunderThighs wrote:Just because it's on kids.woot doesn't mean you have to buy it for a kid.

That's a given, TT, but this is where we go for stuff that we CAN get for kids and babies, or people who take care of kids. I guess you can attach this to a kid and then figure out a way to follow them on your phone remotely, but that could get you into trouble.

msmetz wrote:Anybody know if this could make a "cat cam"? I would love to see where kitty goes.

If kitty doesn't go where kitty is expected to go would you not smell that after a while?

lochnesmonster wrote:good info right there. we cannot expect a $60 action cam to perform like a RED camera but we can use techniques like panning to greatly improve video quality. but let's not discount that even iPhones can take good video when it's in the hands of an experienced user.

wouldn't you get a little dizzy using your head to pan all the time?

lochnesmonster wrote:good info right there. we cannot expect a $60 action cam to perform like a RED camera but we can use techniques like panning to greatly improve video quality. but let's not discount that even iPhones can take good video when it's in the hands of an experienced user.

So it's not the arrow it's the Indian, and now that you mention RED bring on some Oakleys.

jmaguire64 wrote:Yes movies are shot in 25 fps and screened in 25p (which means progressive FYI, which this will NOT be capable of), not to mention the cameras are on $5000 swivel setups and using very advanced techniques that you will not be using lol.

also good old BLUE RAY is a 60 fps requirement to be blue ray so if your going to burn a real blue ray disk you need 60 fps (most folks watching a original 30 FPS source are seeing 50% blank pages that are so fast you don't notice)
To quote since I don't feel like explaining all of this:
"About film techniques, YES, this is the big difference maker. In films, the camera almost ALWAYS keeps the subject framed consistently so that even if it's a car racing through the streets of San Francisco, the actual car in the frame isn't "moving" much at all...the filmmakers have kept it framed pretty much near the center the whole time. The background elements are what is primarily moving, and for the most part, you're probably not paying any attention to those background elements because they make up a smaller portion of the screen....and, well, they're the background. Go back and watch a car chase film and completely cover the center of the screen (or wherever the fast-moving subject is) and watch only the background. You'll see horrible strobing effects on all of it.

Sometimes.

Well, another part of it also has to do with depth of field. If the background elements are flying around at a rapid pace but they are not sharply focused (due to being behind of or in front of the focal plane of the subject), then it lessens the strobing effect substantially. With your Kodak camera, EVERYTHING is in sharp focus because of the way the lens is designed (very small lens, no depth), so the strobing effect of items in the frame is much more noticeable as motion in the frame increases. So the depth of field is another technique utilized by filmmakers to reduce strobing when shooting/displaying 24p."

Just adding some perspective

Maybe you can put one of those "super focus" lenses that Joel Gray shills for and increase the DOF