vintage-race
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: In car Camera

To: vintage-race@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: In car Camera
From: Tony Drews <tony@tonydrews.com>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 20:05:44 -0500
I use the lipstick camera setup from Racers Wholesale, replaced the 
microphone with a $25 radio shack microphone which I put under the 
dash to eliminate the wind noise, and pipe it to a Sony DV 
camcorder.  I put a plastic shield in front of the lipstick camera, 
and a sun shield over it.  Video quality is quite acceptable.  We had 
done the sony camcorder (hi 8) on the IO mount and had some camera 
shake.  The lipstick camera is solid.  The Sony Hi-8 camcorder has 
been quite durable - it's the one that recorded the in-car of a 
triple barrel roll and is still in use in uncle jack's car.

But, I've got probably $1000 in the whole setup, so it's not cheap.

- Tony

At 06:42 PM 5/3/2006, dmeadow@juno.com wrote:
>I've been using a Sony DV Camcorder mounted to an I/O rollbar mount (has
>a big urethane bushing).  I've had no problems with vibrations.  The
>steady-shot feature is actually fantastic.  In the video you can see the
>front end of the car moving up and down over bumps, but the camera is
>hard-mounted to the car, so it is all the movement is taken up in the
>camera!
>
>The big disadvantage to the lipstick cameras is that the whole thing is
>up in the airstream in an open car.  One good sized stone...
>
>I don't know much else about the lipstick stuff, but it seems video
>quality is an issue, although they are cheaper?
>
>The camcorder cost about $400 new with about $100 for the mount.  Tapes
>aren't cheap, but can be reused.  The Sonys have firewire connections,
>which I use to download the tapes so I can edit in the computer.  I
>suppose most other brands use USB 2.0 nowadays.  I've got a friend with a
>JVC and it seems to work pretty well, too.
>
>Buy a UV filter (for lens protection) and set the manual focus to
>infinity so it doesn't focus on gunge that gets on the UV filter.
>
>I'd avoid the direct-to-DVD camcorders as I imagine they WOULD be
>affected by vibration.
>
>-- David Littlefield
>
>On Wed, 3 May 2006 09:46:31 -0700 "Lon" <lon@sedona.net> writes:
> > I suspect this may have been discussed before . . . what success has
> > there
> > been with an inexpensive digital camera with vibration/quality for
> > those
> > weekend memories and analysis of my many mistakes?  Been using an
> > older 8mm
> > video and want to upgrade (read: it's broken).  Was told the digital
> > has
> > difficulty with the vibration.
> >
> > Many thanks.
> >
> > Lon
> > Elva Courier
> > Lotus 7




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>