Zero_Enigma
10-10-07, 04:29 AM
Found this. I'm sure Varus will be "lov'in it" (TM :rolleyes:)
http://www.clubantietam.com/projects/fiveborobiketour/fiveboro.html
http://www.clubantietam.com/projects/fiveborobiketour/fiveboro.html
View Full Version : Camera bike mount
flipped4bikes
10-10-07, 07:27 AM
That is the coolest thing. Having taken that ride, it's amazing how much you experience yet forget about. This brings it all back... :beer:
varuscelli
10-10-07, 11:44 AM
Interesting! ;)
I'd be a bit concerned about jolting and vibrating the camera over extended periods of time, though. Not sure how most cameras would hold up to that over the long haul (depending on where you ride, how you ride, and how robust the camera/lenses). Might not really be a problem, but you never know. Good test for an older or seldom-used camera. And still a neat concept.
I'd be a bit concerned about jolting and vibrating the camera over extended periods of time, though. Not sure how most cameras would hold up to that over the long haul (depending on where you ride, how you ride, and how robust the camera/lenses). Might not really be a problem, but you never know. Good test for an older or seldom-used camera. And still a neat concept.
znomit
10-10-07, 01:37 PM
Very cool. I have a shockproof/waterproof olympus 720sw which should handle the vibrations fine. Have been thinking about bar mounting options for a while.
There are some kite sites out there that do aerial photography using a similar setup.
Oh, and some cameras (minolta A2) have time lapse built in...bit nice and bit big to put on handlebars though.
There are some kite sites out there that do aerial photography using a similar setup.
Oh, and some cameras (minolta A2) have time lapse built in...bit nice and bit big to put on handlebars though.
norco_rider77
10-10-07, 05:29 PM
I just don't get it.
The final product is really uninteresting. If you're trying to capture the feel of a particular ride, there are much better ways of doing it.
Ya, such as a camera mounted on the downtube, so you can watch the fork compress and all, that way you can see the feel of the ride :p
The final product is really uninteresting. If you're trying to capture the feel of a particular ride, there are much better ways of doing it.
Ya, such as a camera mounted on the downtube, so you can watch the fork compress and all, that way you can see the feel of the ride :p
varuscelli
10-10-07, 05:51 PM
I'd like to see a ride done with something like a Canon EF 15mm fisheye lens or even a Canon mount 8mm Sigma circular fisheye. That would likely produce a really interesting overall effect, although anything off in the distance would look really far off in the distance. But it would be fun in a crowd and to show off immediately surrounding landscapes/cityscapes in a very cool way. That particular camera (the Canon Rebel with its 1.6x lens magnification factor) would not be able to take full advantage of a truly wide angle lens like the ones mentioned, but it could still produce potentially fascinating visuals. But even on that camera, the 8mm circular fisheye would produce a very wide-angle image that would be awfully close to a standard full-frame fisheye lens image. In a crowd of bikes or on a generally crowded street or place with nice "scapes" (or a mixture of all) it could be very cool.
Zero_Enigma
10-10-07, 08:16 PM
Never owned one but since I was looking for gun stocks to mod a camera before years ago I ran into this unit. I've yet to buy one but I definately want one for the collection. Looks to be very useful/handy and can fit in a pocket for traveling or day to day milling around without having to lug my pro Manfrotto tripod which is around 10lbs I think.
Should Stock Tripod (http://www.cullmann-foto.de/en/products/tripods/travelpods/3090.htm)
Add a pistol grip and you're good to go.
This is a setup I'm modding with which uses the Photosniper (http://flickr.com/photos/49184877@N00/page2/). The trigger only works with Russian Zenit cameras of compatible models. I have seen a more skelton frame white model before which I think had a folding stock. It is possible that was for the airborne. I cna't remember the link or can find it. It was a total random find while looking for info on that camera. While the gun'ish looks may be a turn off for anyone that has had thier gear on thier camera exposed will tell you it's quick access while still being able to bring the camera back into action to take the shot then having to put the camera down or hang on the neck to fiddle around in your camera bag.
My setup I'm slowly planning and building will have a folding stock, one side of the stock will hold 1-2 memory cards for rapid reload, the other side will have a a compact memory card offloading unit. I'm thinking of bullpuping the design to have batteries in a quick release magazine style setup with a on/off slider switch. When you turn the switch off the camera runs off it's internal batteries and becuse the power is off you can swap magazines quickly like a gun while keeping your eyes on the action ahead. After the external battery is swapped then you slide the power to the on switch and the camera is once again powered by the external battery. The camera will be sitting in a quick release tripod square mount so if you wanted to free the camera for freehand work you could or keep it in the stock for more rock steady shots.
Another setup I love. http://www.peterpeterpeter.com/pages/bushhawk.htm
The company that makes that is BushHawk (http://www.bushhawk.com/) MMmmm....
Should Stock Tripod (http://www.cullmann-foto.de/en/products/tripods/travelpods/3090.htm)
Add a pistol grip and you're good to go.
This is a setup I'm modding with which uses the Photosniper (http://flickr.com/photos/49184877@N00/page2/). The trigger only works with Russian Zenit cameras of compatible models. I have seen a more skelton frame white model before which I think had a folding stock. It is possible that was for the airborne. I cna't remember the link or can find it. It was a total random find while looking for info on that camera. While the gun'ish looks may be a turn off for anyone that has had thier gear on thier camera exposed will tell you it's quick access while still being able to bring the camera back into action to take the shot then having to put the camera down or hang on the neck to fiddle around in your camera bag.
My setup I'm slowly planning and building will have a folding stock, one side of the stock will hold 1-2 memory cards for rapid reload, the other side will have a a compact memory card offloading unit. I'm thinking of bullpuping the design to have batteries in a quick release magazine style setup with a on/off slider switch. When you turn the switch off the camera runs off it's internal batteries and becuse the power is off you can swap magazines quickly like a gun while keeping your eyes on the action ahead. After the external battery is swapped then you slide the power to the on switch and the camera is once again powered by the external battery. The camera will be sitting in a quick release tripod square mount so if you wanted to free the camera for freehand work you could or keep it in the stock for more rock steady shots.
Another setup I love. http://www.peterpeterpeter.com/pages/bushhawk.htm
The company that makes that is BushHawk (http://www.bushhawk.com/) MMmmm....
2manybikes
10-10-07, 08:41 PM
After a short while you get sick of seeing everything from that one view point on the bike. It's boring. I hold a regular camera in my hand while riding and just push the button. It's a million times better than a handlbar bracket. You can shoot in all directions. Much, much, better.
varuscelli
10-10-07, 09:02 PM
First person, bike-mounted, fisheye video doesn't look very good. You're much better off using wide angle lens/adapter.
Gotta keep in mind we're talking still cameras here and not video. But that aside, on a camera like used in the linked examples (the digital Rebel with the 1.6 lens magnification factor), a full-frame fisheye lens ends up creating images that look like a very wide-angle rectilinear lens. A circular fisheye (used on the same camera) would give the appearance of a full-frame fisheye (more or less). I think it could potentially have a very interesting look.
Gotta keep in mind we're talking still cameras here and not video. But that aside, on a camera like used in the linked examples (the digital Rebel with the 1.6 lens magnification factor), a full-frame fisheye lens ends up creating images that look like a very wide-angle rectilinear lens. A circular fisheye (used on the same camera) would give the appearance of a full-frame fisheye (more or less). I think it could potentially have a very interesting look.
varuscelli
10-10-07, 09:43 PM
First person, bike mounted fisheye video (or still with a circ fisheye) doesn't look very good.
Sorry, I'm having a hard time figuring out if you're using the term "first person" in the standard sense. In one sense, all photography is seen as first person. It's from the perspective of the camera which implies the perspective of the person doing the shooting...but maybe I"m not following what you mean (?).
The images from a a full-frame fisheye lens have much more distortion than wide-angle rectilinear lenses.
Of course they do! That's what makes the images interesting. ;)
At the same time, I'm not convinced that you fully understand the image producing effect that a digital camera with a 1.6 lens multiplication factor has on a full-frame fisheye lens. It essentially crops the images that the fisheye lens would normally produce to a very close equivalent of a very wide-angle lens, with most of the curvature/distortion going away due to the combination of the smaller sensor size coupled with the fisheye lens. I've used these kinds of lenses a lot in my own photography having owned fisheye lenses from 7.5mm, 8mm, 15mm and 16mm and a rectilinear wide-angle lenses from 14mm, 15mm, 17mm and 20mm. I'm fairly familiar with the effects they produce with different cameras from full frame (1x)to those with magnification factors of 1.3x and 1.6x. The images produced with all those lenses vary with the camera body in use. And if used creatively, the effects can be brilliant -- as much so with a fisheye as with a standard wide-angle lens. Cross my heart. ;)
Sorry, I'm having a hard time figuring out if you're using the term "first person" in the standard sense. In one sense, all photography is seen as first person. It's from the perspective of the camera which implies the perspective of the person doing the shooting...but maybe I"m not following what you mean (?).
The images from a a full-frame fisheye lens have much more distortion than wide-angle rectilinear lenses.
Of course they do! That's what makes the images interesting. ;)
At the same time, I'm not convinced that you fully understand the image producing effect that a digital camera with a 1.6 lens multiplication factor has on a full-frame fisheye lens. It essentially crops the images that the fisheye lens would normally produce to a very close equivalent of a very wide-angle lens, with most of the curvature/distortion going away due to the combination of the smaller sensor size coupled with the fisheye lens. I've used these kinds of lenses a lot in my own photography having owned fisheye lenses from 7.5mm, 8mm, 15mm and 16mm and a rectilinear wide-angle lenses from 14mm, 15mm, 17mm and 20mm. I'm fairly familiar with the effects they produce with different cameras from full frame (1x)to those with magnification factors of 1.3x and 1.6x. The images produced with all those lenses vary with the camera body in use. And if used creatively, the effects can be brilliant -- as much so with a fisheye as with a standard wide-angle lens. Cross my heart. ;)
derath
10-10-07, 09:54 PM
Boomstick (http://www.boomstick360.com/)!
More geared for video, but it is a cool mount. One of these days I am gonna pick one up and try some video. Could you imagine the cool angles you could get with one?
-D
More geared for video, but it is a cool mount. One of these days I am gonna pick one up and try some video. Could you imagine the cool angles you could get with one?
-D
varuscelli
10-10-07, 11:10 PM
If they have more distortion, as you agree they do, then how can you claim that "a full-frame fisheye lens ends up creating images that look like a very wide-angle rectilinear lens"? They're different, even with a DSLR with a crop factor. The don't look like a very wide rectilinear lens.
The point is that the greater the crop factor, the less the effect of the fisheye. The farther you get away from the full fisheye effect the lens would naturally create with a full-frame camera, the more the image starts to look rectilinear rather than fisheye. The fisheye effect doesn't fully go away, but it becomes drastically reduced, so much that in many cases (depending on the angle of the lens and the subject) you can't even recognize the fisheye effect is still there.
No, you're just confused. I'm very familiar with the image producing effect that a non-full frame DSLR has on a full-frame fisheye lens. You're just mistaken.
Unless you can see the curvature of the Earth this easily...
<idiot pete's porn image deleted>
No, I'm not confused Pete. I'm a bit puzzled by your negativity (I can't see one agreeable or friendly statement you've made in the thead), but I'm not confused or mistaken. If anything, we're having a disagreement based on semantics.
In the photo above (if yours) you haven't specified what camera or lens was used. Full frame? (Doesn't look like it, although it's possible depending on the lens.) 1.5x Nikon? 1.3x or 1.6x Canon? Other? Which lens? In whatever case, the fisheye effect in that one shows on the horizon is because the horizon is so close to the edge of the frame. I can tell that even in that particular photo if the camera had been tilted to put the horizon across the center of the frame, almost no detectable fisheye effect would be visible. Any lens, if tilted at the proper (or improper) angle to the subject will show distortion (even the best rectilinear lenses will show radical convergence if tilted in relation to various subjects within the view of the lens, with common examples being buildings or door/window frames -- any architecturally "straight" lines present difficulties even for good rectilinear lenses that are designed to minimize linear distortion). And fisheye lenses go way over the top in that respect. But once again, that's what makes them fun for anyone with a bit of creativity. What you perceive as looking bad or having no value, someone else might see as quite striking or even beautiful. It's in the eye of the beholder, clichéish as that might sound.
The point is that the greater the crop factor, the less the effect of the fisheye. The farther you get away from the full fisheye effect the lens would naturally create with a full-frame camera, the more the image starts to look rectilinear rather than fisheye. The fisheye effect doesn't fully go away, but it becomes drastically reduced, so much that in many cases (depending on the angle of the lens and the subject) you can't even recognize the fisheye effect is still there.
No, you're just confused. I'm very familiar with the image producing effect that a non-full frame DSLR has on a full-frame fisheye lens. You're just mistaken.
Unless you can see the curvature of the Earth this easily...
<idiot pete's porn image deleted>
No, I'm not confused Pete. I'm a bit puzzled by your negativity (I can't see one agreeable or friendly statement you've made in the thead), but I'm not confused or mistaken. If anything, we're having a disagreement based on semantics.
In the photo above (if yours) you haven't specified what camera or lens was used. Full frame? (Doesn't look like it, although it's possible depending on the lens.) 1.5x Nikon? 1.3x or 1.6x Canon? Other? Which lens? In whatever case, the fisheye effect in that one shows on the horizon is because the horizon is so close to the edge of the frame. I can tell that even in that particular photo if the camera had been tilted to put the horizon across the center of the frame, almost no detectable fisheye effect would be visible. Any lens, if tilted at the proper (or improper) angle to the subject will show distortion (even the best rectilinear lenses will show radical convergence if tilted in relation to various subjects within the view of the lens, with common examples being buildings or door/window frames -- any architecturally "straight" lines present difficulties even for good rectilinear lenses that are designed to minimize linear distortion). And fisheye lenses go way over the top in that respect. But once again, that's what makes them fun for anyone with a bit of creativity. What you perceive as looking bad or having no value, someone else might see as quite striking or even beautiful. It's in the eye of the beholder, clichéish as that might sound.
varuscelli
10-11-07, 12:59 AM
The horizon would not be nearly as distorted if a wide angle rectilinear lens had been used. Hence my comments about a fisheye image being more distorted.
Furthermore, there is still a fisheye effect as one moves away from the edge of the frame. A fisheye effect that distinguishes a photo taken with a fisheye with a non-full frame camera from a wide angle rectilinear lens, contrary to your claim. As can be seen here:
<idiot pete's porn image deleted>
Even in your last photo example, if you were to tilt the fisheye lens upward a bit to the point that the far end of the lake was more to the center of the frame (horizontally), this photo could be make to be nearly indistinguishable from a rectilinear lens photo. I could take that same camera and lens in that same landscape situation and capture the image in such a way that another person seeing the photo would not be able to easily distinguish it as have been made with a fisheye lens. That's where fisheye lenses can be truly useful as landscape lenses. In this photo, you've either purposefully or accidentally held the camera at such an angle that the water shows more fisheye-based curvature. With practice, you can either accentuate that effect or (in landscapes like this) nearly fully eliminate it because of the very nature of the landscape subject in question. On the bike with a DSLR, as we were originally discussing, the same approach could be taken to produce effective and interesting images, if the camera were mounted and aligned correctly with the horizon. You'd still get some amount of curvature, but it could be easily minimized while maximizing the amount of range covered by the lens.
Based upon my extensive experience with bike-mounted video, using a fisheye produces video that doesn't look very good at all.
What experience with bike mounted video do you have that produces video that is striking or beautiful?
Sorry, man, but what I was talking about was using a fisheye lens from the DSLR the guy had mounted on the bike. I'm not the one who interjected video into the topic. What I was talking about was still photography done in sequence with a lens wider than the guy had mounted to the bike. I make no claim now, nor did I earlier, as a videographer.
Furthermore, there is still a fisheye effect as one moves away from the edge of the frame. A fisheye effect that distinguishes a photo taken with a fisheye with a non-full frame camera from a wide angle rectilinear lens, contrary to your claim. As can be seen here:
<idiot pete's porn image deleted>
Even in your last photo example, if you were to tilt the fisheye lens upward a bit to the point that the far end of the lake was more to the center of the frame (horizontally), this photo could be make to be nearly indistinguishable from a rectilinear lens photo. I could take that same camera and lens in that same landscape situation and capture the image in such a way that another person seeing the photo would not be able to easily distinguish it as have been made with a fisheye lens. That's where fisheye lenses can be truly useful as landscape lenses. In this photo, you've either purposefully or accidentally held the camera at such an angle that the water shows more fisheye-based curvature. With practice, you can either accentuate that effect or (in landscapes like this) nearly fully eliminate it because of the very nature of the landscape subject in question. On the bike with a DSLR, as we were originally discussing, the same approach could be taken to produce effective and interesting images, if the camera were mounted and aligned correctly with the horizon. You'd still get some amount of curvature, but it could be easily minimized while maximizing the amount of range covered by the lens.
Based upon my extensive experience with bike-mounted video, using a fisheye produces video that doesn't look very good at all.
What experience with bike mounted video do you have that produces video that is striking or beautiful?
Sorry, man, but what I was talking about was using a fisheye lens from the DSLR the guy had mounted on the bike. I'm not the one who interjected video into the topic. What I was talking about was still photography done in sequence with a lens wider than the guy had mounted to the bike. I make no claim now, nor did I earlier, as a videographer.
littlewaywelt
10-11-07, 09:34 AM
Interesting! ;)
I'd be a bit concerned about jolting and vibrating the camera over extended periods of time, though.
bingo. that plus the crash risk. Maybe I'd put a little inexpensive point and shoot, but no way I'd stick my dslr up there or even a nice p&s
I'd be a bit concerned about jolting and vibrating the camera over extended periods of time, though.
bingo. that plus the crash risk. Maybe I'd put a little inexpensive point and shoot, but no way I'd stick my dslr up there or even a nice p&s
varuscelli
10-11-07, 10:33 AM
I dunno, Pete. Looks like you're needlessly arguing minor points of semantics. To me, that seems a lot like arguing for the mere sake of arguing -- and topping that off by twisting meanings to suit your own interpretation (even going so far as misusing partial quotes to make it seem as though something other than the actual statement was made). I stand by my points. They're valid.
NOTE: For anyone reading this message after the apparent banning of the person named "Pete," I'm guessing his comments were removed by a good moderator. I'm assuming he was also banned from the Bike Forums. He had also somewhat sabotaged the thread topic by re-linking his previous fisheye images to borderline pornographic images, and I removed those from my previous quotes of his material since it threw the discussion material out of context. It was a pretty sly attempt to screw with the thread after the fact, but something only a very troubled person would do. Hopefully, he has sought out psychiatric help for his hostility and anger management problems.
NOTE: For anyone reading this message after the apparent banning of the person named "Pete," I'm guessing his comments were removed by a good moderator. I'm assuming he was also banned from the Bike Forums. He had also somewhat sabotaged the thread topic by re-linking his previous fisheye images to borderline pornographic images, and I removed those from my previous quotes of his material since it threw the discussion material out of context. It was a pretty sly attempt to screw with the thread after the fact, but something only a very troubled person would do. Hopefully, he has sought out psychiatric help for his hostility and anger management problems.
derath
10-12-07, 11:32 AM
Very, very flexy. Maybe for some very smooth pavement at low speeds but for anything else, it sure looks like the video would be pretty useless.
The video from 00:34-00:38 illustrates my point.
http://www.boomstick360.com/1871795.html
Did you really watch any of them? Sure it isn't 100% solid. But it isn't any worse than the video I have seen from helmet cams or from a cam lashed to the frame(which vibrates plenty too).
The ATV video is quite good, considering the speed and bumpiness of the ride in general
Plus you can get some wicked angles :D
-D
The video from 00:34-00:38 illustrates my point.
http://www.boomstick360.com/1871795.html
Did you really watch any of them? Sure it isn't 100% solid. But it isn't any worse than the video I have seen from helmet cams or from a cam lashed to the frame(which vibrates plenty too).
The ATV video is quite good, considering the speed and bumpiness of the ride in general
Plus you can get some wicked angles :D
-D
derath
10-12-07, 11:33 AM
I dunno, Pete. Looks like you're needlessly arguing minor points of semantics. To me, that seems a lot like arguing for the mere sake of arguing -- and topping that off by twisting meanings to suit your own interpretation (even going so far as misusing partial quotes to make it seem as though something other than the actual statement was made). I stand by my points. They're valid.
I am beginning to believe that is Pete's main reason for being on BF.net, from all of the postings I see.
-D
I am beginning to believe that is Pete's main reason for being on BF.net, from all of the postings I see.
-D
derath
10-12-07, 12:51 PM
Just because I pointed out the shortcomings of a product that you linked to, you shouldn't construe that as some kind of personal attack.
I don't construe it as a personal attack. But I believe your "opinion" that it would be useless outside of super slow super smooth situations is a bit extreme.
I am not saying the video isn't bumpy. But I also don't think it makes the video useless.
You can get the same, or similar, angles with a more robust mounting system and the video will look MUCH better.
Show me. I would contend you will not find anything close in price which would be noticably better. Not to mention that unless you get something with a steadycam style mount, any mount will show bumps. Simply because the mount is attached to the bike it is going to bounce along with the bike.
Maybe you're just pickier than I am. I am not looking for something that will yield ultra professional results. I am looking for something to take some fun video that won't break the bank. A helmet cam is ok, but that POV gets boring fast.
And I believe what most people are picking up in this thread is not WHAT you are saying, but the arrogant "know it all" attitude attached.
-D
I don't construe it as a personal attack. But I believe your "opinion" that it would be useless outside of super slow super smooth situations is a bit extreme.
I am not saying the video isn't bumpy. But I also don't think it makes the video useless.
You can get the same, or similar, angles with a more robust mounting system and the video will look MUCH better.
Show me. I would contend you will not find anything close in price which would be noticably better. Not to mention that unless you get something with a steadycam style mount, any mount will show bumps. Simply because the mount is attached to the bike it is going to bounce along with the bike.
Maybe you're just pickier than I am. I am not looking for something that will yield ultra professional results. I am looking for something to take some fun video that won't break the bank. A helmet cam is ok, but that POV gets boring fast.
And I believe what most people are picking up in this thread is not WHAT you are saying, but the arrogant "know it all" attitude attached.
-D
derath
10-12-07, 01:29 PM
That's funny. How exactly did you go about determining just what most people are "picking up"?
By other replies on this thread and PM's I have received...
-D
By other replies on this thread and PM's I have received...
-D
derath
10-12-07, 01:48 PM
So a few posts and the alleged PMs led you to an understanding of what most people who have viewed this thread are "picking up"?
That's amazing.
I'm gifted that way.
If I was unclear I apologize, I can only infer from what was written, so I was not referring to EVERYONE who might have viewed this thread. But there are only around 5 participants of this thread. And fewer who have been very active in this thread. Of those it I have read enough to come to that consensus.
You do seem to have tons of knowledge on this subject. Where can I find some of your video work? I would enjoy seeing the stability of your alternate mounting options.
-D
That's amazing.
I'm gifted that way.
If I was unclear I apologize, I can only infer from what was written, so I was not referring to EVERYONE who might have viewed this thread. But there are only around 5 participants of this thread. And fewer who have been very active in this thread. Of those it I have read enough to come to that consensus.
You do seem to have tons of knowledge on this subject. Where can I find some of your video work? I would enjoy seeing the stability of your alternate mounting options.
-D
doomkin
10-16-07, 03:22 PM
I've been playing with a variety of different mounting options for my Nikon D200 and 12-24/4 in an attempt to do some road action shots of local alleycats and my time spent has been almost entirely in failure.
The biggest problem is road vibration. Every single bump in the road is transmitted directly into your camera and because you've got to leave the camera in an automatic exposure mode with matrix metering, you have basically no control over exposure. 99% of my shots would look blurry, or blown out, too dark, everything that could go wrong.
The only thing I found to work in the slightest was shooting from the back of a tandem, but let me tell you, it is not easy to keep up during an alleycat shooting from the back of a tandem.
Your best bet for stills via bicycle is hi-res video. Maybe if you can put down enough cash for one of these (http://www.red.com/cameras) you wouldn't have an issue.
http://www.designworldonline.com/uploads/ImageGallery/red_camera.jpg
12M pixel, full frame, 60FPS. Basically any given still could be used as a 20x24 without problem. Also, because it's modular, it wouldn't be difficult to outfit for helmet-mount.
The biggest problem is road vibration. Every single bump in the road is transmitted directly into your camera and because you've got to leave the camera in an automatic exposure mode with matrix metering, you have basically no control over exposure. 99% of my shots would look blurry, or blown out, too dark, everything that could go wrong.
The only thing I found to work in the slightest was shooting from the back of a tandem, but let me tell you, it is not easy to keep up during an alleycat shooting from the back of a tandem.
Your best bet for stills via bicycle is hi-res video. Maybe if you can put down enough cash for one of these (http://www.red.com/cameras) you wouldn't have an issue.
http://www.designworldonline.com/uploads/ImageGallery/red_camera.jpg
12M pixel, full frame, 60FPS. Basically any given still could be used as a 20x24 without problem. Also, because it's modular, it wouldn't be difficult to outfit for helmet-mount.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.