Video RocketryWith the advancements in technology and the fast pace it keeps growing at we are able to do more for less. Because of this we are seeing more people using video in rocketry. Video rocketry can be inexpensive, or it can be really expensive. In this section we will look at some pro's and con's of the different systems and expense. During the 60's, 70's, & 80's video rocketry was very uncommon and only a few did it. With the technology boom in the 90's we got the X-10 Home Security Camera. And with the advent of email, pop-up ads, and spam, thousands of these things were sold. And hundreds of them were stripped and flown, something they weren't designed for. The X-10 home security camera was cheap and by stripping it down and putting it's electronics into a payload section you had an instant video rocket, well almost, it did require a little time and patience. The X-10 doesn't take up a lot of room but the range is only good for 800 to 1000'. People are still using them today and it is an inexpensive way to get into video rocketry. But pen cams that can store video are becoming more popular these days for those who dare to make that first attempt into video rocketry and want to keep costs down. MPEG Cameras :MPEG Cameras are an inexpensive alternative that store the video to a memory chip, and cost around $150 or less. If you go with a MPEG Camera be sure that the camera records at a frame rate of 24 or 30 frames per sec for the best video quality possible. The cheaper MPEG cameras record at a slower frame rate and give you choppy video. Because of the use of a memory chip in these cameras they don't suffer tracking problems from too much vibration. But their pictures can be at a smaller resolution up to as much as 1/2 of a camcorder's. This means the video they produce is better suited for small videos watched on the computer or web site etc... But no good for full size T.V.Mustek makes various mpeg cameras with really good quality at very affordable prices "Pro's" : 1) Inexpensive 2) Unlimited Range 3) No need for ground support equipment. 4) No problems with record heads and tracking like in a camcorder due to vibration. 5) Installation can be pretty straight forward when mounting it in a rocket, no camera with a seperate electronics payload and battery like on a hi power transmitting system. "Cons" : 1) Picture quality will not be as good as a camcorder. 2) Size of picture or video will be about 1/2 of that on a mini DV camcorder. 3) You can't see the flight from an onboard view as it happens like you can with a transmission system. *Note: With HD becoming mainstream some MPEG cameras are really starting to catch up on video quality with some other cameras. Camcorders :Another method has been to use camcorders mounted in the rocket but these where big requiring a bigger rocket to carry them as well as a being a piece of expensive equipment. But the video quality versus the transmission type of systems can't be beat. And camcorders are getting smaller and cheaper all of the time.Camcorders costs $200 and up. Will last for an hour(the length of a mini dv tape) as long as the batteries are charged up good. And you can hook up the camcorder to a computer and grab the video footage later. And they are definitely easier to mount into a rocket versus the transmitting type and require no ground support equipment. Pretty straight forward, and as mentioned before the best video quality possible. "Pro's" : 1) Unlimited Range 2) The best video quality available, period. 3) No need for ground support equipment. 4) Using a camcorder can be pretty straight forward when mounting it in a rocket, no camera with a seperate electronics payload and battery like on a hi power transmitting system. "Cons" : 1) Camcorders can be expensive. 2) You can't see the flight from an onboard view as it happens. 3) If the camera is mounted to close to the motor the tracking of the tape by the recording heads can shift back and forth. This causes "Interference" lines kind of like the tracking being off on a tape in a vcr. And in one known case the vibration destroyed the camera all together. The rocket that did this was burning 7 HPR motors at the same time though. Hi/Lo Power Transmitting Camera Systems :Now let's look at the transmitting type of system. Cost of a hi power 2.4 ghz system with a 10,000' range - $360 so no real savings over the camcorder. The hi power systems also require a minimum of a ham operator's tech license, a $12 - $15 test that you can get from your local ham operators club. And takes up as much room as the camcorder. A low power system can be as low as $75 - $150, takes up less room and comes with up to 4 cameras in some cases.Transmitting systems come with a receiver as well. The receiver has video and audio outputs that need to be hooked up to a monitor or other device to see the picture. Most people will use a camcorder in conjuction with the receiver so they can watch the flight in real time as it happens through the camcorder's LCD screen as well as record the signal for download to a computer later. "Pro's" : 1) You can see the flight from an onboard view as it happens. 2) If the camera is in the right place on the rocket you can have it looking down during most of the flight and watch where the rocket is coming down at. "Cons" : 1) The need for the ham tech license for hi power systems. 2) Generally require more work to mount than a camcorder. 3) You're limited to the transmission range of the equipment being used. 4) You can experience some signal loss or interference, especially with low power systems. 5) The need for ground equipment to get the signal from the receiver. If you use a camcorder with a hi power transmitting system it can get expensive, the video might not be as good as the camcorder, but you have the thrill of watching it as the flight unfolds. The Verdict :For the least expense the MPEG Camera wins that one.For video quality and ease of use the camcorder wins that one. For live, real time, I wanna see it as it happens, you have no choice but to use a transmitting camera system. And in this respect it holds it's own, hands down. So we'll call it a tie. It really depends on what you want the most from your video system on which one to use. Now let's look at some video :Videos 1,2, & 3 are from a 4 camera, low power transmitting system. One of the cameras and a 9volt battery took up a little less room than what the rocket needed for it's Estes E engine. The rocket costs about $20 in materials to build, and the motors come in packs of 3 for $15. The rocket reached an altitude of around 800'The camera system was purchased for $150. #1)"E Meister V" onboard footage. #2)"Blue Bird" on an AT F20 motor to around 1500'. #4)"Widow Maker" onboard footage
#6)Wildfire video #7)Starfire(1st video) Useful Links For Video Rocketry :Getting Started in Video Rocketry - originally published in Sport Rocketry Magazine, written by Jamie Clay.www.videorocketry.com - Jamie Clay's personal website for video rocketry. Between the 2 links above you should be able to get your students into a small, low powered transmitting or MPEG video based rocket. Mr. Clay provides a wealth of information on the low cost systems. And he provides info on some more expensive and advanced stuff such as his Mercury Joe project with several cameras including one inside a Mercury capsule atop the rocket with a G.I. Joe Astronaut onboard. Webcasting - Yes that's right webcasting from a rocket in real time out across the Internet, it is definitely a first in video rocketry! Boostervision - Probably the #1 supplier of low/mid/high power transmitting camera systems on the Internet. |