[Mike Barrio]

I bought a digital camcorder to play with, a Vivitar, it is an underwater HD camcorder and it was cheap. Great for fishing methinks

Tried it a couple of times now, not underwater yet ... and I find it very poor indeed. Mobile phones take better video than this thing

So ..... what to try next? I've been watching Iain's videos with the Gopro, he seems to just put it on the harness on his head, or on his chest and turn it on ...... and the Gopro takes over and does everything by itself and records what it sees in superb quality!

Is it really that easy with a Gopro Iain, or am I missing something?

Cheers
Mike

[Steven Sinclair]

I (well technically my wife  ) received a Gopro as a xmas present and was meaning to fire off a PM to Ian as to what editing software he uses as his videos are immense! 

I havn't got round to playing with it yet but we are off to Krabi in Thailand on Saturday so really need to get it fired up and have a mess around with it this week as I am hoping able to get some half decent underwater footage etc when we are there.

 

Steven.

[Rob Brownfield]

We use a GoPro at work for some of the POV filming we do for safety training videos. It does its job, but could never be compared to our broadcast cameras, but they are around £20,000 each!

For the money and for what we use the Go Pro for, its spot on.

[Mike Barrio]

The Vivitar has been returned to Currys .... hassle free refund thanks, great service

[Iain Goolager]

The Go -Pro

I don't think that there is anything better for the fisherman at the moment.
Ok, it is not exactly a tiny piece of equipment when compared to the secret agent type sized device that would be handy for us fishermen but then again it's by no means overly huge in it's basic form with waterfproof housing and can be worn on the head via a harness all day without much issue.

There are also a few attachments which can be easily fitted to possibly enhance your days filming/ fishing eg. the battery pack, LCD monitor, flotation pack, etc.

The first two of these IMO all add just that little bit too much weight making head mounting of the Go Pro too much like hard work & as said head mounting is my preferred option. Chest mounting should not be an issue with these add ons.

Even in the confines of the tube changing batteries over is a very basic task so my battery pack has been relegated to the house being used as a battery charger via the mini USB port.

I've never really seen the need for an LCD display either -some form of Wi-Fi monitor, absolutely, but due to the fact that when it's on your head, on your chest or even underwater (were talking on a pole when you are in a boat, on the bank, etc)  then you either won't see it or have it add any real value, you roughly point and shoot and due to the varying wide angle settings available decent capture is almost guaranteed. Have a few test shots though on your preferred mounting style and angle setting so that you have a feel for where the housing should be angled, 'too much sky' looks poor in my opinion.

Video quality is also very good and the rendered file on your PC is really quite amazing.

Editing software.......I use Cyberlink Powerdirector 11, only yesterday I was having a look on the Net to see if there was anything reviewed as better than this but again it is apparently top of the field for the layman, this said I have had a few issues with the program hanging up and apparently this has been noted by a few users and the upshot appears to be that you should have a fairly decent computer system to cope the amount of data that some productions can accumulate.

I'd think there are some very basic and free programs that would work perfectly well if you just wanted to produce a title, some footage and the odd transition.

I'll not change my Go Pro for the slightly smaller and lighter Go-Pro III, hopefully by the time there is a version IV it will be the beast that we are all looking for.

Vivitar, never owned or used one and the fact that they seem the preferred make for home shopping channels would make me steer clear by gut instinct alone, your mention of the video quality seems to confirm my concern.

Iain

[Mike Barrio]

Great feedback thanks Iain .......

Interesting that you prefer the head mount, I thought the chest one would be better for less jerky movement.

Best wishes
Mike

[Iain Goolager]

Get two Mike 

They both have their merits.

Head mounted can cause jerky footage when you are on the move as its natural for us fishermen to be constantly scanning our surroundings but will instantly catch something of interest on the fly without having to physically turn your torso towards the target, once locked onto the point of interest you just keep still, simples. The same can be true if you want to record a trout rising close into your bank without over rotating your body or indeed any other scenario where you want to lock onto something instantly.
Down side for example can be where you cast to a rising trout, see another rise off to the side, naturally turn to look and then the original trout takes the fly and you missed it on film. Jerky footage can also come from the terrain that you are negotiating but I don't see it as a problem as most of this incidental stuff would be deleted unless you are videographing for a specific scene or look.

Chest harness shots are good too but keep everything well clear of its field of view - I recall one outing where I had loads of footage - one half of the screen was the river & the other half was the inside of my jacket flapping around. It can give some really good shots of playing a fish from the rod handle and reel aspect but this does get boring if the whole fight consists of watching you either reel or strip in line while the fish and associated scenery are masked. It is also easier to guarantee a lock onto something with the camera on your head than on your chest.

I carry both harnesses.

Iain

[Rob Brownfield]

Make the shoulder mount, best of both worlds

http://www.goprotutorials.com/gopro-over-the-shoulder-mount/

[Iain Goolager]

I havn't got round to playing with it yet but we are off to Krabi in Thailand on Saturday so really need to get it fired up and have a mess around with it this week as I am hoping able to get some half decent underwater footage etc when we are there.

 

When in hot climes (next to fishing) I just can't get enough snorkelling - the Go-Pro would be fantastic , no, brilliant for that.

Steven,
Have you looked at the underwater dive housing? The videos taken with them on the Go-Pro channel are amazing.

Iain

[Ben Dixon]

Does the GPIII still have the distorted view resulting from the ultra wide angle lens?

Mike, sort of depends upon whether you need it to be shock proof and waterproof really. The Cannon 7D would be perfect if not, takes awesome pics and does broadcast quality HD video too.  Not something you'd really want to get wet or manky though and you'd probably have to change al your camera gear to Cannon!  Does Nikon make a body that will do top quality HD video now that you could use with your existing lenses, that would be an option unless you are looking for something unbreakable as an addition to the armoury.

Cheers

Ben

[Rob Brownfield]

Does Nikon make a body that will do top quality HD video now that you could use with your existing lenses, that would be an option unless you are looking for something unbreakable as an addition to the armoury.

Does not work like that unfortunately. Even though standard Nikon lenses are good, to get HD vid you need an HD lens.

I am just about to buy a Lumix G5 for fishing to replace my G1 and I had the same question, as that body allows full HD video. The answer was that the the lenses will work, but a proper HD lens will always give better results. More noticable in low/strong light or under artificial light.

[Ben Dixon]

Sorry Rob, that's a bit contradictory mate and I'm not quite sure I udnerstand.  Are you you saying that a camera body wil that takes DH video will only do it with a HD spec lens or, that provided the body is up too it then you can use any lense but you will loose some qualitie?

Not that up on camera stuff.


Cheers

Ben

[Rob Brownfield]

Sorry Rob, that's a bit contradictory mate and I'm not quite sure I udnerstand.  Are you you saying that a camera body wil that takes DH video will only do it with a HD spec lens or, that provided the body is up too it then you can use any lense but you will loose some qualitie?

Very simply put, a body is a carrier for a lens. It does nothing more than provide a means of opeening and closing a shutter. It has always been the quality of the lens that gives the image its sharpness. David Baily took many of his photos using an OM10, the simpliest of cameras, but his Lieca lenses were worth thousands.

Modern DSLR's are a little different in that they process the image there and then and can also shoot vid.

So to the lens. an HD lens is made of a higher quality glass. They tend to allow at least double the resolution over SD (standard) lenses and also reduce chromatic aberration by upto 75% (thats colour errors in english).

So, in short, yes, you can use SD lenses on an HD camera, but the quality is not as good as it would be if you used an HD lens. It can be very noticable with low light or high speed subjects.

The analogy I used to use with my students is that its like buying a Ferrari and then sticking remould tyres on it.

Hope that helps...

[Ben Dixon]

Thnaks Rob!!


Ben

[Irvine Ross]

David Baily took many of his photos using an OM10, the simpliest of cameras, but his Lieca lenses were worth thousands.

Are you sure it wasn't an OM1? I had an OM10 for a short while. It was amongst the first of the auto focus SLRs and it ate batteries at an alarming rate. I replaced it with an OM1 which was simpler and more reliable. I still have it, I can't see myself using it again but I am keeping it.

Irvine