<snip>
1. I'll take your money.
2. Since now perhaps?
3. If they can build a video camera into a cricket stump, which they
do, and it survives a 95mph hit by a hard ball which fractures the
wood....
4. It's clearly a very small, extreme wide angle lens - almost fisheye
- hence the depth of field.
5. The quality isn't that good - superior surveillance grade.
6. Why would anyone bother to fake it? And if they did, why build in
the faults of a micro-cam?
Andrew Fildes (Who finds ice hockey deeply annoying).
</snip>
I'll add to this ......
1) I'll take your money too.
2) No. Since at least 12 years ago - probably more.
3) Indeed.
4) Yes. Probably not that small (maybe 1 or 2 inches diameter and 4 inches
long ?)
5) Probably about right. Security cameras have been used in the field of
television for years, where the reduced picture quality is offset by the
ability to get a shot that would otherwise not be possible.
6) Agreed.
And why am I so sure of this ? I used to work for these people :
http://www.aerialcamerasystems.com/company.php
When I started there back in 1998, they had been putting Mini-Cameras in Ice
Hockey goals for at least a couple of years. I know for a fact that the
company are heavily involved with the Winter Olympics again this time
around, and if there are TV cameras in the Ice Hockey goals then it is
probably them who put them there. When I was doing it, there was a
Microwave Transmitter on top of the goal, and a receiver in the roof of the
arena. The whole lot was battery-powered. That got around the cable
problems, and players blocking the path of the signal when skating behind
the goal. Changing batteries at half-time was entertaining though ... and
if you weren't off the ice when the players came back on, well - they didn't
take any prisoners !
And as for cricket stumps .... yes. That was me as well. I wasn't the
first (I think that honour falls to the BBC) - but when Aerial Camera
Systems wanted to get into that area, that's what I did. Designed and built
them. The stumps themselves (at least, the ones with the cameras in) were
made from a tube of Carbon Fibre & Kevlar composite. The cameras were
surveillance-type cameras with the lens & CCD detached from the electronics.
Lens poked out of a hole in the stump, camera electronics was mounted in
foam, inside the tube, underneath the lens & ccd. One of these that I made
was on display in the Science Museum in London a few years ago - no idea if
it still is.
You can see some more of my work for the company here :
http://www.aerialcamerasystems.com/cameras_custom.php
The helmet camera was one I made as a prototype for the (failed) XFL
Football League. Photo taken at a University stadium in South Bend, Indiana
if I recall correctly. Taken by me, the model was one of the TV Engineering
crew. Camera & Microwave Transmitter were all built into the Carbon Fibre
"lump" on the helmet. Testing involved us swinging the helmet as hard as
possible into a wall (without the person wearing it !) - the camera in its
housing survived, even when the helmet started to disintegrate. So, these
things can be built tough enough.
Also on that page is a tiny picture of a panning/tilting/zooming mini-camera
that I put on the windscreen of the Norwegian Royal Wedding car a few years
ago. OM content - that photo was taken with my OM-2n ;-)
Bottom left - another tiny photo, but it shows one of the original Ice
Hockey Goal-Cams. I'm sure they've changed a lot since then though ....
Sorry for waffling on. Saw the original post, and thought "ah, at last a
topic I can talk about with some degree of knowledge" !
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Fildes [mailto:afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 21 February 2010 23:25
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] Great Olympics pix
1. I'll take your money.
2. Since now perhaps?
3. If they can build a video camera into a cricket stump, which they
do, and it survives a 95mph hit by a hard ball which fractures the
wood....
4. It's clearly a very small, extreme wide angle lens - almost fisheye
- hence the depth of field.
5. The quality isn't that good - superior surveillance grade.
6. Why would anyone bother to fake it? And if they did, why build in
the faults of a micro-cam?
Andrew Fildes (Who finds ice hockey deeply annoying).
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 22/02/2010, at 9:24 AM, John Hudson wrote:
> I'd put money on image #13 being a fake.
>
> Since when are cameras found at the back of and inside the goal
> netting at
> an ice hockey game?
>
> Was it this game or a previous Canada game when a host of players
> ended up
> inside the netting and the goal was moved across the ice ...... this
> or a
> direct hit with a puck would send a camera right down to John
> Hermanson for
> its last rites.
>
> My take ........... a fancy bit of Photoshopping.
>
> Also, the photo is just too perfect .......... consider the depth of
> field
> from the logo on the puck to the far end boards
>
> jh
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|