What is the preferred Video Goggles?

[JMSTECH]

What is a recommended choice for video goggles (new or used)? What I mean is in terms of price, good viewing angle and resolution. I've read a few reports but am lost in terms of determining what is actually recommended.

Also I was planning to record my video on my Samsung SC-X210L (SD camcord), but will I get better video results connecting my A/V RX to a USB capture card then to my laptop?

Thanks for your time to all who can help me with my questions! :D

[planebane]

Yo! I got 2nd post in the new forum! :D

I know VRFlyer has opinions on this and just got a new pair, Eyetops suck, and I recently posted on some sweet-looking new ones for $350. I'll post the link again if I can.

EDIT: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6578260&postcount=256

[JMSTECH]

Feels great to be one of the first ones to post in our new "play room"! Hey thanks "planebane" for the info, I didn't know of VRFlyer's results ontil you mentioned it! I'll check out your link and thanks again! :)

[JettPilot]

Eyetops suck,



I second that, trying to fly by video only through one eye really sucks. Immagine people listening to thier I-Pods with just one ear peice... They had that back in the 50's, and no one liked it.

Two ears stero changes the whole experience, and now everyone wants an I-Pod. Video goggles with both eyes makes it feel like you are inside the plane, it makes it WAY better than just watching a small screen by your radio or just watching through one eye :D

[AnthonyRC]

I must add one comment on the Eyetops, for FPV flying, I agree, they are completely useless.
For framing shots for AP work, they are ideal however (even though the build quality... well.. it sucks :)

Hey, what am I saying, this is a FPV forum, who cares about AP work :) :) :)

[VRflyer]

Yahoo! My first post in the new forum, I will be here every day now:)
I received the new goggles today and they work very well, I will prepare a completed description of the new headset tonight.

[VRflyer]

This is a new model of headset, the I-Vision 922. This headset is a lot smaller than the I-Glasses (first series) that I use presently for video-piloting. The new headset look very good, with a glossy red paint for the headset and the control box. This headset will certainly catch attention of everyone around…

When I opened the box, I was surprise by all the cables and accessories that come with the headset. All cables are high quality, small and very flexible. The headset can be plug in a variety of components, you choose the right cables and the control box will automatically adjust itself.
Here the specification from the manufacturer:

Display Size: 48 inches, 2m away
Pixels: 640 x 480 (920k pixels), full colour
View angle: 24 degrees (I learn later it's 32 or 34deg)
Video Input: NTSC / PAL format (automatic selection)
Sound function: double channel stereo
Adjustable functions: Volume, Nose Support
Power Input: 5V DC
Power Consumption: 0.6W

EDIT FEBRUARY:THE PRICE IS REDUCE TO $345

Included In The Box:
Control box with built-in lithium battery, AC adapter, USB recharge cable, in-car recharge cable, signal cables

[VRflyer]

And now my impression about the picture:
Wow awesome, bigger and better than expected. I thought with 24 deg of field of view, it should be very small, but it’s not, the picture is bigger than my I-Glasses headset! Also it’s much brighter, but still not enough to be use directly outside, today it was cloudy, I was able to see the picture very well, but with sun, I will put a hat and something around the hat to block the sun. Perhaps it exist an accessories for the headset, an eyecup, I will have news about it later this week. Anyway it will not be a problem for me, I’m use with a lot dimmer picture with my present headset.
The LCD must be “power on” for two minutes for best result. If I compare the picture with my very good 55inc. TV, The colour of the headset are very similar to my TV, tint are exact, more brightness, and less contrast in the headset.
If I stand at 8 feet from the 55inc. TV screen, the size of the headset picture match the size of the TV picture, this is very big for me. The difference in the picture size when I wear my I-Glasses and the I-Vision headset is evident, the I-Vision is bigger, no doubt. But it’s still not the perfection, evidently, a 180 deg field of view will be a dream… but presently, it will work very well. Also the sailor told me the I-Vision picture appear bigger that the present model he sell:
http://www.futurehobbies.com/items_detail.asp?item=82
In the spec the 28deg vision of the old headset should appear bigger than the 24 deg of the I-Vision, but it’s not the case. So for me the spec. will mean nothing in the future.
The resolution of the picture is very good too, I can see tiny detail, and the writing is easily readable on screen. Pixels are very hard to see.
Both eyes must be well aligning with the lens to see clearly, if not, the corner will appear darker.

[VRflyer]

The headset is very light and is very comfortable to wear. It has no strap behind to hold it in place when rapid movement occur, it don’t need it, it hold firmly in place due to is lightweight.
The connector is small and located under the headset. Cable is light so it does not pull too much on the headset but I would prefer if the cables were plug near the ears and go in my back. The headset can be adjusted, a 10 deg tilt movement allow a good position of the picture for better viewing, no other adjustment possible. It’s possible to wear prescription glasses with it as per manufacturer suggestion. To be confirm.
Two earphones are integrated with the headset, they can be removed from their places and use like ordinary earphones.

The control box is very small and light. It houses a lithium battery and powers the goggles for 2.5 hours. Slider switch for powering the unit on the right side. Two buttons for volume on the front. No adjustments possible for colour, tint, brightness and contrast. That is the only point I don’t like… but you know, nothing should be perfect :)
A metal clip on the back so the control box can hold on the pant very strongly. One led for power and one red/green led for charging. One connector on the bottom where to plug any of the accessories cables. And one connector on the left side for recharging. You can also recharge it with the 12V car adapter, or the USB cable, all come with the goggles. Also others cables to plug anything you want :)

Overall, this product inspires quality, and it work like quality unit. I recommend it without hesitation.

Edit: I explain how I made a sunshade here:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=622190

VRflyer

[riosouza]

The glasses look nice.
Keep us posted.

[Quacker]

It's great to know that these work as well as the specification suggests! Where can I get a pair and how much $?

[VRflyer]

It's great to know that these work as well as the specification suggests! Where can I get a pair and how much $?
I forget to say it... Future Hobbies
http://www.futurehobbies.com/products.asp
The picture and description of the headset is not available presently. They will add it this week. You can send an e-mail to them if you are interested for reservation. Probably the first batch they ordered is small. I think the price will be $365.

[planebane]

It's great to know that these work as well as the specification suggests! Where can I get a pair and how much $?They are also available from this Aussie shop for US$350, although the shipping is $45.

http://www.22moo.com.au/i-vision%20922.htm

They carry other models including ones VRFlyer mentioned before:

http://www.22moo.com.au/products.htm

Anyone want to try this model, called the "Argo" - looks even better than the one VRFlyer reviewed: :)

http://www.22moo.com.au/argo+pc.htm

Apparently there are more Argo models coming out soon as well.

[Kilrah]

In the spec the 28deg vision of the old headset should appear bigger than the 24 deg of the I-Vision, but it’s not the case. So for me the spec. will mean nothing in the future.

I guess it's again a question of horizontal or diagonal measurement... the new ones might be horizontal while the old ones are specified diagonal...

Other than this, are brightness / contrast / colors good, as there are no adjustments?

[VRflyer]

I don't think because it's 24 deg diagonal in the spec. of the I-Vision922.
Color, tint brightness very good and well adjusted.

[twinturbostang]

I wonder if the viewing size also depends on the person using the goggles. If the goggles sit closer to your eyes than someone else (due to the shape of the person's face), it seems that would affect the apparent size of the image.

[VRflyer]

I wonder if the viewing size also depends on the person using the goggles. If the goggles sit closer to your eyes than someone else (due to the shape of the person's face), it seems that would affect the apparent size of the image.
No because when I move the goggle one inche away in front of me, the picture size does not change, I can not see all the picture, I lost the corners

[twinturbostang]

Yeah, but just by the fact that it's farther away from you, it should appear smaller. Unless your goggles defy the laws of physics! ;)

[VRflyer]

Yeah, but just by the fact that it's farther away from you, it should appear smaller. Unless your goggles defy the laws of physics! ;)
I see the picture through lens, it's not like watching static picture. The picture size does not change when the head move back.

[kevinhines]

No because when I move the goggle one inche away in front of me, the picture size does not change, I can not see all the picture, I lost the corners
Yeah, but just by the fact that it's farther away from you, it should appear smaller. Unless your goggles defy the laws of physics!
VRFlyer and TwinTurboStang,

Even though I am a newbie to video pilotage, I happen to work as an optical engineering consultant for a living, including designing optics for head mounted displays (HMDs) for the military and for industry, so I feel rather qualified to address this excellent question.

The goggles' lenses, if focussed for the average person, will present an image which is "collimated", which means that the eye is focussed very far away, essentially at infinity, like focussing on the distant stars in the night sky. Thus, the field of view is an angular size, not really a certain number of inches wide at a certain distance, (even though many manufacturers do often quote fields of view as a number of inches or meters wide at some distance).

So, like looking through a pair of well-focussed binoculars, if you move the optics away from your eyes, the angular size of the image does not change, but as VR observed, the edges of the image will start to go dark. Just try this with a pair of binoculars, and you'll see the same effect.

It is equivalent to moving your eyes an inch or so closer or further away from the nightime stars, the angular size of the separations between the stars won't change.

If interested, you can see the types of optical systems I work with at www.CompleteOptical.com.

You guys have helped me alot, with advice about video pilotage, and I'm glad to have a skill which I can share with you.

I hope this explanation makes sense. If not, please let me know, and I'll find a better way to explain this more clearly.

Best Regards,
Kevin

[kevinhines]

PS - I haven't used the goggles being discussed for video pilotage, but I do have a few questions regarding these goggles:

1.-Can the user focus the goggles for their eyes' best focus? For instance, I am slightly near-sighted, so I use eyeglasses for distance viewing, and I would need to slightly refocus the goggles for my eyes' best focus, just like using binoculars. For the (military) head mounted display (HMD) systems I have used, the answer is typically yes, similar to high quality binoculars.

2.-Can the user comfortably wear prescription eyeglasses while using the goggles? For the (military) HMD systems I have used, the answer is sometimes no and sometimes yes, but even with a "yes", it is still a major difficulty to wear eyeglasses with any of the head mounted displays I've ever worked with.

Since I have not used the commercial goggles being discussed for video pilotage, and I have not found such information on the manufacurers' websites, I don't know the answers to these questions.

I'd appreciate any info you can share regarding these two questions and the goggles being discussed for FPV.

Thanks.
Kevin

[Kilrah]

For the many different models I've used so far:
Never seen a set where you could adjust anything in the optics. Some people had problems with one device where the distance between the eyes didn't match, resulting in having always one part (either right, left or both) of the screen that appeared darker.
The focus should not be an issue. The serious (with decent specs) ones (Sony), say they place the virtual image at ~2m distance, not infinity. That's supposed to address the eyeglasses problem, as nearly anybody should see correctly at that distance even if they need eyeglasses. So, they don't need to use them with the goggles. But now, I mught be musinderstanding their data and you might quote me wrong with your previous interesting post.
Other models have nothing stated about the distance, and I've been reported several users using glasses without problems (I don't wear any myself;) ).

The new model I'm supposed to receive shortly (being impatent here ;) ) are supposed to have adjustments, like the distance between eyes. Really look forward to testing them.

[kevinhines]

For the many different models I've used so far:
Never seen a set where you could adjust anything in the optics. Some people had problems with one device where the distance between the eyes didn't match, resulting in having always one part (either right, left or both) of the screen that appeared darker..
Kilrah, You are right, the Intra-Ocular Distance (IOD), i.e., the distance between the left and right eye's pupils, does vary a lot betweeen individuals, by up to approximately 10mm (0.4inch), so having an adjustable intraocular distance would be a nice feature. And as you described, if the IOD of the goggles does not match the user's eyes' IOD closely enough, then a portion of the field of view will be dark for one eye or the other. Binoculars have an adjustable IOD, adjusted by changing the angle between the two binocular halves, and in ths way binoculars can match the user's IOD.

Anyone who's interested: You can see this effect (called "vignetting"), of a portion of the field of view going dark, by looking through a pair of binoculars, and then moving your eye slowly to the side; you will see a portion of the field of view go dark, increasing with the lateral shift of your eye, until eventually the entire field of view goes dark.

The focus should not be an issue. The serious (with decent specs) ones (Sony), say they place the virtual image at ~2m distance, not infinity. That's supposed to address the eyeglasses problem, as nearly anybody should see correctly at that distance even if they need eyeglasses. So, they don't need to use them with the goggles. But now, I mught be musinderstanding their data and you might quote me wrong with your previous interesting post.
Thanks, that's an excellent observation about image distance. The focus distance of ~2m would be acceptable for more than half of the population. Most people have good distance vision, and 2m is distant enough for most people to have a sharp focus.

A person with mild near-sightedness (a.k.a. "myopia"), of say, a far focus point, with no corrective lenses, of 0.5m, would see the image at 2m as somewhat blurry, but not too terribly bad. Someone with mild to severe near-sightedess would benefit from wearing corrective lenses, such as contact lenses or spectacles. Contact lenses would work very well with goggles, but trying to wear spectacles for near-sightedness, while using goggles, would be difficult.

Having a focus adjustment for each eye, as is normally done in binoculars, would be the best way to solve this problem for video goggles.

Other models have nothing stated about the distance, and I've been reported several users using glasses without problems (I don't wear any myself;) ).

The new model I'm supposed to receive shortly (being impatent here ;) ) are supposed to have adjustments, like the distance between eyes. Really look forward to testing them.
Kilrah, I'd very much like to know what adjustments (focus and IOD) the goggles you mentioned have. Especially the focus adjustment.

As I myself have mild nearsightedness and thus I wear spectacles for distance viewing, I'd really like to find goggles with a focus adjustment.

Kilrah, thanks for sharing your observations and thoughts on this topic.

Best Regards,
Kevin

[AndyOne]

...As I myself have mild nearsightedness and thus I wear spectacles for distance viewing, I'd really like to find goggles with a focus adjustment...

It seems that there isn't such a thing as LCD video goggles with adjustable focus. Being of an age where I can't focus up close any longer, I made my own solution to adjusting the focus. I took a pair of cheap off-the-shelf reading glasses and cut them down and removed the lenses. I ground the edges to a kind of point and wedged them in to the rubber eye cups, it works perfectly for me and I don't have to mess around with glasses on the field.

Andy.

[PeteSchug]

Thanks AndyOne.

I will probably give that a try on at least one of my older goggles.

Pete

[VRflyer]

Future hobbies add the new headset on their webstore:
http://www.futurehobbies.com/items_detail.asp?item=117

The specification are different from the spec I give in my first post about the new headset, the viewing angle is 32 deg diagonal, not 24 deg like I said, it explain why the picture appear bigger to me than 24 deg.

I forgot to say, the earphone does not hold in my ears... it's not very important and probably others peoples will don't have problems with that.

[Kilrah]

And as you described, if the IOD of the goggles does not match the user's eyes' IOD closely enough, then a portion of the field of view will be dark for one eye or the other.

It seems the Sony have more room for error in their optics, that is you'll still see the screen well even if you offset the goggles by ~5mm each side. That accounts for those differences. Some early Chinese models had absolutely none, so if you didn't have the IOD they had chosen the set would be unusable (happened with one, I ended selling them to a friend who was more "regular" :p )


Kilrah, I'd very much like to know what adjustments (focus and IOD) the goggles you mentioned have. Especially the focus adjustment.

I'm still eagerly waiting to receive them :(

[AndrésMtnez]

I'm still eagerly waiting to receive them :(


Be patient, the Three Wise Men are on their way :D


Sorry, I couldn´t resist. I will probably buy my first goggles on february (if there´s enough money ;) ) and altought I´m saving for the same Z800 as you I´d love to hear opinions of people with experience with other goggles who may compare them, so your opinion will be greatly apreciated. Basically I´ll buy them only if you like them :p



Andres

[VRflyer]

It seems the Sony have more room for error in their optics, that is you'll still see the screen well even if you offset the goggles by ~5mm each side. That accounts for those differences. Some early Chinese models had absolutely none, so if you didn't have the IOD they had chosen the set would be unusable (happened with one, I ended selling them to a friend who was more "regular" :p )

The I-Vision don't have adjustment for IOD, and effectively you need to have the "standard" IOD the manufacturer had choose... I must place the I-Vision on my nose exactly at the good spot to see clearly both screens, my I-Glasses had not this problem. But the I-Vision are very light, when they are at the good spot, they don't slip from there even if I move the head fast, so it will work ok for me. I like the lightest of the headset, the luminosity and big picture. Yesterday under sunlight with only a hat, I was able to see the picture, but reflection from my face on the screen was irritating, so I need a sunshade, no doubt. With my I-Glasses, I see nothing under sunlight if I don’t add a dark sunshade. When I remove the I-Glasses, it’s like coming out of a theatre, it’s not easy to kept eyes open. Imagine if the video fail in flight and I remove the headset, it will be easier when I will removed the new headset.

[riosouza]

I finally got my Z800 goggle. :D
I loved it, awesome, very lightweight, 40 degrees of FOV is better than my old 28 degrees, sharppier image, deep colors, band around and top of the head, adjustment for IOD and $549.00 USD with Blazing Angels program and a P5 Virtual Reality Gloves. :p
Highly recomended.
It has 2 bad points:
1- It needs an scaler, in order to use for FPV.
2- It does not have an eyes cup, but a piece of X-ray fogged film turns out to be a good visor for the goggles.
Thumbs Up to Z800. :)

[Quacker]

Specs on the Z800?

[Kilrah]

http://www.cwonline.com/store/view_product.asp?Product=1296

[PeteSchug]

Can the head tracking be adapted to our needs?

I realize there is no tilt, but can the pan head tracking be used in any reasonable way to drive a channel in the tx?

Pete

[Kilrah]

No, unless you want to use a laptop on the field that will read the data, process it and send it to the R/C TX via a dedicated interface. Or, you might want to design an embedded computer including a USB host you could connect it to ;)

[VRflyer]

Kilrah, do you received your Z800?

[twinturbostang]

So it seems from recent reviews that the I-Vision 922 and Z800 are possibly the two best headsets out there now. But does anyone have both (or have used both) goggles? I'm curious how they compare to each other side by side.

[riosouza]

So it seems from recent reviews that the I-Vision 922 and Z800 are possibly the two best headsets out there now. But does anyone have both (or have used both) goggles? I'm curious how they compare to each other side by side.


I don't have both, only an Inovatek and Z800.
But no doubt Z800 is far better than I-vision.
By the specs you can tell how big the difference is.

I-Vision:
Display Size: 48 inches, 2m away
Pixels: 640 x 480 (920k pixels), full colour
View angle : 24 degrees
Video Input: NTSC / PAL format
Sound function : double channel stereo
Adjustable functions: Volume, Nose Support
Power Input : 5V DC
Power Consumption : 0.6W

Z800 3DVisor:
Viewing Equivalent 105 inch diagonal movie screen viewed at 3m away
View Angle ~ 40 deg diagonal FOV
Resolution (SVGA – 800 x 600 triad pixels per display 1.44 megapixels)
Number of Colors 24-bit color for more than 16.7 million
Stereovision Automatic detect of frame-sequential stereovision data Renders 2D or 3D video
Weight (display set) <8 oz ( <227 g)
Power Supply USB or 5V DC regulated
Signal Input Mode RGB Signal Input (PC D-Sub) 24 bit per pixel color
Audio Output Attached stereo sound


The specs talks by itself. :)

[Helnet]

I looked the manufactured spec and they are powered with USB port. How can we powered the Z800 to our purpose?

[4mla1fn]

with something like this (http://www.thinkgeek.com/clearance/8900/)? or you can just tap into the power and ground (http://www.riccibitti.com/pc_therm/USB_A_pinout.jpg) pins using an adapter.

[Kilrah]

Kilrah, do you received your Z800?

Nah :(

But while there was still some hope my postman would show up with them I did a few comparison shots of all the goggles I have here laying around to compare FOV's.

I've simply photographed inside the goggles with a DVD picture displayed. The shots can't really be used to compare image quality (with that low illumination I needed long exposure times so it can be a bit artificially blurry) , but at least the FOV is correctly represented.

There are 4 models so far:
- Those sold as Rimax, Innovatek and the endless other brands, 320x240 and 640x480 models
- Sony PLM-A35
- Sony PLM-S700

I'll add the Z800s once they are here...

For repeatability and if some want to add their contribution, the shots have been taken with a 36mm equivalent focal in 35mm.

[PeteSchug]

Nice idea Kilrah.

Pete

[VRflyer]

Effectively by the spec, Z800 look better. But the diagonal on the I-Vision(24deg) is not true, it look like 34deg. The Z800 picture will appear bigger. But at 34 deg, it's already big enough to fly confortably. I fly since 6 years with 28 deg goggles (I-Glasses)
The I-Vision cost $395 at Future hobbies and ready to use. Z800 cost $549 and you will need a converter, so total cost will be $549 + $40-50 for converter + 2 shipping cost.

Both headset have advantages and are good. I think the price is important. Z800 is not a model for beginner.
Z800 will be very attractive when a video version will be available, I will buy one for sure.

Also you can see Future hobbies sell the headset $395, and you can found a link in this thread to another store for $350. Future hobbies is locate in USA, The second store is located in Australia. You will need to pay $45 for the shipping from Australia, and you will perhaps also have to pay custum charge (if it work like us in Canada for order from another country). Future hobbies, the shipping will be less expensive and no custum charge. This explain why the price is higher at Future hobbies.
P.s. I don't work for Future hobbies, I just evaluated their headset and had a good price on it, but if the headset was not good, I would return it.

[twinturbostang]

Are they working on a video version? That was a real bummer for me to see that it had VGA input only. Not only do you have to purchase a converter. But it's also one more component you have to lug with you to the field, and power it too! The fact that the I-Vision has a lithium battery is very nice! With all kinds of wires and stuff running all over the place, anything you can do to eliminate some of them is a big plus.

[VRflyer]

Are they working on a video version? That was a real bummer for me to see that it had VGA input only. Not only do you have to purchase a converter. But it's also one more component you have to lug with you to the field, and power it too! The fact that the I-Vision has a lithium battery is very nice! With all kinds of wires and stuff running all over the place, anything you can do to eliminate some of them is a big plus.
Agree, more you have battery to check, more wire you have to plug, more chance you have to make mistake. It's why I made a easy to use system, I'm the kind of guy who forget easily :)

[4mla1fn]

the z800 has a built-in head-tracker. anyone know anything about how that works or could be made to output ppm? i realize that i-vision + trackR1 ~= $549 so there'd be no savings...at least for now. there is an appeal of an all-in-one solution; one less device to leave behind for use forgetful people. :)

[Kilrah]

Can the head tracking be adapted to our needs?

I realize there is no tilt, but can the pan head tracking be used in any reasonable way to drive a channel in the tx?

Pete

No, unless you want to use a laptop on the field that will read the data, process it and send it to the R/C TX via a dedicated interface. Or, you might want to design an embedded computer including a USB host you could connect it to...

...

[4mla1fn]

oops. :o

[AndrésMtnez]

Effectively by the spec, Z800 look better. But the diagonal on the I-Vision(24deg) is not true, it look like 34deg. The Z800 picture will appear bigger. But at 34 deg, it's already big enough to fly confortably. I fly since 6 years with 28 deg goggles (I-Glasses)

[...]

Both headset have advantages and are good. I think the price is important. Z800 is not a model for beginner.


Good point, I think we need someone with both headsets to compare face to face :D


It´s the first time I disagree with you, why are the z800 not recommended for begginers? I think that if you have bigger fov, and better resolution, you can evaluate much better distances, height and speed, and that always is good, much more for a begginer.

But I agree on the rest, expensive, more devices to connect or break. And probably the better resolution wouldn´t be appreciable with the most common cameras we use. Did I mention they are expensive?


Now I think it´s better for me I can´t afford a headset until february :D

[Kilrah]

I guess that by "beginner" he means it might be an expensive purchase for a first try. If you're sure you want to get seriously into this that might be worth it, but it would be a shame leaving that amount of money in the drawer ;)

[PeteSchug]

I guess that by "beginner" he means it might be an expensive purchase for a first try. If you're sure you want to get seriously into this that might be worth it, but it would be a shame leaving that amount of money in the drawer ;)

If you've been doing this a while you can't help leaving a certain amount of expensive gear in the drawer. Someone wanted to buy my eyetops and I didn't want to sell him something he'd use once and be sorry he bought.

I guess my spare goggles will wind up giving "passengers" a ride now and then.

Pete

[Kilrah]

Do you think I still use the PLM-A35 I photographed above? ;)
I've also told myself I'd never let my PLM-S700 go anywhere else either. Even when they won't be the best ones anymore, they'll still be a very fine piece of equipment you rarely see manufacturers put that much detail into. I mean, adjustable see-through opacity... which is even separated in 2 zones, which allows you to choose if you want the background of the screen to always stay dark or if you want it to follow the rest of the surrounding.
I've always admired how Sony have made such beautiful engineering pieces, when that was pretty clear they wouldn't sell a lot of them. They've only made about 10'000 PLM-S700 sets. Of course, selling them over $3000 wouldn't attract every guy in the street.

To get back to the subject, yes, "If you've been doing this for a while". But if you just buy a set of goggles to give it a try without being sure you like it, it might be a bit too much...

I know, you're supposed to hang to the activity anyway, but we never know :o

[AndrésMtnez]

I guess that by "beginner" he means it might be an expensive purchase for a first try. If you're sure you want to get seriously into this that might be worth it, but it would be a shame leaving that amount of money in the drawer ;)

In that case, I totally agree :)

Sorry Dennis, I will never distrust you again :D


Although..... do you think it´s possible someone give a try to FPV and don´t like it? I don´t think that may be possible :p

[twinturbostang]

Although..... do you think it´s possible someone give a try to FPV and don´t like it? I don´t think that may be possible :p
If the person gets motion sickness, then perhaps! :)

[Kilrah]

Well, there are some that I haven't convinced yet... It seems like the "older" generation is usually pretty happy to stick with the good'ole and simple way of flying ;) :p

[VRflyer]

Kilrah was right, I mean they are too expensive to attract newbies, and also not easy to use because of the converter, too many wire and battery.

[AndrésMtnez]

Agree, sorry for the confusion :)

[rcrick]

Hello Guys,
What do you think about this stuff? The headset has the reciever built in. I'm not sure about the specs. I would have a cmos camera unless they have improved a bunch. They do offer a ccd camera and 100mw system. The videos don't show any drop outs. Is it that good or are they just editing them out? They have the two little vertical whips on the headset. Wouldn't that make it more directional?


http://www.gowiththeshark.com/index.html

[PeteSchug]

Well, there are some that I haven't convinced yet... It seems like the "older" generation is usually pretty happy to stick with the good'ole and simple way of flying ;) :p

Hey, watch it bud. I'm sixty-nine!

Of course we did have an old fogey a while back who kept saying, "Naughty, Naughty."

Maybe that's who you are talking about?

My attitude is: Okay, I got the goggles, I got the head tracking, now what's next?

Well, I already know. For me it's on screen data display.

Pete

[riosouza]

I looked the manufactured spec and they are powered with USB port. How can we powered the Z800 to our purpose?


The Z800 can powered by any 5v USB portable battery, like this one.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ShowImage.asp?Image=55%2D998%2D033%2D03%2Ejpg%2C55 %2D998%2D033%2D04%2Ejpg%2C55%2D998%2D033%2D05%2Ejp g%2C55%2D998%2D033%2D02%2Ejpg&CurImage=55%2D998%2D033%2D03%2Ejpg&Description=macally+External+Li%2Dion+Battery+for+ iPod+devices+Model+IP%2DA481+%2D+Retail

[riosouza]

Are they working on a video version? That was a real bummer for me to see that it had VGA input only. Not only do you have to purchase a converter. But it's also one more component you have to lug with you to the field, and power it too! The fact that the I-Vision has a lithium battery is very nice! With all kinds of wires and stuff running all over the place, anything you can do to eliminate some of them is a big plus.


Well, I agree more battery plugs, and plus video scaler, it means more weight.
But also if your are a computer person, kind like to play computer games, like First Person Shooter, driving...Or better, here is what I do with my Z800, I use to fly with a Microsoft Flight Simulator X, so I can use my Futaba radio as a joystick and use virtual cockpit with a headtracker and voalaaaa, FPV fligh, does not metter it's raining, snowing or dark out side, I can have my flight done any time !!! :D

[VRflyer]

It should be very cool with Microsoft simulator.
(Et voilà!)

[riosouza]

Here is a picture taken from my Z800 with a video playing on WM, it could be better quality if I was not using an 380TVL camera, for sure it will loog much better on a 480tvl sony. :cool:

[riosouza]

Here is another Picture, flying with Flight Simulator X Flying above Rio de Janeiro Brazil, using the Z800 head Tracker with virtual cockpit awesome!!! :D

[Kilrah]

Hey, watch it bud. I'm sixty-nine!


I know! That's why I said "usually" :D

Still no Z800, but some new 520 line cameras will be on the bench in a couple of hours :p
A good combo? we'll see ;)

[riosouza]

Still no Z800, but some new 520 line cameras will be on the bench in a couple of hours :p
A good combo? we'll see ;)

For sure a great combo, 520Tvl camera is much better, I just don't know if the video transmitter can handle that resolution. !?
I know 480Tvl works great , in fact I'm waiting on my sony 480 camera, let's see.
Does anyone know if the video transmitters have resolution limitation? :cool:

Take care guys.

[twinturbostang]

Does anyone know if the video transmitters have resolution limitation? :cool:

Take care guys.
It transmits an NTSC signal (or PAL in some cases). So I'm guessing you're bound by the resolution of those formats.

[Mr.Pibb]

It transmits an NTSC signal (or PAL in some cases). So I'm guessing you're bound by the resolution of those formats.

I wonder if they can go higher resolution. They seem to just modulate whatever signal is input and then spit it out on the other side. I noticed that some said they could do all formats including "digital" video formats. Now, that said, I'm not sure what other format you could send using a single signal. Maybe you could use three different wireless channels to do RGB? :D
It would be nice to have 800x600 video to match the high resolution goggles!

[PeteSchug]

I wonder if they can go higher resolution. They seem to just modulate whatever signal is input and then spit it out on the other side. I noticed that some said they could do all formats including "digital" video formats. Now, that said, I'm not sure what other format you could send using a single signal. Maybe you could use three different wireless channels to do RGB? :D
It would be nice to have 800x600 video to match the high resolution goggles!

As soon as we get it someone is going to come out with hi def. ;)

Pete

[Kilrah]

The greatest limitation is the source, i.e camera.

It transmits an NTSC signal (or PAL in some cases). So I'm guessing you're bound by the resolution of those formats.

That's what your camera gives you, so well... the bandwidth of a video signal is about 8MHz. As long as your transmitter has a higher one (I've often seen 12MHz) the signal should not be altered. That's providing you have a good RF path of course ;)

The transmitter will indeed transmit whatever you give it. However, there's no higher definition video standard that uses a single signal. You'd need at least component video with 3 signals if you want to stay analog. Of course, the bandwidth would be higher, and that wouldn't fit anymore what the transmitters have been designed to expect.

[PeteSchug]

The greatest limitation is the source, i.e camera.



That's what your camera gives you, so well... the bandwidth of a video signal is about 8MHz. As long as your transmitter has a higher one (I've often seen 12MHz) the signal should not be altered. That's providing you have a good RF path of course ;)

The transmitter will indeed transmit whatever you give it. However, there's no higher definition video standard that uses a single signal. You'd need at least component video with 3 signals if you want to stay analog. Of course, the bandwidth would be higher, and that wouldn't fit anymore what the transmitters have been designed to expect.

The source is the first limitation, but I have never been able to record my source and have it look as good as it does on a good monitor. For me the bottleneck is the quality of recording I have been able to do.

Sad to say, I don't have 800 by 600 goggles, (yet) but I do like to get a good recording of my flights, just in case anything interesting happens.

Pete

[Mr.Pibb]

The source is the first limitation, but I have never been able to record my source and have it look as good as it does on a good monitor. For me the bottleneck is the quality of recording I have been able to do.

Sad to say, I don't have 800 by 600 goggles, (yet) but I do like to get a good recording of my flights, just in case anything interesting happens.

Pete
What are you recording with? If I record anything with my camcorder it comes out looking great, but the first time I compress it with ANY codec it loses the fluid motion of the original video. I have an older Sony camcorder that records to Digital 8 tapes, pretty much the same quality as mini DV. I'm assuming folks that are recording to things like the archos units that use divx compression are losing a lot of the original quality of the video.

OK, I guess this is off topic... :D

[PeteSchug]

What are you recording with? If I record anything with my camcorder it comes out looking great, but the first time I compress it with ANY codec it loses the fluid motion of the original video. I have an older Sony camcorder that records to Digital 8 tapes, pretty much the same quality as mini DV. I'm assuming folks that are recording to things like the archos units that use divx compression are losing a lot of the original quality of the video.

OK, I guess this is off topic... :D

I am recording with a Sony DV camcorder. If I run the same signal to a portable DV player that has a monitor mode the image is noticeably sharper than what the Sony can get. This is from my KX141 camera, which has a 480 line resolution.

What the camera captures is not bad, but it is not as good as what I know is there. All I have to do is look at a monitor image of the raw signal and I get unhappy. I can try a very high quality camcorder but I'd have to lug all my gear to where I can use the camera. This is not as easy as it sounds since none of my gear is home!

Pete

[JMSTECH]

When I first starting investigating into this FPVing. I had mentioned to VRFlyer on October 06, about using a Mega Pixel video Camera. A CCD camera is broadcasting approx 7XX 000 pixels. A mega pixel cam would go 1 million to 4 million pixels. The quality is unreal and zooming into a image is also truely amazing. Mega pixel video cameras could zoom into the distance and read tiny background things like license plate numbers! The bad part is I haven't seen a mega pixel video camera under a few thousand USD as of yet. I was told it will be cheaper this year, so it's something worth investigating.

I've seen a video made by a guy name Sergio of southern Spain. He is using a Sony 480 TVL camera and is recording straight into his portable Sony DVD writer which he purchased @ Ebay for about $100.00 USD. His DIVX video is the sharpest I've seen! I can see the round styrofoam marks on his Easystar wings! He claims it the cheap Sony DVD writer along with the right afternoon sunlight that allows him to record with such high quality, so worth looking into.
http://www.rc-cam.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1066&st=100

JMS

[JettPilot]

I record my video directly into my Sony Mini DV tape camcorder and the quality is awesome. When I watch the video on a 60 inch HDTV it looks great, no complaints at all :) The video also looks DVD quality on the initial capture the raw AVI file on my computer ( 12 Gigabytes). The quality goes down a lot when I compress it to a usable size to save on the computer :( The quality really sucks when I load it onto You Tube and they compress it even further :mad: By the time you guys see the videos, its only a shadow of what it once was....

I am using a Sony KPC-650 camera and the quality of the image and the colors is incredible. Way better than a cheaper camera I have with the same number of lines. There is way more to cameras than lines of resolution. The color and contrast that a camera is capable of is just as important as the Lines. The Sony KPC-650 is kind of big, but it is the best I have found so far.

Posting is DIVX would help a lot, but most people cannot easily download, or even play DIVX without codecs, so I dont bother.

JettPilot

[JettPilot]

The field of view on video goggles is HUGELY IMPORTNAT for FPV video flying. I have several pairs of video goggles, old Sony Glasstrons with like 340,000 pixels and also I glasses with 1,300,000 pixels. Even though the I-Glasses have much better resolution, the image looks small and it sucks to fly by them. Its possible to fly by them with no problem, but it sucks after you try something with a bigger FOV. When given a choice, everyone including myself uses the Sony A-55 Glasstrons just because the image looks so much bigger.

Picture sitting in a room watching a 19 inch TV, that is the I-Glasses, you could watch the movie, but it kind of sucks. Now picture being in a theater, you have this huge picture, and its a vastly better experience. Same goes for flying by Video Goggles, having a huge image makes it so much better. I am very anxious to try the Z-800 glasses ! If the image is as big as everyone claims, the Z-800 would be well worth the higher price.

JettPilot

[VRflyer]

I tried yhe I-Glasses 800x600 and effectively, the picture is very small, my I-Glasses 640x480 have bigger picture.

[Kilrah]

There is way more to cameras than lines of resolution. The color and contrast that a camera is capable of is just as important as the Lines.

Thanks! Not enough people seem to realise that :(

[VRflyer]

When I watch the KX131 directly plug to a tv, the quality is awesome. If I want to record high quality video, I will use any standard VHS and the quality of the video will beat even the video make in Spain in high resolution. The video that I record 6 years ago on VHS are still my best video, but I can't show this quality, I must transfer it in digital for edition.
If we use high resolution analog camera, we always need to convert it to digital, we always lost quality. The analog to digital converter is very important if someone want to kept the best quality, it's more important than the camera.

[JMSTECH]

When I watch the KX131 directly plug to a tv, the quality is awesome. If I want to record high quality video, I will use any standard VHS and the quality of the video will beat even the video make in Spain in high resolution. The video that I record 6 years ago on VHS are still my best video, but I can't show this quality, I must transfer it in digital for edition.
If we use high resolution analog camera, we always need to convert it to digital, we always lost quality. The analog to digital converter is very important if someone want to kept the best quality, it's more important than the camera.


Then is there a solution in transfering analog to digital with minimal lost? Or are we still behind on that technology?

[PeteSchug]

Then is there a solution in transfering analog to digital with minimal lost? Or are we still behind on that technology?

The two problems are the resolution of the A to D converter and how often you can sample the analog signal. I wish the manufacturers would give us those specs so we could make intellegent decisions, but so far, everything is trial and error. Mostly error.

Pete

[Kilrah]

I don't agree. The thing is that the low resolution and CRT display of a TV will "fake" good quality. Those have a very good ability to hide imperfections. You can see that when you watch a compressed movie on your TV, it will look correct while it might be pretty crappy on a PC screen that has a way higher resolution than the video itself and thus shows every little imperfection.

My analog capture card gives very good results, the limit is the camera. I can assure you that recording a bit off a VHS tape will be much worse than even a 380 line camera (if I remember well, VHS stores up to 330).

It's the display device that counts more here.

[PeteSchug]

I don't agree. The thing is that the low resolution and CRT display of a TV will "fake" good quality. Those have a very good ability to hide imperfections. You can see that when you watch a compressed movie on your TV, it will look correct while it might be pretty crappy on a PC screen that has a way higher resolution than the video itself and thus shows every little imperfection.

My analog capture card gives very good results, the limit is the camera. I can assure you that recording a bit off a VHS tape will be much worse than even a 380 line camera (if I remember well, VHS stores up to 330).

It's the display device that counts more here.

Hi Kilrah,

I never look at a television. The only video devices I have are my computer screens and a couple of portable DVD players. My best computer screen has around 2000 pixels across. (24 inch iMac, totally spectacular)

I have no analog equipment at all except a very old TV that I don't watch and an old Sony VCR that uses 8mm (or whatever it is) tapes that I also no longer use.

I don't watch TV at all, I have hundreds of DVD's and my own videos, and that is it. I see every imperfection and of my own equipment it looks like the weak link is my Sony Camcorder Analog to Digital conversion. The straight analog signal going into my portable DVD player is better than the Sony can record. In other words, the A to D in the DVD player (since it has an LCD screen) is better than the A to D in the camcorder _or_ the recording media itself is not up to the task.

I am saving my TV until I can sell it as an antique. ;) It only gets channels 2 to 13 and the picture is green for the first minute you turn it on. I haven't used it for several years.

All that said, what are you using as an analog capture card, and do they make an NTSC version?

Pete

[twinturbostang]

I disagree that the A-D conversion causes substantial loss of quality. Well, if you're using substandard equipment, then yes, this could happen. However, the majority of the loss of quality that we see is during the encoding process that is necessary in making the file sizes manageable and able to be uploaded for distribution. Encoding to .wmv, .mpg, .mov, etc. causes quite a loss of detail. In addition, those that choose to upload videos to YouTube, GoogleVideo, etc. suffer from even more quality loss. It's so bad in fact, that I don't even use those services anymore. They take nice looking videos and make them look like :censored:

To prove my point, here is a very short clip for a FPV recording on my TwinStar from yesterday. It has obviously been converted to digital format. BUT, I kept it in a raw, uncompressed, .avi format. It's a big file though. 33MB for 8 seconds. :D But you can see LOTS of detail. Very high quality. BTW, this is with the KPC-S226 camera (380 line), and originally recorded to a miniDV camcorder. MiniDV may be less convenient because of the added step of capturing the video to computer. But it has by far the best quality that I've seen. Aside from HDTV of course. ;)

http://www.twinturbostang.com/rc/TwinStar_clip.avi

[Mr.Pibb]

I disagree that the A-D conversion causes substantial loss of quality. Well, if you're using substandard equipment, then yes, this could happen. However, the majority of the loss of quality that we see is during the encoding process that is necessary in making the file sizes manageable and able to be uploaded for distribution. Encoding to .wmv, .mpg, .mov, etc. causes quite a loss of detail. In addition, those that choose to upload videos to YouTube, GoogleVideo, etc. suffer from even more quality loss. It's so bad in fact, that I don't even use those services anymore. They take nice looking videos and make them look like :censored:

To prove my point, here is a very short clip for a FPV recording on my TwinStar from yesterday. It has obviously been converted to digital format. BUT, I kept it in a raw, uncompressed, .avi format. It's a big file though. 33MB for 8 seconds. :D But you can see LOTS of detail. Very high quality. BTW, this is with the KPC-S226 camera (380 line), and originally recorded to a miniDV camcorder. MiniDV may be less convenient because of the added step of capturing the video to computer. But it has by far the best quality that I've seen. Aside from HDTV of course. ;)

http://www.twinturbostang.com/rc/TwinStar_clip.avi

That video shows what I've seen as well. Raw uncompressed (or DV format) Avi files yield a much better sense of motion, even if the resolution isn't great. Once you start compressing it, it loses motion, contrast, color, etc.

I also agree about the comment regarding what you are viewing the picture on. A standard definition video viewed on a large high definition TV will probably be perceived to be worse on the large HDTV (or PC monitor). The smaller screen and lower resolution of most standard definition screens tends to mask imperfection. Just scale any video down to 1/2 its original size while viewing it verses enlarging it to 200%. The small video window may "look" better even though you can't see any more detail.

To keep things on topic, this same effect may show up with video goggles as well. Large high resolution screens may not make the picture look any better, although they may have a positive effect of filling the field of view more.

[tomp]

The Consumer Electronics Show starts this Sunday (Jan 7th). I'm hoping that there will be some new goggles announced (as well as some portable video recorders).

Here's two to whet your appetite:

Headplay
http://www.uberreview.com/2007/01/headplay-head-mounted-personal-cinema-system.htm/

Microvision (probably useless to FPV, but what a cool product!)
http://www.uberreview.com/2007/01/microvision-unveils-tiny-digital-projector.htm/
According to Microvisions' website, they will be coming out with goggles someday.

tom

[Kilrah]

what are you using as an analog capture card, and do they make an NTSC version?


I use the Pinnacle PCTV100e USB2 box, and I'm very happy with it. The only thing is to throw away that awful piece of software full of limitations asking to pay extra for functionalities that are the minimum you'd expect, and replace it with free software that are way simpler and do the job MUCH better.

It supports both PAL and NTSC, as do most PC video interfaces.

A standard definition video viewed on a large high definition TV will probably be perceived to be worse on the large HDTV (or PC monitor).
Just go in a TV shop and watch the many TV models they put on display. Usually the demo source is a simple DVD, and the image quality is just utter :censored: whatever the TV is, even the multi thousand $ Full HD model. Unless you have an HD source, which is not the case at my place, it's just no use buying one. If I had to change TV right now I'd definitely get myself a good 2nd hand CRT and wait a couple more years before upgrading (with downscaled prices by then too...)

[kevinhines]

Microvision (probably useless to FPV, but what a cool product!)
http://www.uberreview.com/2007/01/microvision-unveils-tiny-digital-projector.htm/
According to Microvisions' website, they will be coming out with goggles someday...tom
Tom, good point about Microvision, thanks for mentioning them.

Microvision www.microvision.com already sells goggles, and has done so at least since 2001. However, their current offerings may not be well suited for the hobby price range. And their biggest seller, Nomad, www.microvision.com/miloverview.html, is a monocular, so only one eye sees the image.

The way Microvision systems display the imagery is truly revolutionary, in that there is no screen (i.e., no CRT and no LCD). Instead, low-intensity, eyesafe laser beams are scanned directly into the user's eyes' pupils, with one resulting benefit of potentially brighter imagery, viewable even while in direct sunlight... if the laser power is high enough. With three lasers, i.e. a red, a green and a blue laser, some of the Microvision HMDs (Head Mounted Displays) have full color imagery. These full color systems typically cost thousands of dollars, and are targeted at military & industrial customers.

I have done work for Microvision, it's a very cool company. I loved working with them. I designed the lens systems for some of their HMDs, as an optical design engineering consultant. But please understand I am not a camera engineer nor a display engineer; those are their own specialties. We are all so specialized. :rolleyes:

Microvision's technology is very cool. :) I'd love to own a (hobby-priced) Microvision pair of goggles.

Kevin

[PeteSchug]

I disagree that the A-D conversion causes substantial loss of quality. Well, if you're using substandard equipment, then yes, this could happen. However, the majority of the loss of quality that we see is during the encoding process that is necessary in making the file sizes manageable and able to be uploaded for distribution. Encoding to .wmv, .mpg, .mov, etc. causes quite a loss of detail. In addition, those that choose to upload videos to YouTube, GoogleVideo, etc. suffer from even more quality loss. It's so bad in fact, that I don't even use those services anymore. They take nice looking videos and make them look like :censored:

To prove my point, here is a very short clip for a FPV recording on my TwinStar from yesterday. It has obviously been converted to digital format. BUT, I kept it in a raw, uncompressed, .avi format. It's a big file though. 33MB for 8 seconds. :D But you can see LOTS of detail. Very high quality. BTW, this is with the KPC-S226 camera (380 line), and originally recorded to a miniDV camcorder. MiniDV may be less convenient because of the added step of capturing the video to computer. But it has by far the best quality that I've seen. Aside from HDTV of course. ;)

http://www.twinturbostang.com/rc/TwinStar_clip.avi


I have been writing about the raw, uncompressed video as seen on the same screen. Direct from camera and direct from DV tape.

The loss in my camcorder is obvious if not extreme.

I liked the quality just fine until I plugged the raw signal into a portable DVD player that had monitor capability. I wanted to focus the camera and couldn't quite trust what I was seeing on the small flip out screen on the camcorder. When I saw the raw signal it blew me away and I realized that I have been missing what is actually available.

I agree the KX141 could have better contrast. It is a bit washed out looking, but it is easy to correct during editing. I can't believe that anyone would make such a good camera and not set it up right, however it is easy to correct brightness, contrast and saturation after the fact.

One of these days I am going to get the ADS Tech gizmo and see if I can capture what is really there. The specs claim full 720 pixel horizontal, but also mention that the A/D is 9 bit. That means 512 colors. Hmm... I guess I have to try it and see if I like what I get. I'm not sure how I will use it in the field though, or even if I can adapt it to field use. I guess I will get a good idea of that in the store.

The camcorder is also 720 horizontal as captured on my computer, but that doesn't mean that each pixel is individually digitized on either device.

At my age I am in the position of worrying that they will get everything I want after after my eyesight is no longer acute enough to tell the difference.

I'm never satisfied, but I enjoy the struggle.

Pete

[rich22304]

QUOTE: To prove my point, here is a very short clip for a FPV recording on my TwinStar from yesterday. It has obviously been converted to digital format. BUT, I kept it in a raw, uncompressed, .avi format. It's a big file though. 33MB for 8 seconds. :D But you can see LOTS of detail. Very high quality. BTW, this is with the KPC-S226 camera (380 line), and originally recorded to a miniDV camcorder.
http://www.twinturbostang.com/rc/TwinStar_clip.avi[/QUOTE

Which "MiniDV Camcorder" do you use? I have an 8mm tape camcorder that I am can't record with (due to the DV Input on the camcorder), so I am looking for different options to record the video. I am not at the Head tracking level just yet, and believe that just recording "straight ahead" video will pacify me for awhile. That being said, I would like to have the best recording system available. I am using the RangeVideo AVS system and would like to find the best compatible "view and record" system available.

Anything come to mind?

[rich22304]

I have been writing about the raw, uncompressed video as seen on the same screen. Direct from camera and direct from DV tape.

The loss in my camcorder is obvious if not extreme.

I liked the quality just fine until I plugged the raw signal into a portable DVD player that had monitor capability. I wanted to focus the camera and couldn't quite trust what I was seeing on the small flip out screen on the camcorder. When I saw the raw signal it blew me away and I realized that I have been missing what is actually available.

I agree the KX141 could have better contrast. It is a bit washed out looking, but it is easy to correct during editing. I can't believe that anyone would make such a good camera and not set it up right, however it is easy to correct brightness, contrast and saturation after the fact.

One of these days I am going to get the ADS Tech gizmo and see if I can capture what is really there. The specs claim full 720 pixel horizontal, but also mention that the A/D is 9 bit. That means 512 colors. Hmm... I guess I have to try it and see if I like what I get. I'm not sure how I will use it in the field though, or even if I can adapt it to field use. I guess I will get a good idea of that in the store.

The camcorder is also 720 horizontal as captured on my computer, but that doesn't mean that each pixel is individually digitized on either device.

At my age I am in the position of worrying that they will get everything I want after after my eyesight is no longer acute enough to tell the difference.

I'm never satisfied, but I enjoy the struggle.

Pete

So, you are saying that the portable DVD player is the highest quality that you've seen so far?

I bought one the other day from ACCURIAN that I haven't used yet. I bought it because it has A/V In-Out, but what I didn't notice at the time of purchase was that it couldn't perform both functions at the same time. I can use it as a viewer, but it has not recording capabilities (probably why they call it a DVD Player and not a recorder), but I can't use it as a hub to tranfer the Video to a camcorder.

[twinturbostang]

Which "MiniDV Camcorder" do you use? I have an 8mm tape camcorder that I am can't record with (due to the DV Input on the camcorder), so I am looking for different options to record the video. I am not at the Head tracking level just yet, and believe that just recording "straight ahead" video will pacify me for awhile. That being said, I would like to have the best recording system available. I am using the RangeVideo AVS system and would like to find the best compatible "view and record" system available.

Anything come to mind?
The one I'm using is a Canon. I believe it's the Elura MC. Not sure though, I'll have to check. It's several years old, so I'm sure there are newer ones available now.

[Endurance]

Hello,

I just found this thread and I see that some are curios about using the eMagin Z800 goggles. I have been using these in a FPV setup for quite some time and the screens and head tracking is definatly very nice. I have mainly been using these for a ground based vehicle however.

What I did was take the goggles and interface them to a buddy port equipped r/c transmitter. This required a laptop and a PCTx interface to interface my transmitter to the PC. The PC reads in the head tracker output, converts it to a scale that the PCTx can read, and sends the new channel position data to the r/c vehicle. What is nice about this system is that it is fully adjustable and sensitivity can be adjusted on the fly, I believe no other FPV system will do this as of now.

This requires a secondary system in order to work correctly. You cannot piggyback your pan and tilt cannels on the same radio as your model is controlled from (unless you use some type of PC input device like flight controls).

Since the video output from my camera is NTSC I used a video to VGA converter from AVToolbox.com. You can also use a video capture dongle to feed the video into your PC to view them on the goggles. The goggles act like a second monitor when plugged in. Whats nice about feeding the video through the PC is that you can also record the video.

Fore more info on the PCTx go here: http://www.endurance-rc.com/pctx.html

Software to controlt he camera: http://www.endurance-rc.com/realvision.html

R/C Car version: http://www.endurance-rc.com/realdriver.html

[jmralves]

Hello to all.

I am in a process of gathering information in order to start to buy the stuff needed for FPV.

I have a friend that already have a working setup, he try yesterday a Rimax x4 goggles (VGA goggles).

To be true, after trying (again) FPV with is setup, I wasn't happy with the image We get from the goggles.

The image was to small (at least I thought it will look like a bigger (much bigger) screen than the LCD screen from his 7'' DVD player.

The goggles didn't adapt very well to my face contour , with lots of parasite light, the worst thing was that I still saw two screens overlapping one over the another (true, almost match , but it exist a tiny difference).

If it wasn't ask to much, could you folks post a pic of the image provided by your goggles (specially the famous Z800) from a viewer stand point of view?

Thanks in advance.

Jorge

[Kilrah]

Just read back in the thread, I've posted 4 captures of different models, and someone added the Z800 as I still don't have mine ( :mad: )

Note the only thing you can do is compare, there is no "absolute" meaning.

The image was to small (at least I thought it will look like a bigger (much bigger) screen than the LCD screen from his 7'' DVD player.

Well, it all depends at what distance you're looking to that screen ;)

[jmralves]

Kilrah,

What you say in your last sentence is true.

What I meant was that there isn't much difference between the size/quality of the image viewed from the dvd player LCD (using "the box" technic, head inside a card box, LCD about 20 to 25cm from the eyes line) and the goggles image (a dark visual camp with a image rectangle in the middle - exaggerating, almost two rectangles in my case-

Is this the case with all the goggles out there?? or I shouldn't expect a true VR experience with the goggles??


EDIT:
Really sorry, I read this thread some days ago and forgot you already post some pics.

You will update your post with the Z800 pics obtained in the same operational conditions, right?

[Kilrah]

Yes, of course I will, if I ever get to hold them in my hands :(

The Rimax indeed have a pretty narrow field of view.

[jmralves]

Of course you will :)

My last mail order came from germany, bought at 15 December, receive it yesterday, so...

[Kilrah]

Dang, seems the parcel got sent back by the customs.. at least another week to wait :mad:

The good side is that I might have received the video-VGA converters by then... :(

[AndrésMtnez]

For who is interested in the I-Vision 922

Since theese goggles doesn´t have interpupillary distance adjustment, I´ve asked to 22moo.com.au (didn´t find the manufacturer web) what´s the ideal, and they´ve answered it´s 63,5mm (2,5in).

I´ve sent another mail to ask what´s the margin could be before seeing double image, but I´m not too conviced they can answer that :o If they do, I´ll post it.



Andres


PS: Kilrah, what a :censored: :censored: That´s already a long wait :mad:

[Kilrah]

Indeed... They were sent december 18th :(

They certainly must have filled some papers wrongly, I've never had a parcel go back until now, and I do receive a lot of them...

Oh well, guess I have other things to do before then ;)
That's a shame though, we're having spring weather at the moment, would be very nice to test them!