Shop our Airplanes Products Drone Products Sales
Thread Tools
Old Nov 05, 2010, 01:41 PM
trappy
A moderator felt this post violated the following rule: Personal Attack.
Nov 05, 2010, 01:48 PM
Suspended Account
And here's his alter ego, no matter what happens, MrNiceGuy always stays friendly ...

All the best,

MrNiceGuy.
Nov 05, 2010, 02:27 PM
Giant Scale 3D/IMAC & FPV
Eganwp's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by trappy
wooohoo! Sander is back!

by the way Fatplay, why even post under a false nick? are you maybe a competitor to Fatshark goggles or just pathetic - or both?
LOL, best part is Mr. "Fatplay" made his first post in this thread trying to accuse Sander... As we like to call people who do this on the WOW forums, a TROLL. IMO /IP ban.
Nov 05, 2010, 02:29 PM
Suspended Account
trappy's Avatar
Eganwp: it's not Mr. "Fatplay", it's one of the notorious few who like to create new nicknames and accuse people of stuff that isn't true. pretty disturbing "trend" here on RCG, but no worries, he's been reported already so I doubt we will be hearing more of him in the future
Nov 05, 2010, 02:39 PM
Giant Scale 3D/IMAC & FPV
Eganwp's Avatar
Yea, I should have elaborated a bit more. What I mean by a troll is someone who has an account that creates multiple bogus alias names in order to bash other people. Hence the IP address ban, so he/she can create/post no more!
Nov 05, 2010, 04:11 PM
Kiwi in Germany
whakahere's Avatar
I vote for a smacking!!! making a new user name is pretty weak. Go get him Sander!

on a side note I love using my fatsharks but I am waiting until they can tap into my head so there is no picture boarders. Do you think I can put the plugs in my ears at all?
Nov 05, 2010, 04:47 PM
Falling with style
metalfred's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eganwp
in order to bash other people.
Or in order to say things like "im in your uhf band, dropping your packets"
Nov 05, 2010, 06:26 PM
Suspended Account
nothing worse than someone who opens a shill account, or someone who has two identities.

it makes me sick

i am supper surprised why they don't get permanently banned for that.

especially when they actually admit it after getting caught

It makes me really "Mad" lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by trappy
wooohoo! Sander is back!

by the way Fatplay, why even post under a false nick? are you maybe a competitor to Fatshark goggles or just pathetic - or both?
Nov 05, 2010, 07:32 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssassen
I'm sorry? Are trying very hard to be an a**hole? If so, keep at it and I might come over and smack you in the face okay? I'm giving my personal opinion here, which is obvious to anyone that bothered to read my replies, just must be really, really dense.

Cheers,

Sander.
No not at all.

Pointing out that as far as I'm aware you have a financial interest in the product you have claimed is the best in this thread is being an a**hole?

I would be skeptical of a review by a manufacturer of it's own product. You wouldn't?

In any other forum I frequent it is not tolerated for a manufacturer to post under what appears to be a regular user account on their own product, as a non regular poster woudn't know that their posts might possibly be biased.

If that's not the case here. Ok. No offense was intended.
Nov 05, 2010, 09:25 PM
Crashy McLandington
I'm pretty sure alter egos are expressly prohibited here. I've seen sites where they're tolerated, if not even encouraged- but not RCG.

What's odd is why create an AE just for that? Who's the chicken-bleep?
Nov 06, 2010, 05:15 AM
Registered User
AndrésMtnez's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssassen
I explain what the difference is between the FatShark goggles and other goggles. I'm not saying the image is fuzzy. These two things are not to be confused.

I don't think the image is fuzzy at all, only slightly at the edges, but the center is perfectly sharp and detailed. I've already explained why the edges are somewhat fuzzy so I don't feel very motivated to repeat myself ...
Maybe you don´t say it, but I do, the image is fuzzy/blurry. At least if you compare it with the image of any other goggle.... I had always thought my I-Vision were quite bad about picture quality, but my opinion changed since I tested the Fatshark, there´s nothing like a direct comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssassen
Bottomline: if you like to look at a TV at the other side of the room and marvel at its perceived sharpness rather than the immersive experience the FatSharks offer be my guest, I'll stick with my FatSharks.
Perceived? Not, displayed It´s easy to understand, the Fatshark only have around half the pixels per inche compared with Ivision, compared with Headplay it must have around 1/3 of the pixels per displayed inche. And this is a fact not an opinion.


If you like to look at a fuzzy image and marvel at its perceived immersion rather than watching a quality picture where you can see lots of details then be my guest, I´ll stick with better resolution goggles


BTW, I don´t think Fatplay said anything wrong, actually his demand is quite reasonable, he just want to clarify it and he also said Sander´s opinion is very valid in any case. Ok he doesn´t have the balls to say it with his own nickname but that´s all. Moreover, if he´s not going to listen Sander´s opinion just because he´s involved then it´s his own problem, I will always listen at Sander´s opinion even when I disagree with him
Last edited by AndrésMtnez; Nov 06, 2010 at 05:24 AM.
Nov 06, 2010, 05:35 AM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrésMtnez
Maybe you don´t say it, but I do, the image is fuzzy/blurry.
It isn't, the Fatsharls are *far* from fuzzy/blurry, if you say that you are simply lying for lack of a better word.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrésMtnez
Perceived? Not, displayed It´s easy to understand, the Fatshark only have around half the pixels per inche compared with Ivision, compared with Headplay it must have around 1/3 of the pixels per displayed inche. And this is a fact not an opinion.
The Fatshark uses 640x480 resolution LCD displays, the Headplay uses 800x600 OLED displayes. The total # of pixels is 56% larger with the Headplay (800*600/(640*480)). However, you conveniently forget that the display device is *NOT* the limiting factor here, the camera is (if connected directly, if a wireless link is involved that becomes the bottleneck). I have yet to see a camera which manages to display the actual maximum possible with PAL, which is 625 vertical lines. Even the formidable Pixim 540vtl only displays ~480 lines.

So if we're talking about per pixel sharpness they both are equally detailed because the source (camera and/or wireless link) is the bottleneck. That *IS* a fact and not an opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrésMtnez
If you like to look at a fuzzy image and marvel at its perceived immersion rather than watching a quality picture where you can see lots of details then be my guest, I´ll stick with better resolution goggles
Well, I've just proven this statement to be false, so that would be considered a blatant lie. You have to realize that the resolution of the goggles is not a determining factor here, it is the camera. And since I have yet to see a camera top the ~480 lines in practice the resolution of the goggles is not important, as both the Fatshark and the Headplay have ample resolution to deal with that.

So all we can really argue about is whether you want these ~480 lines to be displayed in movie theatre format (Fatshark) or as a TV from across the room (Headplay) and that's a matter of personal preference.

Cheers,

Sander.
Nov 06, 2010, 06:02 AM
Registered User
AndrésMtnez's Avatar
You obviously don´t record on miniDV. If you do, you´d know how much detail you loose when watching 640x480 goggles. This happens even with the kx131 (380tvl), but with better cameras the difference is even higher.

Your facts are not supported by my experience


BTW, the sn777 has 752×582 effective pixels, so not even the data supports your statement
Nov 06, 2010, 06:08 AM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrésMtnez
You obviously don´t record on miniDV. If you do, you´d know how much detail you loose when watching 640x480 goggles. This happens even with the kx131 (380tvl), but with better cameras the difference is even higher.

Your facts are not supported by my experience
I have been recording onto MiniDV from the very moment I started this hobby, using a Canon HV20, which is a semi-professional HDV camcorder with proper analog audio/video inputs. Here an example:



I suggest you analyze the actual number of lines present, hence not the total number of horizontal and vertical pixels in some typical FPV footage and you'll be surprised.

Cheers,

Sander.
Nov 06, 2010, 06:13 AM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrésMtnez
BTW, the sn777 has 752×582 effective pixels, so not even the data supports your statement
I think you need to verify your head is screwed on properly. Total number of pixels in an array doesn't equal the number of pixels actually illuminated by the lens, nor the resolution which is offered by the analog video output.

As mentioned PAL has a maximum of 625 lines, which is the most you'll ever get. The fast majority of cameras doesn't even do half that. The only camera that comes close to its published specs in the Pixim 540vtl. Fitted with a megapixel lens (not the standard crap lens!) that illuminates the whole sensor it does indeed do ~480 lines at the video output.

Frankly we can discuss this all day long and you can dream up all sorts of claims, you're not going to win this as you're simple wrong.

Cheers,

Sander.
Last edited by ssassen; Dec 06, 2010 at 10:27 AM.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Fatshark RCV922 BASE Edition EyeFlyPlanes FPV Talk 100 Aug 31, 2011 06:21 PM
Discussion EVG920 v Fatshark Base Edition NDw FPV Talk 17 Apr 03, 2011 07:55 PM
Sold FPV FatShark BASE Goggles. rclab1 Aircraft - General - Radio Equipment (FS/W) 4 Nov 18, 2010 11:22 PM
Discussion Fatshark or HEadplay WBFlyer FPV Talk 97 Jul 24, 2010 04:44 PM
Wanted Looking for Fatshark Base Edition EyeFlyPlanes Aircraft - General - Radio Equipment (FS/W) 0 Jul 06, 2010 02:51 AM