Thread Tools
Nov 06, 2010, 06:27 PM
I LIKE WAFFLES....
SENTRY 62's Avatar
This apple pie tastes better than that one. It's true... taste it. See?

No? Then VVTF is wrong with your tongue??!!??
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Nov 06, 2010, 06:37 PM
RC = FUN
Currently waiting for the new Hauntme goggles to come. Should put all the other goggles to shame. -Tyler
Nov 06, 2010, 06:52 PM
Suspended Account
I was trying to say headplay are NOT good for fpv rather than say about the picture quality

If you are sitting on an real airplane in a seat or sitting dwon to do fpv then maybe headplay is better, I really have had major problems with headplay being not meant for fpv, because of the fragility and octopuss, needing to be in a fanny pack, to hand launch my planes.

even with my rc car the black screen or i have no idea why they call it blue screen.

Headplay are not user friendly when it comes to fpv.

I also had major probelms not being able to see my osd when at the top of the screen with fatsharks, but for no apperant reason that is not the case anymore.

Both headplay and fatshark offered to solve my issues.

Headplay replaced my headplays free of charge even though I told them it was my fault, dropping the liberator as i launched a plane. i complained about the connecotors. Sent in my headplays and they sent me a new set. But that did not solve the inpracticallities of useing headplay for fpv.
Because of the design of fragility.

Fatshark offered me to send my fatsharks back as well but I declined their generous offer, because of the hastle to send in the itemfrom where I live, it is just not worth it.

The last time i used fatsharks it worked for no reason like they should.
It is a mystery to me, however they work fine for me now?

But the key factor is not the video quality but the hangar rash value fatshark provides.

Andre I don't think I ever said headplays are better picture quality over the headplays, but most likely you are correct there on saying about the picture quality.

Like Bracky said, lol, I would also rather watch por n with the headplays lol

The fatsharks IMHO really are cool goggles

Fatsharks are specifically designd for fpv

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrésMtnez
This is from page 5 of this thread



I would have leave it here, but then Sander entered saying the Fatshark gives the same picture quality than the Headplay... heck even people who prefer the FS (like David22) has admitted the Headplay´s picture is better, but Sander is blinded with tvl, effective pixels, lenses, sensors....

Anyway it´s enough for me, hope all this discussion does help someone

Cheers
Andrés (with a final "s", without it it´s Kilrah´s name )
Nov 06, 2010, 06:58 PM
I LIKE WAFFLES....
SENTRY 62's Avatar
So *cough* Sander - if FS wants to develop something directly for FPV why don't they get into the camera market as well - they then control all aspects of video delivery for their solution at that time and can create something really cool that works well together.

Sentry
Nov 06, 2010, 07:30 PM
RC = FUN
They've got a cam:

http://www.gowiththeshark.com/FPV_HD...0piloting.html
Nov 06, 2010, 07:39 PM
I LIKE WAFFLES....
SENTRY 62's Avatar
Is that an FPV cam or 1 designed just for auxillary video recording?
Nov 06, 2010, 07:40 PM
RC = FUN
Real time full 4:3 AV out. Full screen AV out (NTSC) so FPV transmitted image has no black bars. Fly and frame your shots in real time.

Plug/Play with IRC TXs. Camera comes equipped with IRC plug/play cable. Simply connect the HD to ImmersionRC TXs the same way any analog camera would.

No automatic shutdown. Camera will continue to output the camera image after card is full or even low power.

Wide FOV. Camera comes with a 4.6mm wide angle lens for approximately 90 degree FOV HD and 70 degrees FOV on the AV out.

IR Controller. The included IR controller allows for OSD menu navigation and selection. Convenient remote control of recording start/stop.

Onboard battery backup. Camera comes with a 330mAh battery that simplifies operation and allows for up to 30 minutes recording as a standalone camera..

Specifications:

· HD 720p 30fps 4Mb/s or 8Mb/s data rate

· Lightweight (33g including battery)

· Supports up to 16Gb MicroSD card.

· H.264/MPEG-4 AVI.

· Onboard 330mAh backup battery.

· 5V operation (300mA @ 5V).

· 4.6mm wide angle lens (approx 90 degree FOV).

· 1/2" CMOS sensor records rich, true colors.

· 4:3 full screen analog out.

· NTSC AV out
Nov 06, 2010, 08:02 PM
Registered Abuser
ziomatrixacs's Avatar
How long is the head play's cord? All of my planes ROG so I am not too worried about that. I also sit down when I fly. I don't mind having to make a light shield and wear a fanny pack. I could use them for the longer range flights and when I play Xbox/PS3.

On the other side, I really want a grab and go rig. No tripods to set up, no need for a base station and all of the other stuff. Just goggles, plane, radio. 2.4ghz runs off 5v, which is pretty easy to get with one 3 cell lipo, makes my plane even more grab and go.

I can't take advantage of head trackers since I use JR, so that is one feature I do not want to pay extra for to be included. Currently building a mechanical tracker since they have no drift, no need to face north, and don't move when you reorientate your body. They are also the only known way on earth to get CH 7 and 8 to be HT without funky mixing and summoning demons inside your radio.

Its expensive as f*$k to buy both but I really enjoy FPV (and video games). I hate the days where I spend more time packing, walking to the field, unpacking/ setting up, flying for a few minutes and repacking to walk home to unpack than I do flying. So when I do, I want to enjoy it as much as I can visually. On other days where I work 14+ hours for a month straight and just want a "quickie" before the weather gets bad I think I deserve a set of Fatties.
Nov 07, 2010, 05:26 AM
Suspended Account
Up to you guys really, but I've stated, and I'll state here again, that the perceived sharpness of the Headplay is only due to the smaller FOV. It does *not* display more detail as the camera is the limiting factor and not the resolution of the goggles.

If after my careful explanation folks are still saying that Headplay looks sharper and more detailed you're simply not getting it. Any picture will look sharper/more detailed when zoomed out, this is perceived sharpness as the actual number of lines the camera puts out doesn't suddenly magically increase.

So really, who's flogging a dead horse here really? Apparantly none of you seem to pick up on the truth of the matter which I've outlined a few times now. Whether you pick Headplay or Fatshark is up to you, but don't use the argument that Headplay is sharper/more detailed as that argument is invalid as I've shown over and over again.

Cheers,

Sander.
Nov 07, 2010, 06:11 AM
NDw
NDw
Registered User
You are saying the picture at 640 x 480 is the same on every module?

And you are saying the optic on the fatsharks is perfect?
Nov 07, 2010, 06:45 AM
Registered User
FS $230 now at range video ! Im glad I didnt buy last night.
Nov 07, 2010, 09:16 AM
Suspended Account
trappy's Avatar
hahaha. sharper image on one goggle than on the other ... awesome read. sorry Sander, I feel your pain
Nov 07, 2010, 09:41 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssassen
Up to you guys really, but I've stated, and I'll state here again, that the perceived sharpness of the Headplay is only due to the smaller FOV. It does *not* display more detail as the camera is the limiting factor and not the resolution of the goggles.

If after my careful explanation folks are still saying that Headplay looks sharper and more detailed you're simply not getting it. Any picture will look sharper/more detailed when zoomed out, this is perceived sharpness as the actual number of lines the camera puts out doesn't suddenly magically increase.

So really, who's flogging a dead horse here really? Apparantly none of you seem to pick up on the truth of the matter which I've outlined a few times now. Whether you pick Headplay or Fatshark is up to you, but don't use the argument that Headplay is sharper/more detailed as that argument is invalid as I've shown over and over again.

Cheers,

Sander.
Which begs the question: does blowing up a low res picture to a larger size really make it any better?

Technically, you are correct, but if people are saying that Headplays have better resolution, I guess that there must be something to having a smaller image when working working with a low quality picture. I think that given a certain resolution, there is a optimal size for the image to make it "appear" as the highest resolution. Headplay has hit this optimal size.

Basically, it becomes a mental game.
Nov 07, 2010, 11:48 AM
Suspended Account
trappy's Avatar
kyle, bigger means more immersion. resolution is just a side-effect of size. if you want the best perceived resolution, get the Zeiss Cinemizer or Headplays. but if you want the most immersive experience, you'll want the Fatsharks. I dont use the FS personally but I've flown passenger enough times to know that they are the easily the best goggles for FPV, provided you don't have a ski-goggle modded one that works.

NDw: yes, 640 is 640 on every goggle. the only difference that better LCD and/or optics can do is improve the contrast, color, saturation, etc
Nov 07, 2010, 03:23 PM
Registered User
ashdec87's Avatar
I've got the Headplays and absolutely love them. I upgraded from trimersions, which was nice cuz it was cheap and easy to use and very reliable.

The Headplays are very lightweight, I can wear it all day and wont feel it. I added foam around the eyes to block light. Wasnt a big deal to do so, took me all of 5 minutes and its cool and comfortable.

All my planes are ROG so the liberator is a non-issue. I made a wooden support for it, so it cant put any stress on the connector, and the liberator stays in my GS box.

I love the size of the screen, and the resolution is incredible. It's probably better than what my recorder can capture.

But everyone has different tastes.


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