Just Got My 808 Camera

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

TopRamen

SA-5
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
9,955
Reaction score
111
I just recieved this today, and now that I just barely tried it, it's too cool!



Can't wait to take it flying! Man, we never had Toys like this when I was a Kid!

On everybody elses Advice I got a "Class 10" Card for it.
 
The Vendor was through Amazon, and is called USAsouthernStar, and the Class 10 16G Card is a Sandisk, from Amazon.
The Camera works fine when I take it out and make a Video with it, and it will replay just fine on my Computer, but I tried uploading to Youtube, and something does'nt work, because the Youtube Video is all staticy and has a static sound for Audio. For $13.99, I'm happy. I can atleast make Videos now for myself, I'll just have to get a better Camera to be able to upload to Youtube to share those Videos. That's fine by me, as I really just want to see if Rocket Photography is something I care to pursue or not. A good 808 Camera runs you atleast $40, which is'nt a lot, but I could buy a nice Rocket Kit for $40.
I had read about these Cameras on this Site and researched them on Youtube, but wanted to start cheap anyway.
 
I have several of the cheap ones, they work really well. I've had no problems with uploading the videos to youtube, maybe you should try again as I can't think of any reason why it would look good on your computer but not on youtube, maybe it was an upload issue.

Anyway, have fun with your 808.
 
I have several of the cheap ones, they work really well. I've had no problems with uploading the videos to youtube, maybe you should try again as I can't think of any reason why it would look good on your computer but not on youtube, maybe it was an upload issue.

Anyway, have fun with your 808.

Thanks, yeah, I guess I should try again.
 
Yeah, went and tried again with the same result. Video and Audio are fine on my Computer though. Weird. Some Data must not translate to Youtube or something.
 
I had no trouble uploading to youtube. I used some kind of software to cut the raw footage down to just the flight time. I think in the process the software converted the footage to a different type of file. Perhaps, this file was more compatible with youtube.
 
If you like that DVR 808 camera then you should spend the $40 for a DVR 808 #16 if you can. The #16 is HD resolution (1280x720). It also has a better lens and a totally new circuit board design that results in better color balance and saturation. I have bought 5 of them and currently have 3. I buy them on eBay here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Mini-DVR-808-16-V2-Car-Key-Chain-Micro-Camera-Real-HD-720P-Pocket-Camcorder-/150860529062?pt=US_Surveillance_Digital_Video_Recorders_Cards&hash=item231ffcfda6

Also be aware that even if you successfully upload a video to youtube it won't look as good on youtube as the original does on your PC. Youtube does a LOT of compression on uploaded video files. Videos with a lots of motion are hurt the most by the compression.
 
Yeah, my budget for Toys was hindered by my Kitbashing of my TLP ALARM Kit, so 13.99 was just to try it out. Sadly, now I also don't have any Motors left to fly the Cam on. When I get some extra Cash, this Cam is going up on my Estes Patriot on a C6-3. If I like flying it, I'll upgrade to the #16 $40 job.
 
I run my videos through 'windows movie maker'* to trim them down to just the action (no point in showing 5minutes of sitting on the pad or recovery time :)) then convert the them to youtube format, and then upload to YouTube. given a choice I'll watch them from the saved files. image quality from youtube varies depending on internet connection type, a fast connection looks much better than a slow one. I suspect that your vids are suffering from YT's conversion process.
*free download...and if you're carefull you can limit just how much added stuff you 'have' to dl, don't dl the whole package.
rex
 
I run my videos through 'windows movie maker'* to trim them down to just the action (no point in showing 5minutes of sitting on the pad or recovery time :)) then convert the them to youtube format, and then upload to YouTube. given a choice I'll watch them from the saved files. image quality from youtube varies depending on internet connection type, a fast connection looks much better than a slow one. I suspect that your vids are suffering from YT's conversion process.
*free download...and if you're carefull you can limit just how much added stuff you 'have' to dl, don't dl the whole package.
rex

Just received mine. Paid ~6 Canadian dollars :)

How did you mount the fake keychain holder camera to the rocket? My guess is I could just tape it to my Estes Patriot, but I'm thinking I should maybe put a piece of wood of the same size on the opposite side to balance the drag.

If someone could post pictures of external attachment of the 808 camera, I'd be thankful :)
 
I run my videos through 'windows movie maker'* to trim them down to just the action (no point in showing 5minutes of sitting on the pad or recovery time :)) then convert the them to youtube format, and then upload to YouTube. given a choice I'll watch them from the saved files. image quality from youtube varies depending on internet connection type, a fast connection looks much better than a slow one. I suspect that your vids are suffering from YT's conversion process.
*free download...and if you're carefull you can limit just how much added stuff you 'have' to dl, don't dl the whole package.
rex

What is "youtube format"??

Just wondering... I've uploaded one of my old rocket vids and a bunch of farm vids, so I was wondering...

One thing I've learned NOT to do is to EVER allow YT to apply their "motion stabilization" thing to the finished vid... I did one farm video that I filmed out the truck window chasing the tractor and it was very, umm... psychedelic... to say the least... when tractors bend and conform and stretch and then straighten out, it's a bad idea... As Krusty the Klown would say-- "Whoa-- bad acid flashback!"

Later! OL JR :)
 
Just received mine. Paid ~6 Canadian dollars :)

How did you mount the fake keychain holder camera to the rocket? My guess is I could just tape it to my Estes Patriot, but I'm thinking I should maybe put a piece of wood of the same size on the opposite side to balance the drag.

If someone could post pictures of external attachment of the 808 camera, I'd be thankful :)

You don't have to mount anything to "balance the drag"... it just adds extra drag and weight. It will fly fine as-is stuck to the side. The slight mass and drag offset is easily overcome by the fins on a normal size rocket.

The only time it may start causing problems is if you mount a keychain cam on a very small rocket, like a Wizard or something... then it can cause wonky corkscrewing or arcing flights...

Save the extra weight and drag and just mount it on and go...

later! OL JR :)
 
The Vendor was through Amazon, and is called USAsouthernStar, and the Class 10 16G Card is a Sandisk, from Amazon.
The Camera works fine when I take it out and make a Video with it, and it will replay just fine on my Computer, but I tried uploading to Youtube, and something does'nt work, because the Youtube Video is all staticy and has a static sound for Audio. For $13.99, I'm happy. I can atleast make Videos now for myself, I'll just have to get a better Camera to be able to upload to Youtube to share those Videos. That's fine by me, as I really just want to see if Rocket Photography is something I care to pursue or not. A good 808 Camera runs you atleast $40, which is'nt a lot, but I could buy a nice Rocket Kit for $40.
I had read about these Cameras on this Site and researched them on Youtube, but wanted to start cheap anyway.



Great start, but I think you're gonna really like video and will soon want better quality video. If you do, you could get the 808 #16 or the Mobius. I recommend the mobius.
 
Last edited:
You don't have to mount anything to "balance the drag"... it just adds extra drag and weight. It will fly fine as-is stuck to the side. The slight mass and drag offset is easily overcome by the fins on a normal size rocket.

The only time it may start causing problems is if you mount a keychain cam on a very small rocket, like a Wizard or something... then it can cause wonky corkscrewing or arcing flights...

Save the extra weight and drag and just mount it on and go...

later! OL JR :)

Just to be extra sure, I am going to mount this to either an Estes Riptide or Estes Patriot. Do you think these are big enough to handle the extra drag unbalance?
 
So anyway, I have'nt been back to this Thread to update it at all, but I did get a Successflul Flight, and then forgot that I started this Thread til' someone rehashed it today.
Here's my first Video. Occured quite a while ago.

[video=youtube;zE7bDu97PLA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE7bDu97PLA[/video]

Estes M-104 Patriot, C6-3, Streamer Recovery.
 
So anyway, I have'nt been back to this Thread to update it at all, but I did get a Successflul Flight, and then forgot that I started this Thread til' someone rehashed it today.

Estes M-104 Patriot, C6-3, Streamer Recovery.

Thanks to you and HUSLSCAC for your resonses.

How high on the body tube did you install it? It looks close to the fins, but mine seems to have a rather narrow field of view, so it could be higher than it seems.
 
Thanks to you and HUSLSCAC for your resonses.

How high on the body tube did you install it? It looks close to the fins, but mine seems to have a rather narrow field of view, so it could be higher than it seems.

I followed the Lead of others before me, and mounted it with Electrical Tape at the CG as best I could with Motor Loaded, so as to not change the Stability.

The Reason the Rocket gets all Twisty at first is because I used an Estes Fin Jig Thingy, and they suck.
 
Last edited:


Kinda a bad picture, but you can kinda see it right around the black decal
 
Just to be extra sure, I am going to mount this to either an Estes Riptide or Estes Patriot. Do you think these are big enough to handle the extra drag unbalance?

Should be... I wouldn't see a problem with it...

Both those rockets are a little bigger than the old Astrocam 110, or the AstroVision (or its predecessor, the Oracle). All those had pretty substantial "mirror hoods" sticking out the sides, especially the Astrocam. All those also flew fine.

I've seen videos on YouTube (IIRC) of folks flying the 808 keyfob cams on the sides of those rockets (just taped on) and they flew successfully, so I wouldn't anticipate any problems.

Good luck and hope this helps!
OL JR :)

PS. I used to fly my Astrocam on a Maniac, which is now the "Eliminator", and prior to it being the Maniac the same kit was sold as the "Challenger II" It used to be recommended as a MPR "D" motor launch vehicle for the Astrocam... turned in great flights and higher pics from that rocket, though of course the limitations of the 110 camera started to show up more the higher you flew... (grainy, hazy pics, etc.) Best of luck!
 
Thanks to you and HUSLSCAC for your resonses.

How high on the body tube did you install it? It looks close to the fins, but mine seems to have a rather narrow field of view, so it could be higher than it seems.

FYI... mounting it forward of the existing CG improves stability (extra weight of the camera being in front of the present CG moves the CG forward, increasing the stability margin). Mounting it AT the present CG, or the closer you mount it to the present CG, the less effect on the stability margin it will have.

Mounting it BEHIND the present CG isn't really a good thing, unless you're CERTAIN that the rocket can handle it (sufficient calibers of stability, ie that the CG will remain far enough ahead of the CP for the flight to remain stable). Mounting weight aft of the present CG will shift the CG rearward to a new location... the further back you mount the weight from the present CG, the farther aft the CG shift will become. It COULD potentially move the CG behind the CP and result in instability.

That's why, generally speaking, the further forward you mount the camera, the better it is from a stability standpoint. Mounting it at the present CG will keep the CG the same, BUT there are slight aero-effects from the camera (since it's protruding out into the slipstream of air moving past the rocket in flight) and this could potentially move the CP forward, either by interfering with clean airflow to the fins below the camera (creating turbulence in the camera's wake) or induced drag higher up the body tube (where the camera is mounted). This could potentially move the CP forward and cause stability issues, depending on conditions.

The main thing to remember is, that moving the CG forward is, generally speaking, a good thing-- CG changes SOME in flight (tending to move forward as propellant weight is burned off in our solid rocket motor powered flights), and CP tends to move forward more and more at greater angles of attack (nose off the direction of flight), or anything drag inducing forward of the fins in flight (like a camera sticking out in the wind, or ESPECIALLY forward fins). If you move the CG forward, it's better, but keeping it in the same place is USUALLY okay. You just *really* don't want to be moving the CG REARWARD unless you simulate the arrangement in Open Rocket or RockSim and/or do a swing test to make SURE that the new combination will remain stable...

There's lots of variables that come into play-- relative mass and "wetted area" (area exposed to airflow) of both the rocket and camera, and the ratio between the two, etc... (ie, these effects of where it's mounted are commensurately less on a larger, heavier rocket than on a smaller, lighter one with less surface area in relation to the camera).

Just some things to think about!

Best of luck! OL JR :)
 
FYI... mounting it forward of the existing CG improves stability (extra weight of the camera being in front of the present CG moves the CG forward, increasing the stability margin). Mounting it AT the present CG, or the closer you mount it to the present CG, the less effect on the stability margin it will have.

Mounting it BEHIND the present CG isn't really a good thing, unless you're CERTAIN that the rocket can handle it (sufficient calibers of stability, ie that the CG will remain far enough ahead of the CP for the flight to remain stable). Mounting weight aft of the present CG will shift the CG rearward to a new location... the further back you mount the weight from the present CG, the farther aft the CG shift will become. It COULD potentially move the CG behind the CP and result in instability.

That's why, generally speaking, the further forward you mount the camera, the better it is from a stability standpoint. Mounting it at the present CG will keep the CG the same, BUT there are slight aero-effects from the camera (since it's protruding out into the slipstream of air moving past the rocket in flight) and this could potentially move the CP forward, either by interfering with clean airflow to the fins below the camera (creating turbulence in the camera's wake) or induced drag higher up the body tube (where the camera is mounted). This could potentially move the CP forward and cause stability issues, depending on conditions.

The main thing to remember is, that moving the CG forward is, generally speaking, a good thing-- CG changes SOME in flight (tending to move forward as propellant weight is burned off in our solid rocket motor powered flights), and CP tends to move forward more and more at greater angles of attack (nose off the direction of flight), or anything drag inducing forward of the fins in flight (like a camera sticking out in the wind, or ESPECIALLY forward fins). If you move the CG forward, it's better, but keeping it in the same place is USUALLY okay. You just *really* don't want to be moving the CG REARWARD unless you simulate the arrangement in Open Rocket or RockSim and/or do a swing test to make SURE that the new combination will remain stable...

There's lots of variables that come into play-- relative mass and "wetted area" (area exposed to airflow) of both the rocket and camera, and the ratio between the two, etc... (ie, these effects of where it's mounted are commensurately less on a larger, heavier rocket than on a smaller, lighter one with less surface area in relation to the camera).

Just some things to think about!

Best of luck! OL JR :)

I was thinking about the CP being moved forward so I think I will mount if forward of the current CG. The camera's weight is small compared to the rocket, so unless I mount it near the nose, it shouldn't move the CG too much. The other thing that bothers me is, since the camera's thickness is important compared to the fin height (perpendicular distance from body tube to tip, in case I am not using the proper term), then it could create enough turbulence that one or two fins are rendered ineffective, depending where I mount it.

This is all purely for thinking about the theory. In practice, we have two different experimented users that mounted them at pretty different places (one near the top, one at CG) and both have videos to show that all went well :)
 
you have to check your you tube settings. make sure you are not compressing the video at all. set all settings for the maximum resolution. that camera works fine with youtube. but youtube will auto compress your videos unless you adjust it
 
I was thinking about the CP being moved forward so I think I will mount if forward of the current CG. The camera's weight is small compared to the rocket, so unless I mount it near the nose, it shouldn't move the CG too much. The other thing that bothers me is, since the camera's thickness is important compared to the fin height (perpendicular distance from body tube to tip, in case I am not using the proper term), then it could create enough turbulence that one or two fins are rendered ineffective, depending where I mount it.

This is all purely for thinking about the theory. In practice, we have two different experimented users that mounted them at pretty different places (one near the top, one at CG) and both have videos to show that all went well :)

I imagine you're not gonna want to mount it over the fin, so the fin is the center of the picture.
Fin positioning is just right to mount right in between the fins.

I feel a little like you wanna over engineer this bad boy.
Just use common sense and all will be OK!
 
I imagine you're not gonna want to mount it over the fin, so the fin is the center of the picture.
Fin positioning is just right to mount right in between the fins.

I feel a little like you wanna over engineer this bad boy.
Just use common sense and all will be OK!

Sure, I'm not going to put it right above a fin :) Didn't realize that was stupid while writing.

I know that good enough is, well, good enough and past experience has proved it was fine. I'm just new to the hobby and trying to understand the factors that can influence the flight. Like I said, this is all pretty theoretical.
 
The Reason the Rocket gets all Twisty at first is because I used an Estes Fin Jig Thingy, and they suck.

I agree... that Estes Fin Jig is a total piece of junk! I just use it as a stand now as I'm working on a rocket.
 
I was thinking about the CP being moved forward so I think I will mount if forward of the current CG. The camera's weight is small compared to the rocket, so unless I mount it near the nose, it shouldn't move the CG too much. The other thing that bothers me is, since the camera's thickness is important compared to the fin height (perpendicular distance from body tube to tip, in case I am not using the proper term), then it could create enough turbulence that one or two fins are rendered ineffective, depending where I mount it.

This is all purely for thinking about the theory. In practice, we have two different experimented users that mounted them at pretty different places (one near the top, one at CG) and both have videos to show that all went well :)

Yeah, it is possible to overthink it...

Putting it further forward has another advantage... it gives more distance between the camera and the fins, allowing the airflow to "smooth out" before reaching the fins, reducing the effects of turbulence on the fins and allowing them to be more effective. Toward the front end of the tube sounds good...

Later! OL JR :)
 
Back
Top