Onboard Video Camera Size Comparison

[user 35280]

I want a camera to attach to the bodytube of an existing rocket, so the Astrocam won't be the right solution. I do happen to have an Estes Oracle and wonder just for fun if its camera still works. . .

Sandy.

That camera can be removed from the nose cone and used on any rocket. I’ve seen several launches with it just taped or velcroed onto the rocket.

 

[Sandy H.]

Ah. Understood. Thanks for the thought. I'll look at how its is built in the Oracle and see if it makes sense for my plan.

Thanks!

Sandy.

 

[Ronz Rocketz]

The RunCam2 does 4K but weighs 50g. The 808 about 27g and SQ11 about 17g. I would think a 4” rocket could handle a RunCam2.

I tape the Astrocam cam to my LPRs with masking tape.

 

[jd2cylman]

The RunCam2 does 4K but weighs 50g. The 808 about 27g and SQ11 about 17g. I would think a 4” rocket could handle a RunCam2.

I tape the Astrocam cam to my LPRs with masking tape.

I think he was referring to 4" rocket flying on a K motor.

 

[Sandy H.]

I think he was referring to 4" rocket flying on a K motor.

Hah! I didn't see the possible source for confusion, but yes, my intent is to fly the camera on a rocket that is 4" in diameter on a K550. And ironically current buzz words with video is 4k. . .

I'm totally fine with having resolution similar to the old 808 keychain cameras, but and am also fine with more. My main hope was to have a camera light enough that taping it to the airframe was a no-brainer. I've never lost an 808 weight/shape camera if I recovered the rocket. My concern with some of the current alternatives (other than availability in 2 weeks) is the larger size and weight might not be 'tape friendly'.

Sandy.

 

[Ronz Rocketz]

Hah! I didn't see the possible source for confusion, but yes, my intent is to fly the camera on a rocket that is 4" in diameter on a K550. And ironically current buzz words with video is 4k. . .

I'm totally fine with having resolution similar to the old 808 keychain cameras, but and am also fine with more. My main hope was to have a camera light enough that taping it to the airframe was a no-brainer. I've never lost an 808 weight/shape camera if I recovered the rocket. My concern with some of the current alternatives (other than availability in 2 weeks) is the larger size and weight might not be 'tape friendly'.

Sandy.

Same here. Actually what I would like is 60fps but don’t want the extra weight. I doubt the AC cam was enough to arc over the AMRAAM above. I think it was from attaching the JLCR to the shock cord instead of the NC. The stability is already marginal.

@BABAR, I think you bought a RunCam2 lately. Any success? Any advice?

 

[jd2cylman]

And since I'm here, I'll post that I bought a Runcam2 4K, and extra batteries several months ago. I'm here to report that it's doing just fine, sitting in the box patiently waitng for me to get my thumbs out of my.... well, you get the idea. I ain't done squat with it yet other than to download the app and recorded a minute of the dog scratching her, well, same place my thumbs shouldn't be. After AirFest, I'll play with it again, I promise (maybe, probably, possibly).

 

[BABAR]

Same here. Actually what I would like is 60fps but don’t want the extra weight. I doubt the AC cam was enough to arc over the AMRAAM above. I think it was from attaching the JLCR to the shock cord instead of the NC. The stability is already marginal.

@BABAR, I think you bought a RunCam2 lately. Any success? Any advice?

Short version: no.

long version:
Still sitting in the box. I bought some plexiglass and hope to make a lens cover, as the lens appears quite exposed and given for me, as a low power guy (L-0 and proud of it!), this is the most expensive piece of my equipment, I want to be extra careful. Also in the midst of job change and moving to a different state, so not much building getting done lately. This thing is heavy, gonna need a D or E (maybe C5-3) to loft it with a low power rocket.
@neil_w , you used plexiglass or something on your SkyWriter, did you have to do any polishing or special care?
The stuff I got from Lowe’s is transparent but a little cloudy.

it came cheap for a square foot piece, I will cut it down, saw a YouTube vid where somebody glued it onto a bottle cap which fit well over the RunCam lens.

 

[Ronz Rocketz]

Short version: no.

long version:
Still sitting in the box. I bought some plexiglass and hope to make a lens cover, as the lens appears quite exposed and given for me, as a low power guy (L-0 and proud of it!), this is the most expensive piece of my equipment, I want to be extra careful. Also in the midst of job change and moving to a different state, so not much building getting done lately. This thing is heavy, gonna need a D or E (maybe C5-3) to loft it with a low power rocket.
@neil_w , you used plexiglass or something on your SkyWriter, did you have to do any polishing or special care?
The stuff I got from Lowe’s is transparent but a little cloudy.

it came cheap for a square foot piece, I will cut it down, saw a YouTube vid where somebody glued it onto a bottle cap which fit well over the RunCam lens.

All I know is don't use CA with it. The fumes will fog up acrylic.

There's probably a 3D printed cover on Thingeverse. Might have to be BT80 to fit.

If I didn't get the AMRAAM back, I woulda been out $190. Well if it was easy, everyone would be doing it.

 

[BABAR]

There's probably a 3D printed cover on Thingeverse. Might have to be BT80 to fit.

Probably, but since I neither have, know how to use, or know someone local with a 3D printer…….

 

[neil_w]

I bought some plexiglass and hope to make a lens cover, as the lens appears quite exposed and given for me, as a low power guy (L-0 and proud of it!), this is the most expensive piece of my equipment, I want to be extra careful. Also in the midst of job change and moving to a different state, so not much building getting done lately. This thing is heavy, gonna need a D or E (maybe C5-3) to loft it with a low power rocket.
@neil_w , you used plexiglass or something on your SkyWriter, did you have to do any polishing or special care?
The stuff I got from Lowe’s is transparent but a little cloudy.

That's a nice camera but seems really heavy LPR use. Anyway...

I used Lexan/Polycarbonate on my Skywriter fins. As I learned, raw polycarbonate is extremely soft and scratchable, and I would not use it for anything that requires optical purity. It *will* scratch (polycarbonate eyeglass lenses invariably have a scratch-resistant coating which makes a *huge* difference.)

So I got those fins scratched up, and then had a protracted battle trying to get them clear again, involving sanding, polish, and Future, all of which added up to something that I would absolutely not put in front of a camera lens.

Plexiglass/acrylic might be better in this regard but I have no experience with it.

I am not completely convinced that a lens cover is necessary, but that's a separate question. Just be sure to test video quality with and without the cover to see what effect it's having.

 

[Bruce]

How do you keep the rocket from spinning, so the onboard videos don't turn out to be nauseating?

 

[jd2cylman]

How do you keep the rocket from spinning, so the onboard videos don't turn out to be nauseating?

Straight fins. At least for the up part. Perfectly parallel to the airframe is a must.

 

[Bruce]

Straight fins. At least for the up part. Perfectly parallel to the airframe is a must.

Agreed. But everyone probably puts the fins on as straight as they possibly can anyway.

Another factor could be unintentional tiny thrust misalignments.

What methods are there to ensure that the rocket does not roll on the way up even with the aerodynamics being slightly imperfect?

 

[BABAR]

Agreed. But everyone probably puts the fins on as straight as they possibly can anyway.

Another factor could be unintentional tiny thrust misalignments.

What methods are there to ensure that the rocket does not roll on the way up even with the aerodynamics being slightly imperfect?

Here’s mine. I don’t know what it is about box fins, but I have now done three of them, and they fly like they are on rails all the way up. Here’s mine with an AstroCam

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/box-fin-modification-for-estes-astrocam.165893/

 

[Bruce]

Those box fins seemed to work surprisingly well at minimizing roll.

I have heard that tube fins are good too.

What would be the reason that tube and box fins control roll better?

 

[Eyesinthesky]

Those box fins seemed to work surprisingly well at minimizing roll.

I have heard that tube fins are good too.

What would be the reason that tube and box fins control roll better?

I don't think it is the shape of the fins but rather the area of the fins. Bigger fins means less roll (assuming they are on straight). I have observed this for many years, although going with the minimum size fins to make a rocket stable may increase you altitude, it will spin more. I greatly oversize the fins on my rockets specifically to reduce the roll for the camera footage.

Latest video

 

[Ronz Rocketz]

My Astrocam flights are straight. The Show Stopper flight has a lot of spin. It could be the cam I taped to the side but doubt it.

 

[Sandy H.]

Any other suggestions on a camera that I can get my hands on within 2 weeks? There are some Runcam 2's on Amazon, but if there are better small suggestions, I'd love to check them out.

Thanks,

Sandy.

 

[Sooner Boomer]

Rocket spinning - it's not just on the way up, parachutes, esp. partly opened chutes can cause spinning as well. Here's a frame grab from an Estes AstroCam on the way back down under a tangled chute. I love the effect it had with the relatively slow frame rate.



note - no, the hangers and the edge of the parking lot are straight, not curved.

 

[MAK60]

Ah. Understood. Thanks for the thought. I'll look at how its is built in the Oracle and see if it makes sense for my plan.

Thanks!

Sandy.

The Oracle cam is circuit board mounted into the cone, not readily adapted for other mounting. It is low resolution and uses a mirror to bounce the image into the lens.