theantipimper

[theantipimper]

Grattis 😀

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
Good in theory, January 11, 2007
Reviewer:E. Lambden ”piggiep” (bay area, CA) – See all my reviews
I bought this cam for my boyfriend as he’s active mntn biking and snowbording. My initial though was that it was too good to be true that it was wireless and reasonably priced. However after he took it out to try it at Downieville and the batteries weren’t strong enough to power the device for very long, I realized that there was a good reason that it was as reasonable as it was. Disapointing really, as by the time I get him a powerful enough one to take decent clips all the snow will prob. be gone!

Comment (1) | Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)

4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
Even for $100 this sucks, January 3, 2007
Reviewer:Benjamin Healy – See all my reviews
I almost feel like filing a report with the better business bureau I’m so incensed over this product. See the packaging and description? ”Great for Snowboarders, Skateboarding and More” – what a total farce. Any impacts that impart a reasonable amount of force for these sports causes the camera to corrupt the memory it was writing, only formatting the card will retrieve the lost memory. If you’re know how to scrape memory for ’lost’ items, it’s a little better, but knowing this and where to find the tools to reconstruct AVI indicies should not be a pre-requisite for using a helmet camera.
The shock tolerance aside, this camera still doesn’t live up to the money you pay. The video quality is that of the $20 key chain camera you can buy at Wal-Mart…which is not saying anything positive about the key chain camera. When I ordered this, I was expecting grainy video on par with a mid range webcam (something in the $30 range, only now portable and ’durable’), I expected it to be able to handle short stints under water (as it would be frequently mounted to my jet ski), and I expected it to be able to take the impact of me falling off my bike (considering that I want entertaining action shots, I don’t think it’s too much to ask to continue to get the action when I fall). I have yet to test the waterproofability (I like imaginary words sometimes) of the camera, but sadly, even if you hard mount the camera and duct tape it down, the background still suffers from the ’wobble’ effect that many have noted; and as I have mentioned, even modest taps to the camera cause the video to corrupt and the file to be listed as 0kb.
So, if you’re looking for a secondary camera to have in the car during an auto-cross race, these work well. If you’re looking for a camera to catch the action of the sports the camera touts as its staple use, look elsewhere. If you want a fully self contained helmet camera, wait for the ATC-3000…then read those reviews. Things I would recommend to OS for the next revision:
1. Fix the wobble. Seriously, if you have to, just rip the camera sensor out of a Logitech webcam, this improvement alone would double, nay triple the value of the camera to anyone using it.
2. SHOCK resistance! If you’re planning on people using these in sports, they need to be able to take at least a decent hit. Drop it from a good 10ft, if it can’t handle this, it’s not going to handle a full speed run into a wall from a guy trying to do some bike trick…and they’re going to want to see that hit first hand!
3. Batteries. Not mentioned in the review, the batteries are a bit much, two AA batteries provide you with more recording time than you can fit on two 4GB cards at the highest recording setting, using 1 AA battery, you could probably get a good 2-3 hours of recording time. If I need more, I’ll carry the other AA’s in my pocket.
4. Water resistance ambiguity. It’s either water proof or it isn’t, your site says yes, your packaging says yes…your manual says no…your demonstration video is of someone going down a water slide into a pool. Who screwed up on the manual writing?

I’d also like to see it have 60fps so I can do half speed video with no drop in smoothness, but at such a low price point, that’s just a request for extras, not something that makes/breaks this product. The numbered items are a MUST before I will buy from you again!
Ben

Comment | Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)

6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
Dissapointing, December 25, 2006
Reviewer:Mathias Abramovic (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) – See all my reviews
Got it from HRM USA, Inc. It arrived on time. No complaints about the seller or the shipping.

However, once I got it home and did some shooting I got very dissapointed with the video quality. Although Oregon Scientific states that it makes 640×480@30fps videos, it is hard to believe that you actually have a 30fps video. It looks like 15fps!

I was planning to make some footage of my parachute jumps and replace my Sony DSC P-100, which makes some really good video (smooth 640×480@30fps) for an old and small camera, but is not rugged enough to do it frequently. I think I’ll keep jumping with the Sony, though.

The audio quality is also poor but as far as I am concerned I don’t care for audio. Parachute jumps are full of wind noise anyway.

I think that I’ll attach the ATC2000 to the outside of the plane. Maybe I can get some good footage that otherwise I would not because I don’t have the courage to put my Sony DSC there. If it falls or gets hit by something it’s ok. Otherwise it would just stand in a drawer getting dust.

Maybe good for kids but not for anyone who cares about minimum image quality.