| Date |
2nd August 2009 |
| Tested by |
GK |
| Location |
Sydney, Australia |
| Test Procedure |
Camera Comparison |
| References |
N/A |
Aim
- Compare the FlyCamOne2 and MD-80 video cameras.
Experiment Setup
The normal camera comparison procedure was used. Both cameras
were attached to a single piece of wood and recordings were
taken at the same time of the same objects.
Results
The FlyCamOne2 was compared to
MD-80 camera. Following are a
number of comparison images taken from the two cameras at the
same time.
Comparison of colour and image quality:
FlyCamOne2
MD-80
Rotation of camera around focal axis reveals the amount of
distortion due to scan rate while in rapid rotation:
FlyCamOne2
MD-80
Difference showing the variation of intensity from the center
out to edges:
FlyCamOne2
MD-80
Low light comparison. These images were shot at night with only
normal incandescent light bulb lighting the room:
FlyCamOne2
MD-80
Here is a side by side comparison of the two cameras:
FCO2 and MD-80 compared
Conclusion / Analysis:
The following pros and cons are based on a subjective assessment
of the two cameras:
|
MD -
80 |
FlyCamOne V2 |
| Pros |
Cons |
Pros |
Cons |
| Small size |
Lower image quality |
Movable camera head |
Audio sync issues |
| No battery issues |
Lower frame rate |
Can take still as well as video |
Drops frames |
| No audio sync issues |
|
Better image quality |
Battery capacity issues |
| Simple operation |
|
Faster frame rate |
Poor performance in low light
conditions. |
| Solid alloy case |
|
More functionality |
|
| Good low light response |
|
|
|
Both cameras are well suited for water rockets. Overall the FlyCamOne has better image quality but
can suffer from
battery issues that can cause the camera to stop recording early.
Although the MD-80 has lower image quality, it is far more
compact and more robust making it a good choice when used with
water rockets. The frame rate as reported in Windows /
properties on the AVI file ranged from 19-20fps. And data rate
at 460-490kbps. |
