Custom made rear facing camera bracket | GTAMotorcycle.com

Custom made rear facing camera bracket

jay-d

jay-d

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Equipment used:
Canon 5D Mark II
Canon EF 24mm f1.4
Adobe Premiere Pro CS 5.5

If you know cameras, then you know that those two alone are about $5000. I needed to make a bracket that would hold about 5lbs of weight, be stable at high speeds with little to no vibrations and support my investment! It took me 2 full days to engineer a bracket that bolts over the rear handle mounting points that is sturdy as hell! I will take pictures later today and post what the bracket looks like.

Yes, I was speeding near the end of the video to push the bracket to see what kind of vibrations I would get.

Watch in 720p. Enjoy.

[video=youtube;I5IKBIl_dSw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5IKBIl_dSw[/video]

This is just a test video, I'm still in the process of wiring a mic to the exhaust so it won't be just music. That's for later though!
 
Last edited:
Definitely looks good, but if you go down that ex$pensive setup isn't going to fare to well.

I'd just get a gopro hd. Vid quality is just as good, better sound, more versatile to mount and if you crash it wont't cost you $5000 to replace.
 
Very nice... The video quality is MUCH better than any POV camera as there is not fish eye distortion.
Good luck with the audio... that will be more difficult than the bracket. Engines and wind noise are very loud and easily clip.
 
dizzy929 said:
Definitely looks good, but if you go down that ex$pensive setup isn't going to fare to well.

I'd just get a gopro hd. Vid quality is just as good, better sound, more versatile to mount and if you crash it wont't cost you $5000 to replace.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not using it for recording my rides.. I'm a cinematographer and shoot music videos so I needed a setup where I can be in front of a car for an up coming video! This is why I need to use that expensive setup because you will never get that quality from a GoPro ;)

Franko! said:
Very nice... The video quality is MUCH better than any POV camera as there is not fish eye distortion.
Good luck with the audio... that will be more difficult than the bracket. Engines and wind noise are very loud and easily clip.
Click to expand...

Audio is simple.. I have an off camera Rode Mic that I will be mounting underneath the tail. It has a dead cat (furry cover) that will dampen any wind noise that it might catch and it's a shotgun style (directional audio) mic!

The main purpose for this setup was for the music video, but I also wouldn't mind shooting a clip here and there with it as I did with this one!
 
Sounds like you should be good to go... (get it? "sounds", mic, audio... I kill me!)
What boom mic would you recommend for interviews with XLR connector?
 
SkyRider said:
is it just me or the dslr video quality "should" be better...?
Click to expand...

DSLR video quality is top notch when settings are used properly. The reason why it looks horrible, compared to say this video I made:

[video=youtube;Ph7e4L70rDY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph7e4L70rDY[/video]

Is because of diffraction. I'm not sure how much you know about the technical aspects of a camera, but when the aperture on a lens is almost fully closed (as in my video because of the sun and not using my fader) loses image quality. I also never used the correct picture style (flat) while filming, there's no colour correction done, levels, etc.

This is test footage but even as crappy test footage.. it trumps any GoPro or the likes footage.
 
X-Prophet said:
Great footage. I wish GoPro made a 24 fps mode.
Click to expand...

Er...my GoPro does 30fps at all resolutions and even 60fps @ 720.
Am I missing something here? Are YOU?
Perhaps you have an older one? I bought mine in April of this year.
 
X-Prophet said:
Great footage. I wish GoPro made a 24 fps mode.
Click to expand...

Why would you want to downgrade to 24fps? everything should be recorded at 60fps. There's absolutely no reason to record a ride at 24fps. It would look way too jerky... If you like the jerky look then take your 60fps and downgrade to 24fps in software.
 
Last edited:
Splash said:
Why would you want to downgrade to 24fps? everything should be recorded at 60fps. There's absolutely no reason to record a ride at 24fps. It would look way too jerky... If you like the jerky look then take your 60fps and downgrade to 24fps in software.
Click to expand...

24fps is not a "downgrade."

Believe it or not, but recording less frames is more intensive for the CPU. My footage is recorded at 24 progressive frames per second, it is not jerky. Down sampling 60 fps to 24 fps would give you speed decrease of 40% which perfectly translate to 24 fps and will give you some super smooth slow motion.

24 fps is what film cameras use, it's one of the things that gives footage that "film" look. You also need high end lenses with depth of field so you can separate objects in the scene. 30 fps is almost real life movement.. which is why we feel that it's almost home made.
 
jay-d said:
24fps is not a "downgrade."

Believe it or not, but recording less frames is more intensive for the CPU. My footage is recorded at 24 progressive frames per second, it is not jerky. Down sampling 60 fps to 24 fps would give you speed decrease of 40% which perfectly translate to 24 fps and will give you some super smooth slow motion.

24 fps is what film cameras use, it's one of the things that gives footage that "film" look. You also need high end lenses with depth of field so you can separate objects in the scene. 30 fps is almost real life movement.. which is why we feel that it's almost home made.
Click to expand...

Everything else equal, 24fps is a downgrade from 60fps.

The only reason they came up with 24 fps was to save on film cause it cost to much. There's no reason to do it these days.

You can't tell me 24fps is as smooth as 60fps. And yes 24fps is jerky/stuttery/motion blurry. Especially when panning.
 
Last edited:
Splash said:
Everything else equal, 24fps is a downgrade from 60fps.

The only reason they came up with 24 fps was to save on film cause it cost to much. There's no reason to do it these days.

You can't tell me 24fps is as smooth as 60fps. And yes 24fps is jerky/stuttery/motion blurry. Especially when panning.
Click to expand...

Highways were speed limited to 100km/h because it's the best speed for gas consumption but you don't see anyone changing the speeds do you?

Technically, yes, 24fps isn't as "smooth" as 60fps. James Camerson is trying to set a new standard and film everything in 60fps but it won't stick. The mass population doesn't like watching the smoothness that is 60fps.

A lot of people only like shooting at 60fps to slow it down to 24fps so they get some nice slow motion shots.

I'm a cinematographer, you can shoot at 60fps all you want but everything that comes out, the film standard is 24fps and it will not be changing any time soon. I love the look of 24fps and if you're getting stuttering or jerky movement at 24fps; you're not doing it right.

You should be more concerned with jello effect with the rolling shutters.

[video=youtube;ANHPJPM0dPs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANHPJPM0dPs[/video]
 
+1 to everything jay-d said.

I work in an audio engineering school and do a lot of post-production for film, and yes 24 fps is the standard as mentioned above.

If you were to shoot 2 takes of the same scene with the same camera - one in 30 fps and the other in 24 fps, the average viewer will tell you that the 24 fps shot looks more like a movie than the 30 fps shot...sounds weird but its true.

If you could care less about the 'movie look', by all means buy a camera with all the fps in the world. It's all personal preference.
 
X-Prophet said:
+1 to everything jay-d said.

I work in an audio engineering school and do a lot of post-production for film, and yes 24 fps is the standard as mentioned above.

If you were to shoot 2 takes of the same scene with the same camera - one in 30 fps and the other in 24 fps, the average viewer will tell you that the 24 fps shot looks more like a movie than the 30 fps shot...sounds weird but its true.

If you could care less about the 'movie look', by all means buy a camera with all the fps in the world. It's all personal preference.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

This is the same reason why a lot of people hate new TVs and that super smooth motion they get when they buy 120hz/240hz TVs. The TV is adding extra frames which makes the movie look like a home made movie; it's too smooth. It's great for live action sports, which is what it's truly designed for.

What they don't realize is that they can easily turn it off in the settings to bring it back to 60hz and return that movie feel that they are so used to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom