1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Mounting for Archos cam

Discussion in 'Bikes and Buying Advice - What Bike?' started by BentMikey, 25 Feb 2008.

  1. BentMikey

    BentMikey Rider of Seolferwulf

    Location:
    South London
    What sort of mountings are available? Since I rarely wear a helmet whilst riding, I'm looking for some way of putting the camera on my head. I think I saw police on TV use some sort of sprung head mount a little like that used for a one-earphone call centre telephone headset. Another option might be to band it to my sunglasses. Ideas?
     
  2. Arch

    Arch Married to Night Train

    Location:
    York, UK
    How heavy is is? I've seen a chap who had a double mirror arrangement, attached to his baseball cap brim, with a little crocodile clip. I'd have thought if you regularly wear a cap, or glasses, there would be a way to mount it to them, if it's light enough?
     
  3. magnatom

    magnatom Guest

    Mike,

    I don't attach it to my helmet at all. Mine came with a band that wraps around your head and has a velcro strip at the back to tighten it. It holds the camera in an elasticated holder which holds it pretty tight. The camera itself sits just above my right ear. It works pretty well.

    I assume the newer Archos cameras come with this strap. Are you going to get one?
     
  4. magnatom

    magnatom Guest

    Arch, the camera itself is very light. Much much lighter than the ATC2000. Of course the ATC had batteries in it which the archos cam doesn't need. It is powered by the recorder.
     
  5. mcd

    mcd Well-Known Member

    One of the two advantages of the archos cam is the greater variety of mounting options because of its smaller size & weight. It comes with a headband with a velcro closing for a secure fit. This can be worn under a helmet at a push.

    One thing I'm trying out just now is a 20mm plastic pipe clip just under the brim of my helmet. Wrap some electrical tape around the cam a few times and you've got it held secure while being easily removable. All very stealth like compared to the ATC:

    2292014622_8a66811a12.jpg

    2292013980_bb064644f7.jpg

    (photos hastily taken so excuse the poor quality)
     
  6. Sh4rkyBloke

    Sh4rkyBloke Jaffa Cake monster

    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    I'm thinking about getting a cam... is the ATC2000 not a good option then?
     
  7. PrettyboyTim

    PrettyboyTim New Member

    Location:
    Brighton
    Sharky: It's a great option for the price, but more money will get you smaller and lighter cameras with better video quality.

    Before my ATC2K broke (and it had been through the wars) I attached it to the handlebars because I found it to be rather large and heavy for attaching to my helmet.

    Cameras like Magnatom's Archos camera have the camera unit seperate and connected by a wire to the recorder, so the camera unit itself is very small and easy to attach to your helmet. You then have the recorder sat in a bag or a pocket. The video quality is better, but it is about twice the price of the ATC2K.
     
  8. mcd

    mcd Well-Known Member

    It's difficult to choose between the ATC2000 & the Archos405:

    > ATC is cheaper - but the Archos comes with batteries & 2MB of memory.
    > Archos comes with a screen, so it is easy to view what you've recorded - but the ATC is a single unit which makes it easier to handle (no cables) and is more robust.
    > The ATC has replaceable batteries, but it is easier to re-charge the Archos' battery.
    > Archos has a wider field of view - but the ATC can record more frames per second. This means that, for example the ATC is better at picking up number plates in the distance because there are more images to choose from, but the Archos with its wider field of view can pick out the number plate before it gets distant.

    In my view, the archos has a couple more advantages:
    > Archos has a much smaller and lighter camera unit - giving more mounting uptions
    > Archos can timestamp the video image - required for evidence.

    I was expecting one to be way better than the other, but the closer I looked, the harder it was to pick which one was best. So its a case of looking through the pros & cons, working out which pros are important to you and which cons you can live with.

    Another option is to wait for a high profile court case that is settled in favour of the cyclist - key evidence being footage from their helmet cam. After that all you need to do is cover a toilet roll inner in sticky back plastic and tape it to the side of your helmet, then enjoy the space!

    Or you could be lucky: buy one, and get the other as a present!
     
  9. PrettyboyTim

    PrettyboyTim New Member

    Location:
    Brighton
    Really? What framerate does the archos record at? I thought it was 30fps.
     
  10. magnatom

    magnatom Guest

    Be very wary of the frame rate that the ATC claims to record at. I found that it did produce 30 frames per second, but it did this by copying some frames! So in reality it was only about 25 frames.

    I really like the Archos. Mine is the older 404 which is a hard disk recorder. This has the advantage plenty of space for videos, but it can corrupt on occasion (I have been able to retrieve data I needed though) and if you bang it it could stop recording (and possibly break!).

    The other benefit to the archos is that it is better in the dark than the ATC. I found the ATC to be pretty useless at night.

    If you have the money, go for something like the Archos, if not the ATC does a fair job.

    Of course if you really have the money go for one of these http://www.actioncameras.co.uk/VIO_POV1.html

    If only I had the cash! (Actually I would probably just get a better bike!)
     
  11. mcd

    mcd Well-Known Member

    So far I've not been able to get frame rates on the Archos as high as the highest setting on the ATC. It could be I'm missing something on the Archos setup, or it could be that, with the connection between the detector and the recorder being shorter with the ATC, higher data rates are easier. Also as this connection is internal with the ATC, there is scope for it to be higher quality (eg no dry contacts), but then again, the unit is cheaper so this might not be the case. Mind you, I rarely go below OSI Layer 2 (ie computer network boxes, not their connectors) so it could be something else.

    Of course the advantage of a lower frame rate is that you can fit a longer video into the same amount of memory. That's how I noticed it in the first place. Its only if you are watching videos side by side, or trying to find a frame with a detail in it (eg letters on a number plate) that there is any noticable difference.
     
  12. magnatom

    magnatom Guest

    mcd,

    I honestly think the archos is better at picking up reg numbers. I see where you are coming from with the frame rate, but I think the better sensor in the archos more than compensates. Especially at this time of year with poor light.

    I should add, although the archos isn't designated as waterproof, I have had no problems with the camera itself in the rain (and we get a fair amount here!). The microphone needs to be protected,( it can sit just inside my jacket) and the recorder itself needs to be kept dry (mine is in my rucksack which has a rain cover). Set up like this it copes fine.

    The ATC is of course fully waterproof.
     
  13. mcd

    mcd Well-Known Member

    Judge for yourselves - both images taken at the same time from cams on the same helmet:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Though it's not all about picking up number plates - the wider field of view of the Archos gives a less blinkered view.
     
  14. OP
    OP
    BentMikey

    BentMikey Rider of Seolferwulf

    Location:
    South London
    No pictures there mate!
     
  15. mcd

    mcd Well-Known Member

    There is if you're using safari as your browser. But it appears that there aint if you're using IE (v6.0.29) or Firefox(v2.0.0.9). Might be something to do with them being .tiff files. Problem with using .jpg for screen shots is that the image will be further distorted by being compressed a second time.

    Anyone know how to display a browser friendly uncompressed screen image?