or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Practice Range › Instruction and Playing Tips › Potential Analytical Golf Swing Camera
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Potential Analytical Golf Swing Camera

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 

For a long time now I have been designing high definition video evidence cameras for the international law enforcement and police community.  Technology has now reached the stage that a specific golf purpose camera for the practice area could be designed and built, but it will cost more than the law enforcement versions.  Is the golf community prepared to pay about $1,000 for such a camera?

 

The camera would have a resolution of 1.3 megapixels and a frame rate of 1000 images per second and a global shutter.  The key is the global shutter and the consequent ability to stop motion without false distortion and artefacts.  Cameras such as the famous GoPro have rolling shutters in sensors that cost about $10 but a 1.3Mp sensor with a global shutter will cost $200.  Existing high performance/high frame rate cameras have had global shutter sensors costing $700 and up.  The new sensor suggests an end user price of $1,000.  Will the golf world pay that price?

 

The camera would and could work with all or any existing golf analytical software but would only be of value for the practice area.  I am not a golfer but those I have managed to discuss this with all state that once on the fairway they could be bothered with setting up a camera.  The research organisations say that over 30 million golfers exist in the world and that there are some 35,000 golf clubs with shops.  If one does basic math then to sell only one camera to each club and achieve the 35,000 sale would produce a gross profit for the manufacturing company of over $5 million.  So the idea seems as though it would be attractive to the commercial world but if golfers refused to buy it then it is a turkey?

 

Lee Tracey

R & D Engineer

9 Blackfriars

Oswestry, Shropshire, SY11 2DU. UK

 

dvr@dsl.pipex.com

 

44 (0)1691 659986 

post #2 of 41

I'm fine with my Casio 120/240 fps. I'd pay extra for a camera that knows how to clip out everything from the video except my swing so I don't have to ff/rew. So I can just hit play and see my swing instantly. Or has a motion sensor or remote so that I can start videoing without having to physically go to the camera.

 

Basically, I'd pay extra to swing, see video without any fuss, swing, see video, swing, see video, etc... I'd bet I'd save at least 1/4 to 1/3 of the time I spend on the range.

post #3 of 41
Thread Starter 

It would be easy to provide a remote control, say in an arm band style or large watch style, that would allow you to press the START record button just before you made the swing and then press the STOP record button.  Each swing could then be recorded as a segment so that on REPLAY only the last segment ( numbered ) appeared but you could number step back to all previous segments ( swings).  I am amazed that the Casio can do the job as I would expect the Casio to have a rolling shutter.  Also at 240 the images would be interfaced and that again should( for RS) produce distorted artefacts and artefacts should mislead you as to your true swing.  But thanks for the input as I am gaining knowledge of the golf world.

 

Lee Tracey

post #4 of 41

I'd pay it. I might even buy two or three.

 

I'll send you an email, Lee.

post #5 of 41
1000fps with no shutter roll effect and a remote?

Price point of $1000??

That's out of my price range but you'll definitely find buyers. Lots of instructors would be interested and serious practitioners with the cash will buy it. I would LOVE to have 1000 fps capability and a $1000 is very reasonable. Hell, my Powershot ELPH was $300 and has nowhere near the capabilities you're talking about. As long as you get a good marketing person on board I think this would be a winner. Every golfTEC in North America would probably buy one.

PS: the members of this forum would be happy to beta test everything for you... f3_laugh.gif
post #6 of 41

How about something to help you line up when it's only you recording? When there's two people, it's easy for the second person to set the position of the camera, but when it's just you, it's trial and error.

 

The set the right position feature could use my alignment rod and ball and tell me how high and how much more left or right when looking at ball face on to set the tripod. Plus what angle to tilt it. Even though I'm better informed than most on where to set the camera, some people set their camera at wildly crazy angles, I know that instructors here and many pros would set it in a better position than I. It would do it for both FO and DTL.

post #7 of 41

Please count me in.. I would buy one.

post #8 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevets88 View Post
 

The set the right position feature could use my alignment rod and ball and tell me how high and how much more left or right when looking at ball face on to set the tripod. Plus what angle to tilt it. Even though I'm better informed than most on where to set the camera, some people set their camera at wildly crazy angles, I know that instructors here and many pros would set it in a better position than I. It would do it for both FO and DTL.

 

I don't see much of a need for that. You can't put a stick down and line the camera up to that? People put their cameras down because they don't know any better.

 

I do like the idea of having an on-screen level. My Canon G12 has that. And smartphone cameras have them too.

post #9 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

I don't see much of a need for that. You can't put a stick down and line the camera up to that? People put their cameras down because they don't know any better.

 

I do like the idea of having an on-screen level. My Canon G12 has that. And smartphone cameras have them too.

 

You have a point. I've gotten away from setting a stick perpendicular to target line. Lazy. Gonna start bringing a half length alignment rod.

post #10 of 41

I sent you the email, @Lee Tracey. I look forward to your response.

post #11 of 41
I am curious as to where these videos will be saved. I am not certain but I think today's SD memory cards cannot handle 1.3mp at 1000 fps. I think you would need to drop it unprocessed directly into a PC. I am interested to hear the solution for this.

I also think the global shutter at 1000 fps is overkill and unnecessary unless you wanted to see club and ball interaction for which 1000 is too slow. I'd consider it a nice to have.
post #12 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by mchepp View Post

I am curious as to where these videos will be saved. I am not certain but I think today's SD memory cards cannot handle 1.3mp at 1000 fps. I think you would need to drop it unprocessed directly into a PC. I am interested to hear the solution for this.

I also think the global shutter at 1000 fps is overkill and unnecessary unless you wanted to see club and ball interaction for which 1000 is too slow. I'd consider it a nice to have.

128 gb sd card should do it?
post #13 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevets88 View Post

128 gb sd card should do it?

 

The data rate, not the file size. With compression it could be 100 MB/sec. But that's still a LOT of data, and it will suck up storage space FAST.

post #14 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

The data rate, not the file size. With compression it could be 100 MB/sec. But that's still a LOT of data, and it will suck up storage space FAST.

So that would be just ~2 min. That's not gonna work.
post #15 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevets88 View Post

So that would be just ~2 min. That's not gonna work.

 

I think the bigger issue is the data rate. But storage (even on the computer you import it to) is a concern as well.

post #16 of 41
Thread Starter 

The issue of storage brought up by many of you and especially Erik J. Barzeski has prompted me to look at this aspect in detail and the short sharp answer maybe that until a new storage media comes along my proposed 1.3M colour camera at 1000 IPS in easy mobile form may never see the light of day.  If we start in raw video from the sensor then our resolution is 1280 X 1024 which will store about 400 consecutive frames per GB of memory with 12 bits per pixel.  At 1,000 images per second that's only 0.4 seconds per GB in raw video.

 

If we add H265 compression and fit an SSD 500GB memory for the mobile unit then we are defeated again as the SSD would cost about $2,000 - plus the bulk the camera would have to be for the battery pack as well.  Our 1.3colour @ 1000 IPS would fit well in the indoor training studio for then we could buffer to DDR3 and USB3 out to a heavy duty mains powered storage unit.

 

If we change the whole concept and select 2megapixel at 1920 X 1080 at 120 IPS  compressed by H.264 then we would need 174 GB of storage per hour.  But we could use a laptop hard drive.  However that steps up our power source from 3.7V to 12V and a massive battery pack.

 

Nothing but problems!

 

It seems to me that my task is to discover what the minimum resolution is acceptable and what the minimum frame rate is acceptable and what price would be popular. I know I could design a low cost camera based on VGA ( 640 X 480 ) and 100 IPS  plus a global shutter, but then so could anybody else so why has it not already been done?

 

I could add the remote control facility and a few other features to make it different but is it worth the NRE investment - it would cost about $120,000 to design but additional money would be needed for the marketing stage or a prior deal with a strong marketing organisation.  I will try to add a JPEG of the difference between a global shutter and a rolling shutter, but if it does not work perhaps somebody can tell me how to put it up on this forum.

 

Lee Tracey

post #17 of 41

This is some interesting conversation I have to admit.

 

How things turned from the first post to post# 16 was great.. not the end result that there are so many problems to solve, but how the thought process and the role of sharing information really changes the way people in general re-consider their alternatives and ideas.

 

I am sure @iacas can talk more about what is really acceptable to the teacher (as rarely will the normal golfer know what to look for) in terms of fps for a meaningful analysis of a swing.. what is the point of diminishing returns??  If someone were to ask me I would say that anything over 264 fps is probably over kill..  

post #18 of 41
I don't think it's an fps problem. 240 is pretty good to see impact w/o blur in good lighting conditions. IMHO, if you want to sell more, making it stupid proof and super quick and easy to shoot video, perhaps interface with a larger screen, wifi upload, that sort of thing, will appeal to more people. Throw in a rainproof cover perhaps.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Instruction and Playing Tips
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Practice Range › Instruction and Playing Tips › Potential Analytical Golf Swing Camera