Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 3795 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

I am a complete newby to the world of video so I am hoping that if I explain my application someone out there can give me some advice or direction.

I want to be able to mount a camera in a fixed position to record the play on a billiard table. I want the table to fill most of the field of view without distortion. I tried with a sports action camera and it did not work because if I was close enough to get the table filling the image I got tons of curvature distortion.

Other parameters:

1) needs to be light enough to allow for easy mounting 

2) should have the connection for a tripod

3) wireless control or remote control would be a plus but not a necessity

4) at least 720p video

5) clear sound and picture

6) and this is the most important: inexpensive.

Most of the cameras I've looked at have all kinds of features that I really do not need. I want to get the best quality video I can get for an application that involves no changing light condition, no movement of the camera, nothing tricky. I just want to put it in place and leave it there and just be able to turn it on and off, and have a way of recording (or transmitting to a computer for recording) the video, with good clarity.

Preferably for under $100, but if I have to go higher I might.

Thanks for any help you can give me.

But then again, what the hell do I know?

Rich - in name only

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Do you mean like the sort of thing you would see if watching a cue sport on tv (this is snooker obviously but same principle).  I think the main problem is that the table is vertically long and the video frame is horizontally long so you need to get the right perspective to fit as much in as possible without the table looking too flat or without too much space on either side.

maxresdefault.jpg

If you are going for this type of perspective then I think mounting the camera is going to be a big issue.  It looks like it needs to be pretty high up to get the right angle for the perspective and so how much space you have in the room around your table will be important.  You might be able to use a tripod but then the spread of the legs will probably get in your way when playing shots at the black ball end of the table.  Plus the tripod would have to be pretty tall the further it gets away from the table.  You could use a boom but they can be susceptible to vibration (from walking around etc).   Wall or ceiling mounting might make more sense.  Or even going for a full overhead with the camera oriented the same way as the table (HD is 16:9 and I guess a snooker table would be 16:8 so quite similar)

In all cases though you are going to have hassle every time you need to touch the camera (change batteries / memory card, reset something etc).  So it might make more sense to go for some kind of web cam attached to your computer with a long lead, or maybe via a wireless USB hub (like a security web cam).  All you would need then is power and a wifi network.  

For audio if you have the camera way back and in the air then it is going to be difficult to get good audio, especially if you are facing a different way when taking a shot or something.  A cheap lav mic hooked up to a phone or recorder (if you have one) that you carry in your pocket would probably be better, although that might get interference when you take a shot as it would be mounted in the chest/neck area.  Probably a headset mic would be even better.

Ultimately it will depend on what you want to use the footage for - if it is just for personal consumption then webcam would be fine.  For YouTube or something else then a webcam might not have enough quality and you would need probably to go above your budget to get some kind of camcorder that you could wire up with connections to power and computer.

Adam

:ping: G30 Driver 

:callaway: XR16 3W
:callaway: Big Bertha 5W
:ping: S55 4-W 
:ping: 50' , 56', 60' Glide Wedge
:odyssey: White Hot #7 Putter


  • Administrator
Posted

I would think you could go for a direct overhead view. It's inevitable that you're going to get some distortion but directly overhead would do well… If you could get far enough away. That's the key, as I see it - being able to get far enough away that you're not relying on a 130° FOV or something.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Another option to consider is a wireless security camera. It could mount easily above the center of a table, controlled by phone or tablet, or laptop. The cost is inexpensive.

Below is the Zmodo Wireless Mini 720p HD IP WiFi Network Home Security Camera Two-Way Audio sells for $39 on Ebay. You could also broadcast a live stream to friends, cast the video to TV's. Other products:Funlux 720P HD Wireless WiFi IP Network 2-Way-Audio Surveillance Security Camera - iSmart 1.0MP HD720P P2P Night View Home Network WiFi Wireless IP Security Camera

 

 

Johnny Rocket - Let's Rock and Roll and play some golf !!!

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted

Like @iacas, I also thought of mounting it directly above the table.  This angle would also minimize the potential for the player's body to block the view of the action on the table itself.  On the other hand, I know that at home my pool light is pretty close to the table, maybe 3 feet above the surface.  To get the entire table into the view means a pretty wide angle setting, and brings in some of the curvature and distortion that becomes objectionable.  If you have enough room to make it work, I think the wireless security cams that @Club Rat suggests would work really well.  Wifi connection means no wires, no disturbing the camera to download the files, etc.

Dave

:callaway: Rogue SubZero Driver

:titleist: 915F 15 Fairway, 816 H1 19 Hybrid, AP2 4 iron to PW, Vokey 52, 56, and 60 wedges, ProV1 balls 
:ping: G5i putter, B60 version
 :ping:Hoofer Bag, complete with Newport Cup logo
:footjoy::true_linkswear:, and Ashworth shoes

the only thing wrong with this car is the nut behind the wheel.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
22 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Like @iacas, I also thought of mounting it directly above the table.  This angle would also minimize the potential for the player's body to block the view of the action on the table itself.  On the other hand, I know that at home my pool light is pretty close to the table, maybe 3 feet above the surface.  To get the entire table into the view means a pretty wide angle setting, and brings in some of the curvature and distortion that becomes objectionable.  If you have enough room to make it work, I think the wireless security cams that @Club Rat suggests would work really well.  Wifi connection means no wires, no disturbing the camera to download the files, etc.

I'm responding to this message but I read and appreciated everyone's thoughts.  I tried the "right above the table" angle with the gopro clone and it was just too close (because of the light).  The sides of the table were very curved.

I have considered both a webcam and a security type camera.  My concerns with them is whether the balance between no distortion and having the table occupy most of the field of view will be OK.  I actually have a really cheap webcam on order in order to see how that work.  If it looks like it works I can always get a better one.  The security camera idea is very intriguing because of the wireless and broadcast aspect of it.

With the security camera approach, can anyone give me an idea how far away the camera would have to be from the table (which is a 5x10, BTW)?  There is also the issue that I think these have t be plugged in, rather than operate on battery.  That could be problem, as this isn't for home, and I need to check outlet availability.  

I know that I am not going to get the kind of quality that professional pool/biliards/snooker broadcasts have or anything close.  Mostly I want the videos for entertainment - reliving unusually nice shots, and personal study.

Thanks for your ideas and please, keep them coming if you think of other considerations or suggestions.

But then again, what the hell do I know?

Rich - in name only

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3795 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Day 610 - 2026-06-03 Got some work in between lessons today. Rare late day, teaching until 7:30pm.
    • Let's continue on… Cool. The thing is, nobody's claiming par is "reliable" and par's inclusion piggy-backs in the course rating, which is awfully close to par and, thus, brings par in to make it make sense. Once again, for those in the back… (CR - Par) just makes it really easy to know what kind of score you need to shoot to best, match, or play worse than your handicap index. Yes, when par is different, the players from the higher par tees get an extra stroke (72 vs. 71, the 72s get an extra stroke. That makes sense and is a small complication (more info at https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Committee%20Content/USGA/LG_R6d.htm). However, most of the time, this adjustment will not be needed, as many courses play to the same par for the same genders from all sets of tees. And, the rare times it is needed, par (measured in whole numbers, integers) and strokes (also whole numbers/integers) map easily and the idea is easily grasped. Dean seems to be unaware of the fact that most every golfer carries something orders of magnitude more powerful than the highest end desktop computers available the last time he consulted with the USGA in their pockets. While it is quaint that his club puts printouts by the first tee… get with the times, Dean. Look up your handicap index and course handicap in the GHIN app and get on with it. It's a better system than the one that didn't account — at all — for a difference in the playing conditions (via an algorithm, not a judgment). Dean's assertions about the "less precise system because of par" continues to make absolutely zero sense. Right, it still changed tee to tee. Now it just changes differently… and in a way that more accurately reflects the score you need to shoot to play to your handicap. Previously, a 1.1 index would get 1 stroke on a 66.7/122 par-72 course. Now they give four strokes back to the course and must shoot 68 to play to their handicap. This makes way more sense. The 18-shot difference is a pretty extreme example. Maybe a long course that also offers a par-three set of tees could play that long, but… man, that's not going to be super common. Sensationalistic much, Dean? Also, once those unhappy (complete assumption) golfers realize a) what the change shows them (playing to net par = playing to your index) and b) realizes that their differential is going to be the same… I think they'll get over their initial questions. No. And yet… if he shoots the same scores, he'll get the same handicap index he has now. But he'll know on each course what score he needs to shoot to "play to his handicap." Sheesh, Dean. This stuff isn't that hard to figure out. Enough with the sensationalistic stuff. I don't find it "unacceptable" at all. Then again, I'm not nearly 80 and seemingly incapable of doing basic math these days. No. This literally makes no sense, as that part of the differential calculation and the course handicap calculation remains identical. Good! No. Categorically wrong. They should have been adjusting their handicaps all along. Previously it was by subtracting the course ratings. Which… is still basically what's done, with the addition of the course rating being "baked in" to the course handicap calculation. Dean is wrong here, or doing some math heretofore unknown by the world. When par is the same, what determines the difference in handicaps? The course rating, which Dean loves! Sheesh! You had to things when players were in situations like this before, too. This is getting exhausting. He keeps using words like "less precise" and "unfair" but does not seem to understand what they mean. This is like the Princess Bride meme: "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The caps reduce upward movement. Committees have reign to reduce a player's handicap, and there's still an automatic Exceptional Score Reduction. I'm going through these more quickly now because… well, it's silly how badly Dean misses the mark with this blog post. Dean is literally confusing the upward movement (with the soft and hard caps) here with the exceptional score reduction which is used when lowering handicaps due to an exceptionally good score. The creators of the WHS are handicap experts. They know more about the current state of handicaps/handicapping than the Pope Emeritus. It's been shown to have almost no effect across all handicaps. Yes, some 36s under the old system are now 35s under the new system. Yawn. He should have stopped there. It's easier to apply and makes more sense. This makes no sense. It's "not complex" but players will have to guess? And, for men or women, the stroke index of each hole doesn't change because they play a different set of tees. They get a different number of strokes, but it's always been true that when you get 14 strokes you apply a stroke to stroke index holes 1-14, and when you get 11, to just holes with a SI of 1-11. Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Dean's just out here continuing to make shit up about "the inaccuracy of par" and ignoring that with Par (an integer) came the Course Rating, which he agrees is precise and accurate. No. No, this is inaccurate. Also, as noted, you can randomly assign stroke indexes, and so long as all the low numbers or all the high numbers are not clumped together at the beginning or ends of the 18 holes, matches generally work out the same. This is inaccurate. It is an algorithm that looks at scores. That's it. Also, this is better than a system like the prior one where no such thing existed at all. Wildly inaccurate and off-base. Did they do actual testing? No need. They have millions and millions of rounds and ran many, many, many simulations. That's testing. Dean seems to continue to be unaware of the fact that computers are more powerful now than they were in 2002. But, he's nearly 80, so we can understand if not going so far as to give him a pass on how much he gets wrong. Cool. Noted. For the most part that was because many countries haven't been able to rate enough of their courses. :sigh:
    • Day 3 (3 Jun 26) - More work on keeping arms connected today - hard foam balls with 7i and 5w…..
    • Day 274 6-3 flow drill getting chest through, arms in front. Arms get a little pinned to the side, not as much in front as I want them when I add speed. 
    • Shot 48 yesterday.  For me bogey golf is good.  I was 10 over through 7 and figured with a Par 3 and 4 coming on all I needed was birdie / par to get my 45. I had a great tee shot on #8 and sunk  a 5 footer for birdie, game was coming together, now just needed par on #9. Had a great tee drive and the green was within range for a hoped GIR or nGIR.  But I pulled the shot left into tall weeds and needed to take a drop.  So much for par, but a bogey for 46 is still good for me. I hit my lob wedge to get over a small tree and saw the ball riding nicely  on line to the pin when my club hit the ball a 2nd time on my follow through causing the ball to change directions and ended up @ pin high but along the same tall weeds I just took an unplayable out of.  had no room for a backswing, Just hacked at it and it shot across the green to the rough on the far side.  Needed a chip & 1 putt got a triple bogey. you can see the hole fall apart in the screenshot below.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.