Revision of use of cameras in deep competitions

[Stavros Kastrinakis]

Hi All,
one issue that I mentioned in my first post but nobody mentioned afterwards (Simo, Fred etc) if you have the live feed line running in the dive line we are talking about a live feed cable of something like 150m. For a cable that long the signal sent by the camera would end up useless at the other end due to the noise introduced in the long cable. You would therefore need signal amplifiers which would not allow the cable to be a nice and thin thing you could fit a lanyard around... so whats your ideas?

Two parallel lines is a mess due to the serious danger of entanglements...

Furthermore we need to remember that the cameras cannot be too far away as even with good visibility you need to get the camera less than 10m from the diver. (usually a lot less - when we are filming using freediving we stay within less than 5m from the subject to get decent framing on screen) So I think its best if we think of a system that keeps the camera close to the diver otherwise it will be pretty useless having live footage of a fat dot going up and down a line...That of course is the case if we are interested in getting the whole dive on film rather than just the turn +/- 15m

Cheers Stavros

PS. Simo when I mentioned a live feed on Herberts attempt I was not referring to a live transmission to the media which we all know was not the case (I was there ... ) I was referring to a live feed system which I heard was meant to be setup giving a feed from the bottom camera to the boat for the judges and safety team to have information on what was going on at the bottom... if what I heard was correct the signal was crap due to the reasons I explained above and the feed was really of little use... Bill could give us more info since he was there.

[Simo Kurra]

Stavros, ok, I wasn't aware of such a setup in Herberts attempt.

I guess for CW max 120m should be ok? Well that is until the Lunocet arrives Would that still be a probelm?

The "rope camera" I saw being used was maybe 14mm in diameter. I think that would still be manageable for lanyards? In fact that is what we use in training mostly...

I mean the rope was "hollow" and had a cable running inside it. So provided the rope is strong enough, it should support the bottom weights etc ok. Well, of course there would be practical issues to solve, but I don't think it would be impossible?

The camera he was dangling must've weighed 10 kilos at least and the picture was "good enough" for him to see what was on the bottom from 200m. Well, I could contact the guy maybe and ask if this is just my imagination or if that really happened


Anyway, being the huge nerd that I am, I drew this doodle of an idea for a controlled camera system. Sorry for the quality, I hope you can make the details out.

It might be totally unfeasible, but here's the reasoning.

On the bottom, you would have a solid beam of 20-30m. On the very far end the competition rope and on the very far other end 2 guide ropes for the camera. This would give 20m between the camera and the guide rope...Should be enough to prevent entanglement? The whole setup would weigh "a ton" to keep the ropes as straight as possible.

Then you would have a balanced "beam" sliding on the 2 guide ropes (2 to keep it aimed at the third rope). The beam would be "long enough" to get close to the diver, but still keep the guide ropes far enough from the dive line. The beam is controlled with an electric motor, a bit like Herbert's sled.

The camera would be operated so, that on descent it trails a little behind the diver and on ascent it leads slightly, so that the diver is never in danger of being hit by it. The camera would not need to be able to travel the full distance. The beam could be tilted up or down to stretch the view another 10-20m in good viz and on the bottom there would be a separate camera (which I forgot to draw, but if the cables run along the guide ropes and the bottom beam, there's no risk of entanglement).

The "nozzle" supporting the actual diveline would be such that if it had to be lifted, it would break away. In fact the rest of the structure could them be used as the counter weight. The beauty of this would be that there's no risk of hitting the diver, since the weight is lower than the diver to begin with. Of course the water would need to be twice the depth of the max dive depth.

A little over complicated...Sure, but not impossible? The biggest concern that I get right away that is a vertical beam of 10m, no matter how streamlined, feasible to move in the water at 1-1.5m/s? Probably not...But drawing it was fun although my wife probably thinks I could've spent the time better...