What camera to record golf swing

[Lee Tracey]

I have been designing high def cameras for the law enforcement and police world but now I have been approached by some golfer contacts to create a specific camera for golf use in the outdoor practice area. I am not a golfer so have to do much research to obtain PROOF OF CONCEPT. So far I have worked out that the camera will need a global shutter and at least 300 images per second, be portable and have about a 7 inch LCD screen, simple ON/OFF remote control, portrait configuration of the sensor rather than the common landscape and be weatherproof and easy to fit to a golf cart or trolley or tripod and also be able to record for about three hours self contained. It will also need to be able to accept analytical golf software and the price should not be above £540. Based on the data obtained so far I can design a camera 640 X 480 at 300 images per second with a global shutter. This camera, in raw video, would provide 7.28 seconds per GB - so a large GB memory will be needed plus H.264 compression to get to 3 hours recording.

I can also design a camera with a resolution of 1.3 megapixels at 1000 images per second and this would give 0.4 second per GB so much more memory and much higher compression ratio. It would also cost about £1,300.

I have discovered much about the GoPro Hero3 and many golfers have tried to use it but t does not answer to what they want. However GoPro is a very powerful and successful company owned by Nick Woodman who is a $1.3 billionaire - so while I would appreciate all the feedback anybody wants to provide I am very puzzled as to why such a camera has not already been created?

Many thanks in advance for any assistance.

Lee Tracey
dvr@dsl.pipex.com
UK

 

[fundy]

Welcome to the forum.

Are you talking about cameras for individuals or for teaching pros (or something that almost sits in between) as there are products that tend to satisfy both ends imo

Casio for eg make somevery decent high frame rate slow mo video cameras that are more than adequate for the amateur golfers (albeit screen size is on the small size it can be connected to a tablet). As for teaching pros there seem to plenty who have very decent camera set ups, all built into teaching bays etc and connected to larger monitors for better viewing (and obviously interacting with teaching software)

I expect the market outside of these 2 extremes is at best tiny

 

[duncan mackie]

this area is all about compromise - as you will well know some apparently small spec shifts will have a huge impact, and other seemingly large ones will have only a nominal impact.

you have referenced specs for video capture, software integration and output viewing - that's a lot at the price point!

I would also ask exactly who you think your market is - as indicated in post #2 a self contained unit with a 7" screen isn't going to appeal to existing set ups who generally compromise on the FPS but want solid definition for display purposes ie HD slightly slo-mo for them - and a huge number of teaching pros are extremely comfortable using an iPad and V1!

 

[Scrindle]

I am very puzzled as to why such a camera has not already been created?

Lack of market, I imagine.

How many lay people would be interested in a camera like this for anything other than novelty value? Those that would probably couldn't justify the spend.

So that leaves teaching pros who offer video analysis services. There are plenty of them around which makes me think that the 300-1000fps slow-mo capable cameras already on the market are sufficient for their needs (within a pro shop/teaching area) and compatible with the software they use. I shouldn't think there is much demand for 'on course' video analysis and, given the amount of course vlogs floating about on YouTube from the likes of Mark Crossfield et al (including rainy day footage), current camera equipment satisfies the market.

It is probably also worth noting that vlog users tend to record footage at 1080p (720p at the least, I've noticed) so an old style 640x480 resolution wouldn't be good enough. I don't know what is used for video analysis lessons, but I can't imagine why you'd want anything less than 720p, purely so that your student can see things more clearly on a decent sized screen more than anything?

My two pence.

 

[Lee Tracey]

Very interesting response so far. My belief was that such a camera as I could design would be for individual golfers to use in their practice areas and record just the swing in numbered segments and record to a portrait orientated sensor and display. A camera that would be mobild for use outside and totally self contained. From the USA forum SANDTRAP the hundred who responded all totally supported the idea and need for such a camera and they claimed that resolution was not important but frame rate and global shutter was important. They also totally rejected the Casio cameras and published adverse reviews. All said currently no camera that could do the job outside an internal practice setup existed. I could easily upgrade the resolution by the general opinion was that at the short distance camera to golfer did not need more than 640 X 480 as stopping motion without blur and distortion was the vital aspect and only a global shutter at a minimum of 300 IPS could do that. The problem with upgrading the resolution, according to opinion, not important, was that it would greatly increase the storage level required. With the portrait orientation filling the screen I am of the opinion that high resolution would achieve almost no gain for the purpose over 640 X 480.

The design can seesaw between resolution and frame rate until the best compromise is made. If, for instance, the frame rate can drop to say 150 IPS then the resolution can increase to 2.3 megapixels plus some heavy H,264 compression. My personal opinion and experience is that high resolution will only help blades of grass but not the angle, shape etc of the golf club; only a global shutter at high speed will do that. For thos who do not know the differece between a Casio rolling shutter and a global shutter I will upload ( if I find out how ) JPEG images thatexplain the difference.

Lee Tracey

Perhaps some field tests are needed. I am however really amazed at the total difference of opinion between the USA golfers and the UK golfers.

 

[Rooter]

hi lee. if you are aiming it at consumer level, not pro's, then price point is going to be the main factor. needs to be sub £100 IMHO or people wont buy it. the £540 you stated in post 1 is way too high for most people i would imagine.

 

[Maninblack4612]

I've just seen a slo mo video of my swing on my mate's new Samsung Galaxy phone-cum-tablet. It is stunning. My Casio camera, at 320 fps gives perfectly good results for about £300. Can't see anyone being interested in a dedicated golf camera except for a few pros & teaching facilities.

 

[SVB]

Main issue of individual practice vs set up in teaching bay is lighting, esp down the line shots. A camera mounted in a covered bay, viewing golfer with bright afternoon lit range beyond is going to see nothing but outline unless you have some very clever gear.

S

 

[Scrindle]

Very interesting response so far. My belief was that such a camera as I could design would be for individual golfers to use in their practice areas and record just the swing in numbered segments and record to a portrait orientated sensor and display. A camera that would be mobild for use outside and totally self contained. From the USA forum SANDTRAP the hundred who responded all totally supported the idea and need for such a camera and they claimed that resolution was not important but frame rate and global shutter was important. They also totally rejected the Casio cameras and published adverse reviews. All said currently no camera that could do the job outside an internal practice setup existed. I could easily upgrade the resolution by the general opinion was that at the short distance camera to golfer did not need more than 640 X 480 as stopping motion without blur and distortion was the vital aspect and only a global shutter at a minimum of 300 IPS could do that. The problem with upgrading the resolution, according to opinion, not important, was that it would greatly increase the storage level required. With the portrait orientation filling the screen I am of the opinion that high resolution would achieve almost no gain for the purpose over 640 X 480.

The design can seesaw between resolution and frame rate until the best compromise is made. If, for instance, the frame rate can drop to say 150 IPS then the resolution can increase to 2.3 megapixels plus some heavy H,264 compression. My personal opinion and experience is that high resolution will only help blades of grass but not the angle, shape etc of the golf club; only a global shutter at high speed will do that. For thos who do not know the differece between a Casio rolling shutter and a global shutter I will upload ( if I find out how ) JPEG images thatexplain the difference.

Lee Tracey

Perhaps some field tests are needed. I am however really amazed at the total difference of opinion between the USA golfers and the UK golfers.

Interesting comments. My only caution in respect of the largely supportive comments received from the other forum would be that there is a substantial difference between people thinking an idea is good and being willing to front cash for the same. Did you ask if any of them would be willing to be capital investors with you in order to test the likely marketability over a small (but highly specialist) sample size? I agree that being able to see your own swing could be useful, however I would not pay >£500 for the privilege. I doubt I would pay over £100 for the functionality to be honest.

Food for thought. Swing footage is useful if you're able to analyse the faults in your swing, however, most people can't do this which is why I previously mentioned 'novelty value' (those that can already have decent swings I would argue). For the intended price point of your camera, amateur golfers could instead buy 27 30 minute lessons with your average pro (and probably a lot more if they bought in bulk).

The other thing to consider is the huge leap forward in smartphone camera technology. The current front runners are Apple and Samsung, of course. I'm aware that the new iPhone 5 is capable of slow-mo video capture but unaware of its other capabilities. From a personal point of view, my Samsung S5 is capable of recording both slow-mo video and super-HD (4k resolution) video as well as standard 1080p HD. I can also shove up to a 128GB micro SD card into it for additional space when recording should I choose. Why would I then pay £540 for a golf camera when my smart phone can not only record at a higher resolution while preserving the slow-mo aspect, but is also IP67 rated (100% dust proof (IP6) and waterproof up to 1m depth for 30 minutes (IP7 - practically completely waterproof for the sort of conditions you would find playing golf - I actually chucked my phone in the bath to test this the other day and it was fine ha ha!)).

Granted the S5 slow-mo is only 120fps but, having seen it, I can't imagine why I would need a higher capture rate (at least with my swing speed anyway - about 105 with driver)?

Not trying to be harsh - just playing devil's advocate .

 

[chrisd]

I record on Ubersense app on my Ipad mini, now I'm not suggesting its within a mile of the spec you're talking but, for me, it pretty much does the job . I can mail straight away, direct to anyone who's swing I record and the whole thing cost nothing. A slow frame rate would be a bonus but I wouldn't pay £500 + for a specialist camera for golf, my Canon d12 hardly cost that.

 

[CMAC]

640x480 is a non starter imo. resolution is vital as is FPS.

Remember most will be recorded in poor light conditions either in a badly lit golf bay or the British dull weather.

Most will also want to view on high spec PC monitors or smart TV's that are mostly 720p or 1080i or P

Price is also key- I believe there is a market as I see many ranges with guys holding iPads or balancing phones trying to record. A decent PP would be around £150 retail to encompass this. It Does not, IMO, need 3 hrs storage capacity. If you had quality then 30 mins would suffice as most videos uploaded for analysis are under 1 minute in length.


In Summary, good idea, def market, quality of image with FPS is key, price point around £150.

The camera can be solely for this if that keeps quality up and price down i.e it doesnt need to double up as a camera for 'snaps'


Let me know when it's ready and I'll be happy to be an early adopter

 

[duncan mackie]

I am however really amazed at the total difference of opinion between the USA golfers and the UK golfers.

don't be - you need to consider the question you are asking and the audience you are addressing better. Look at the numbers of golfers in the area; then look at the registered users of the social media you are pitching to as well as the general target market of the particular social media site. Sandtrap and GolfWRX probably represent (almost the whole of) your target market in reality. If it's new or highly specced someone will have it and everyone will want it; they will all want to talk about (having) it! The UK golfers you want are already on those forums as well.

As to the general premise, if I want the level of detail and clarity 300fps will deliver I would also wish to 'zoom in' on that detail eg grip/wrist to observe - here is where the resolution you put forward fails for me. However, despite having a lot of expensive video capable photographic equipement and spending a lot of time playing golf I would only ever be interested in self analysis of very basic aspects of timing and posture/swing plane that require nothing more than a 'phone and an app' (3 year old phone at that!)

good luck

 

[m9wst]

I use the slo mo feature on my iPhone and sit it in a gorilla pod tripod attached to a chair or whatever happens to be near my bay. The tripod works fine, cost £15 and the iPhone's camera is more than adequate for what i need...I couldn't justify £500+ on a camera just for golf.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I have been to lessons in teaching bays and the pros seem to cope without the need for some specialist equipment. A quick download onto a PC with V1 or GASP and away you go. The assistant at my place just uses his Ipad and it works for him

 

[Lee Tracey]

I am getting an excellent response and much serious opinion, and for which I am grateful, though a little demoralised. Not being a golfer but listening to the views of those who initially approached me, admittedly from the Rolls Royce and Ferrari crowd but also somewhat supported by the mainstream, was the requirement for a specific golf in-tune camera. They had all experimented with Casio/GoPro and mobile telephone cameras and mostly obtained reasonable results, but what they asked me for was:

1. A stand-alone camera that did not need a second person to operate but could be easily attached to a golf cart or trolley or a tripod.

2. A remote control that could switch the camera to RECORD just before the swing and then to OFF so that the camera only recorded the actual few seconds or minute of the swing and into numbered short sections. The complaint being that if the set their GoPro or Casio or mobile up to record while strapped with tape to a golf cart they obtained many minutes of useless recorded time and had to search through all the crap to find the swing.

3. They wanted the lens to be on the side pointing at the goofer so that the LCD screen was on the large flat side and could be easily seen when the camera was installed.

4. No obvious controls other than a Switch ON and OFF and all else by touchscreen.

5. Full IP65 weatherproof.

6. Electronic zoom.

7. Pan/tilt fixings for golf cart or trolley.

8. LCD screen large enough for replay detail immediately after swing - about 7 inches.

9. Battery to last at least 3 hours.

10 Removable storage memory capable of up to three hours.

11. WiFi.

12. Rugged and able to stand abuse.

13. It must have a global shutter.

14. It should not cost more than $500 to $600.

One thing I have failed to consider but has been identified by members of this forum is the issue of light. I was working on the idea that all practice areas were out in the open and in full daylight. If the LCD is 7 inches then the camera can be big enough to have a large battery and with that a powerful LED floodlight that would only switch on for the few seconds of the exposure. Such a battery could be fast removable so that a spare could be used. For my Ioptec police camera that operated at 1920 X 1080p at 30 images per second I had a battery that worked recording non-stop for 12 hours, yet the police camera is no larger than the police walkie talkie.

The golfers who approached me were from the Woburn Golf Club so I visited them there and parked my old wreck between the Rolls and Ferrari's and then discovered that the entrance fee was £6,000 and the yearly, in addition, was £2800, so I reasoned that cost was not an issue - a bad mistake.

I am sure there has to be a potential design out there though right now I am far too confused to know what it is.

In answer to another point one of you raised. No I failed to confront the USA forum golfers by asking if any of them wished to invest in getting either PROOF OF PURCHASE completed or in a new start up company to create it - the NRE would be about £250,000. The Woburn crowd did assure me that they would buy equity if I decided to go ahead and started a clean virgin new start up. Compared to you golfers the police and law enforcement world is simple.

Lee Tracey

 

[Scrindle]

Out of interest what kind of crowd are the Woburn golfers (aside from being relatively wealthy). The reason I ask is because I can't imagine ever wanting to mess around looking at my swing while on the actual course. If I'm playing a game I play with my swing and shot shape on the day, leaving any swing tinkering or learning to the driving range (most of the time :lol.

I can completely understand for the range/lessons/practice area/etc... but I can't imagine ever doing so on the course itself. Furthermore, if I was holding up the people behind me on the course because I was recording my swing and then watching the replay on the camera for every shot I think my fellow club members would probably lynch me!!

I think another issue that you may run into, something a few of us have alluded to already, is your spec to price point ratio. As I understand it volume is considered heavily when targeting price point. You can (in basic terms) go after the 'money no object' crowd with high value, over engineered items that provide a hefty profit margin, allowing you to produce a product to sell in low volume while still making enough money that it is worthwhile for you to do so (your Lamborghini Aventador). Alternatively you can go after the mainstream market and produce an inferior product at a lower price point with a lower profit margin and rely on volume sales to make it worthwhile for you instead (your Vauxhall Corsa). A lot of companies will release a range of products designed to maximise their market exposure and take advantage of both markets and those in between (every non-'exotic' car manufacturer).

The product you have described on the face of it fits, spec wise, into the volume market but is priced at a point higher than the volume market is prepared to pay (I imagine - certainly from my perspective). You have said in your more recent post that, given the people who approached you, you had assumed money would not be an issue. They provided a price point that they would consider paying and, given the specs involved, I imagine you could make a reasonable profit margin but I don't think the volume would be there at that spec to price point ratio to make it worthwhile, personally (though granted, you know your figures infinitely better than I do and I appreciate that this forum thread is forming part of your market research!).

The fact that they would be willing to buy equity in a start up is also somewhat of a misnomer in my opinion (from your perspective as the engineer at least) because they'd be acting as a surrogate venture capitalist without providing the expertise and market connections that would actually help you take the product to market and get it recognised. By all means the additional monetary investment they offer eases the financial burden on yourself, however, aside from that initial capital injection what do they actually bring to the table? Nothing. You'd be better off attempting to gain support from a more mainstream venture capitalist who might have the business connections to make things happen for you once the product development cycle is complete or even during it. It might cost you more in terms of equity but once the product is finished you end up with an intermission, with the VC heading up the second half of the story, rather than a curtain fall. A small slice of a large pie is better than a mediocre slice of a small pie, relatively. If the new start-up venture subsequently fails you both end up with a loss anyway and with a smaller equity share your loss is inevitably reduced! In any event, being of a legal background, 'assurances' aren't typically worth anything until they're backed up with cash and a binding signature somewhere on a page; get them to put money where their mouth is first!

Finally, as a few of us discussed, the line between 'do want' and 'will buy' is like an object sitting under the water's surface, difficult to locate. A good golf related example of this is the new Game Golf device that came out not too long ago. Do a casual search for threads on it in any golf forum and you'll find a lot of people who say they will definitely buy one or would be 'very interested' (how many of these then have subsequent posts reviewing the same or providing first hand anecdotal comment on it? Very few indeed). The majority of people either think it is a gimmick and waste of money, or state that they would love to have one but that it is not something they would purchase themselves. This latter category is very interesting because they either provide positive feedback during product concept stages and then fail to front the money when it comes to crunch time, or they provide reasoned and convincing price point/spec feedback, based upon their assumptions about how others will react to what they perceive to be a good idea and a market hole, with no evidence for the same, whilst having absolutely no intention of ever making a purchase at that same price point themselves. The amazing thing about it is that they don't even realise this is what they're doing. GameGolf hasn't been a flop as far as I know but I imagine the above leads to the death of a lot of new start ups because, sadly, big ideas only snowball into big money if the price is right, and this group of people skews the price point/spec reality quite a bit at best and, at worst, makes it appear as though a market exists when sometimes it simply doesn't.

If there's a market for your idea then I wholeheartedly say go for it but I seem to recall reading relatively recently that the main killer for new start-ups is lack of market research. You're doing yours as we speak, which is great, but make sure you do enough before taking your product past concept stage.

Apologies if any of the above sounds patronising - it is basically a mind dump of my thought process on the issue, I haven't re-read it and it certainly isn't meant to come across that way. If it even flows or makes sense at all it'll be a miracle .

Best of luck.

 

[Lee Tracey]

Many thanks to SCRINDLE for such an in-depth analysis. Very much on the button as well. The feedback I had received made it clear that such a camera would be only for the practice area and never on the course. All the feedback however has convinced me that there is no market for a mass sales forensic camera, there are so many low cost cameras in the domestic world and extreme sports world that almost do the job that to add so much price to achieve only a small advantage over those existing cameras is not a commercial project.

What does appear to have come out of my PROOF OF CONCEPT research is that there is a market, though much smaller, for a high performance camera that would sell for about £1,500 to some clubs and some professional's and some instructors as well as finding a market in other sports and in machine vision and scientific.

This camera would have a resolution of 1.3 megapixels and a frame rate of 1000 images per second, but I could design for self-contained mobile use as against the common indoor only use for other cameras in this performance range. In raw video this camera would record for 0.4 second per one GB - so some tricky-dicky work has to be done from here on to get a little better storage period. If we stick to a buffer and solid state then we are looking at at 128 GB - which gives us 48 seconds.

Add some H.265 storage at a ratio of 60:1 and we get 48 minutes; make the compression algorithm variable and perhaps be happy with 20:1 and we get 16 minutes. It might even be possible to record to a laptop hard drive and get some terabyte storage involved - work to be done on the throughput speed and if this can be buffered enough.

If this camera were to be used in the mobile ( battery operated ) state and so designed that it only actually recorded during the actual club hitting ball stage then perhaps the recording time per segment could be less than a minute per time; perhaps only 15 seconds.

This would allow the camera to be fitted with a very powerful and narrow aimed LED floodlight that would switch ON and stay ON until the STOP command was sent - not a flashlight but a flood. If the camera were sited at an angle to the sun then the problem of poor lighting and shadow might be overcome with the sun adding a rear highlight.

Talking to some higher level golfers they thought that clubs etc might buy two or three and hire them out to members. This is not going to be a small camera, about the size 10 X 8 X 6 including the battery LCD screen and floodlight, with a connection for an external support battery.

To make this camera commercially excitable it would need to sell 12,000 over three years. If, as I am told, there are 35,000 golf clubs with internal shops then one has only to sell one camera to about 35% of them.

Sounds attractive!!

Lee Tracey

 

[bobmac]

I use a Casio FC 150 for teaching golf and I find it more than adequate.
It is the size of a cigarette packet and cost around £100
Admitedly, the higher frame rate you use, the more light you need but you get what you pay for.
Would I spend £1400-£1500 on an all singing and dancing one?
No.
And I dont think you would find many pros that would.

 

[Lee Tracey]

Hi "bobmac"

Thanks for that. I looked it up and it sounds a fantastic camera but where can I buy one for £100? All the sites I found were closer to £400, and even a secondhand one was over £200.

Lee Tracey - dvdr@dsl.pipex.com

 

[bobmac]

Hi "bobmac"

Thanks for that. I looked it up and it sounds a fantastic camera but where can I buy one for £100? All the sites I found were closer to £400, and even a secondhand one was over £200.

Lee Tracey - dvdr@dsl.pipex.com

I dont know where you're looking because they are quite rare and dont come up for sale very often.
The Casio FH20/25 are also popular among teaching pros and often come up for sale on Ebay.
eg
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Excellent...Cameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item4180969f00

But any Casio HS (high speed) will do the job especially the more recent ZR series which have a 16MP still frame, a 3" screen and some models have built in WIFI

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/UK-wareho...Cameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item4ad4eef5db