Uhmm I've never skydived but I've had a lighter camera attached to my head (once, only once) while skiing, when things go tits-up even a small amount of mass can create a surprising whiplash, which presumably is one reason for why they try to make helmets lightweight? Killing the poor suckers who are stupid enough to stand on the ground where things will fall is one thing, but it strikes me as attaching a DSLR *and* camcorder to your head before jumping out of a plane might easily qualify someone for an entry in the Darwin awards...?
justruss wrote:
Mass won't change acceleration when falling under the force of gravity alone... but shape will outside a vacuum.
That's why in earth's atmosphere a brick and a feather dropped from the same height DON'T hit the ground simultaneously (or a penny and a brick, most likely), whereas in a vacuum the two will hit the ground simultaneously.
Yes but the terminal velocity does change proportionally with mass!
How cool. Definitely gives a a new perspective on the rebel. I knew those things were durable but this is impressive!
I wouldn't want that kind of weight strapped to the top of my head when I experience the shock of a parachute opening. Ouch. That would practically tear your head off!
The shock is really not that bad, the parachute opens gradually and it slows you down over a couple of seconds or more. It was the unfortunate combination of loose helmet and the cameras not properly secured on the helmet plate.
CelticClicks wrote:
So explain to me exactly how it is that the Canon is filthy muddy grassy dirty and that smashed up cam corder is clean as a whistle.
I would guess that the Canon hit the grass field and the Sony hit the concrete pavement.
carlsbadbum wrote:
I would guess that the Canon hit the grass field and the Sony hit the concrete pavement.
It would be smashed and scratched to smithereens!
its all about dissipating the energy.
Probably made a Huge crater in the mud, which saved the camera. Same reason if I ever fall out of a plane, im going to land on my back in the muddiest, swampiest area I can get to. That or the roof of a big car!
First, with this kind of a heavy rig attached to your head, any little turbulence you encounter, specially before the chute has deployed, could literally break your neck. I know this because even a minor change like the material of your jacket or the helmet makes a big difference when you're diving. At least in my experience.
Second, it is a federal offense to be this careless in securing your rig. You could kill someone on the ground.
oh great! what a lovely story.
even a first grader won't buy that.
and i can't believe how many of you here do believe that it was a true story.
Here are the facts:
1. 3,000 ft. = 917 kilometers = 0.56 miles 2. the lcd for some reason did not even crack? 3. no dents or deep scratches (just to think that even if you drop a camera or anything into a body of water from a height of 3,000 feet would surely smash the object to pieces especially that he claims the velocity was 110 miles per hour, how much more if it landed on the ground?) 4. the dirt and the blades of grass looks like it's pasted into the camera like putting breadcrumbs on dough, wherein it's supposed to be embedded deep into the crevices and tiny gaps of the housing due to the impact of the fall. 5. the video camera has no dirt or grass at all, and if it landed on concrete or solid ground it should have been shattered to pieces and unrecognizable. 6. the damage on the video cam doesn't look like natural damage at all, it was properly opened using a screwdriver so the they can put it all back together after the show. just look at how the housing was carefully dismantled.
