Possible world record
/forum/topic/845602/4

1       2       3       4      
5
       6       end

Tattat
Registered: Dec 17, 2009
Total Posts: 1
Country: Philippines

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.

it's december man, not april fools.



Lani Kai
Registered: Oct 04, 2005
Total Posts: 782
Country: United States

Tattat wrote:
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?)

For the record, water is MUCH more dense than a pile of grass and dirt. Falling on water from 3,000 feet is like falling on concrete. If you don't believe me, try a belly flop at the pool, and then do the same thing on a pile of hay or a mound of dirt.



jchin
Registered: Jan 02, 2005
Total Posts: 2706
Country: United States

deepbluejh wrote:
With performance like this, who needs the ruggedness of a 1-series


Gee ... I wonder how a 1-series would hold up.



Jos Tesseract
Registered: May 28, 2009
Total Posts: 615
Country: Canada

for the nay-sayers...

I dropped my 18-55 from a height of 3 feet, it bounced about 2feet and i caught it. That one hit was enough to torque the focus mechanism to be stuck in MF, and free-spinning in AF. Ergo, there's no way it would survive a 3000ft drop, mud or not

also, mud, like water, effectively turns unto concrete for falling objects. Unless a small earthquake happened at the same time, it's bogus.

I think someone needs to write this one into Mythbusters.



TTLKurtis
Registered: Jan 31, 2006
Total Posts: 9918
Country: United States

That is awesome. I don't think I'd try that with my 1Ds III, still.



MTBtrials
Registered: Feb 04, 2008
Total Posts: 1372
Country: United States

video?



Littlefield
Registered: Jan 03, 2006
Total Posts: 1144
Country: United States

Jos Tesseract wrote:
for the nay-sayers...

I dropped my 18-55 from a height of 3 feet, it bounced about 2feet and i caught it. That one hit was enough to torque the focus mechanism to be stuck in MF, and free-spinning in AF. Ergo, there's no way it would survive a 3000ft drop, mud or not

also, mud, like water, effectively turns unto concrete for falling objects. Unless a small earthquake happened at the same time, it's bogus.

I think someone needs to write this one into Mythbusters.

Yea send it in for Mythtbusters Sorry, I don't buy it either.



BrianO
Registered: Aug 21, 2008
Total Posts: 8551
Country: United States

Jos Tesseract wrote: ...there's no way it would survive a 3000ft drop, mud or not

One would normally say the same about a person falling great distances, and yet there are a few miracles on record regarding skydivers survivng freefalls, while there are also stories of people breaking their necks when tripping while crossing the street. It is unwise to say "no way."

Absolutes...aren't.



Ed Swift
Registered: Jul 03, 2009
Total Posts: 1699
Country: United Kingdom

Good story. You think they'll use this scenario in future product testing?



omarlyn
Registered: Feb 19, 2004
Total Posts: 4066
Country: United States

Here's another 'take' on the authenticity of this story...Years ago I was an avid sky-diver and our landing zones were dry farm fields that were 'regenerating'. However, we were surrounded by other active fields...some of which were plowed (= loose soil), and overgrown with crops. I always thought that some of these fields were so overgrown that a skydiver with a partially open 'chute falling hard would survive landing in one of these fields. Once, I turned with the wind on my final approach (which meant I was going to land hard)...I ended up drifting over the next field which was as described above and it made for a very effective 'cushion' for my landing. So, I think it's possible that it could have occured as described if the landing site had loose, fine, plowed dirt and tall vegetation. The video camera could have taken an initial impact (on a branch) which destroyed the video but took most of the impact force and then flipped through some softer vegetation (slowing down even further) and finally landing (at a relatively slow speed) in the soft loose soil. Yes, it's a stretch of the imagination and maybe even one-in-a-million but it could have happened. In fact, sky-divers have been known to survive 'chute failures at (near) free-falls speeds because they landed in thick vegetation.

Omar



Patrick Elliott
Registered: Feb 04, 2008
Total Posts: 355
Country: United States

Upon further investigation, it was discovered that the XT was originally registered to Chuck Norris. Therefore, it is true and it did survive the fall.



MTBtrials
Registered: Feb 04, 2008
Total Posts: 1372
Country: United States

FWIW, go to page 1. video has been added.



dkasemier
Registered: Dec 18, 2009
Total Posts: 1
Country: N/A

I think it has to do mainly with the trees combined with the mud. Branches slow down a light object pretty gently, even at very high speeds. I don't think it really makes a different if the camera fell 1000ft or 100ft. Terminal velocity would've been reached in both cases. I do think that you're much better of throwing a DSLR from 1000ft into the mud then from 10ft onto concrete.

I think a rebel could survive a tougher landing, like the video camera clearly had. In that case he lens would be shattered though.



integriphy
Registered: Feb 17, 2009
Total Posts: 103
Country: Canada

looks like CNET picked up the story...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10416652-264.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20



Calin Leucuta
Registered: Mar 10, 2007
Total Posts: 127
Country: Romania

Video is up:

http://cielphoto.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-first-dslr-rebel-xt.html



champu
Registered: Dec 19, 2009
Total Posts: 1
Country: United States

I find it really amusing that people are saying this is fake, stating that you can't jump out of a plane with video and still cameras on your head without breaking your neck... I guess I've just gotten really lucky the last couple thousand times I've done it.

Anyway...

Did the whole carbon fiber plate rip off the helmet or did the quick releases you've got the cameras mounted to fail? (or both?) I always cringe when I see carbon fiber overhanging the sides of the helmet by more than a quarter inch or so. Top-mounting landscape stills and a video camera can be tricky, but an HC40 and a 350D should be able to fit on that helmet with no overhang.

Also, cut the excess off that ring sight post! It's just sticking out there waiting for something to get snagged on it.



astrolucida
Registered: Jan 07, 2005
Total Posts: 1661
Country: Finland

Calin Leucuta wrote:
Video is up:

http://cielphoto.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-first-dslr-rebel-xt.html


Looking at the timing, the camera ripped off at 2:28 which gives it 21 seconds of time before hitting the ground. The system seems to be spinning a lot (up and down, sky and earth alternatively) but still the average speed would be 3000ft*0.305m/ft / 21 s = 43.6 m/s = 157 km/h. Considering that the system was already at free fall when the camera separated, there wasn't really any significant acceleration phase. Thus, I would conclude that the speed that it hit the ground was around that value.

It would be nice to see what the landing area looked like - maybe the camera had hit a tree on its way down?



Sennaista
Registered: Jan 24, 2009
Total Posts: 45
Country: United Kingdom

Lani Kai wrote:
Tattat wrote:
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?)

For the record, water is MUCH more dense than a pile of grass and dirt. Falling on water from 3,000 feet is like falling on concrete. If you don't believe me, try a belly flop at the pool, and then do the same thing on a pile of hay or a mound of dirt.


What makes water fatal is its high surface tension.



BrianO
Registered: Aug 21, 2008
Total Posts: 8551
Country: United States

astrolucida wrote: ...Considering that the system was already at free fall when the camera separated, there wasn't really any significant acceleration phase.

It probably did accellerate.

The skydiver would probably not have been falling at terminal velocity. Unless tucked into a ball or diving head- or feet-first, the aerodynamic drag will slow a skydiver's fall considerably, especially if he or she is wearing a wing suit as many do these days.



abam
Registered: Apr 25, 2005
Total Posts: 4201
Country: United States

you guys sure know how to party.



1       2       3       4      
5
       6       end