Alternative to Identilynx camera used with Finish Lynx

Why not just buy your own IQeye?

The question really is: if the Finish Lynx is being used across the finish line, can a camera other than the Identilynx be used and connected to the "system" for that same functionality; i.e. where you can look at a Finish lynx photo and the Identilynx image from the same point in time is also shown.

I am aware of nothing else. Your question suggests that you have not studied the issue too carefully. IdentiLynx comes in several flavors now, 30 frame per second and 60 frames per second basically with two different options at 60fps. It does not capture at 1000 frames a second like the line scan camera. While some are using it "across the finish line", most are using it as a frontal camera. It works seamlessly with the side camera when time sequencing is enabled. I can't imagine it would be easy to get some other camera to do the same within the propriety Lynx software let alone be appropriate to do so. Neither camera is terribly expensive, so I would not try to hard if you want the great advantages of Lynx.

You are correct, I did not study the system(s) at all. I currently chip time races. High school races heading into the State Series require placement by video review. I used very inexpensive webcams tied into a laptop using security software so I could record two cameras at once; one, crossing the finish line and the other pointing at the finish line in much the same way as the Finish Lynx with Identi Lynx set would be. The security software added a time stamp on the video image. It worked flawlessly for the races I timed. But I have been approached by the bigger conference in our area to see if I would be interested in timing track meets with an FAT system. I have helped with some meets in the past which used an old Finish Lynx system so I am somewhat familiar with it. I also helped with the timing of a regatta (head race) where a Finish Lynx system was used at the start and finish lines.
I have looked at the pricing of some basic systems and saw that the Identilynx camera was not inexpensive hence my question as to whether some other type of camera could be used in place of it.

We do many track races without an identilynx ... but they sure are nice :-) When you see how they work, I think you will like it ... price for a 30fps (fine for most high school or collegiate work honestly ... though more is always better if price is no object) isn't all that bad.

I just did our state meet using chip timing (not Ipico) with Finishlynx and Identilynx and Race Director Software. Although our races weren't huge, on the close finishes (without much separation) I looked at the Identilynx for bibs numbers then glanced at the Finishlynx to see finish place. Then just swapped any runners in the chip software if needed (only a few changes). Once the changes were done, without too much effort, before all the runners had finished. I still believe in the camera finish even though bib tags comply with the rulebook.

Side View. Two runners shoulder to shoulder with third place behind.

There are other digital F.A.T. systems available (OMEGA, ALGE, Time Tronics) that follow I.A.A.F. guidelines for timing systems. To my knowledge all now have provision for a linked video to show bib numbers and integration of chip timers. For the most part they are more costly than Finish Lynx products. The other possible solution is the time stamped full frame video systems sold in the U.S.A., the video systems will not link to the tags.
If cost is the factor then going back to a finish line team writing down the bib numbers, it is the cheapest way to go and worked well for decades.

A finish line team with lots of experience writing down bib numbers just can't be right on a fair percentage of finishes like the one above. You would need to be literally on the line, have your eye see it correctly (often one is closing fast and one is slowing). You can certainly use a video product. For example we used to use a security camera with "time slip" recording to a dvr-ram disk. Tivo can work. It won't have the accuracy of a line scan. In addition, it sure is nice when you can show the coach who thinks his athlete is aggrieved. Unlike the video systems, however, you just see the finishers with Lynx and not the dead air. Throw timing over the top and well ... it is just the way to go for most people wanting to really do it well.

I agree that a full timing system, works wonders and has great accuracy. The original post was looking for a cheaper system than using an Identilynx camera without a Finishlynx camera, but already had a chip timing system. For a track meet a line scan camera is the only acceptable timing system internationally. Adding the full frame video cuts down on the human error in out of lane finishes. The people involved, contractor and meet organizers need to decide on what they want done and are willing to pay for it.

If you are looking for a quality standalone software product please have a look at http://www.dbnetsoft.com/cms/idcam/ the IDCam software.
It can be used either standalone or in combination with ALGE's new OptiC2 software. Standalone, it can be paired with a lot of IP cameras (although I recommend Axis products). Out of the box it supports Tag Heuer and Alge-Timing devices (e.g. useful for working in memory mode on a TdC or Timy) and Chronelec Transponders. Any other decoder system or timing device can be usually added without any cost for the buyer.
Customers use it for both mass-events with or without transponders to have a record on every finish line crossing for later evidence.

My real question is: if I have Finish Lynx, can a different camera than Identilynx be used for the full frame video. Currently, in Illinois for the high school cross country "State Series", placement (scoring) is by video review. I used, for the Regional and Sectional meets I timed (with Ipico), I used two web cams; they connected to a laptop using a security system video software that can record multiple cameras at the same time. I had one camera crossing the finish line (ala Finish Lynx)and the other about 15 feet back from the finish line, roughly 8 feet in the air pointing at the finish line. Both videos (they create two separate files) have a time stamp on them. The official review consisted of the meet official taking my finish order list from the timing system software (The Race Director)and then, one by one comparing the list to the order he saw crossing the finish line. In places where he could not tell with certainty, who crossed first, he found the same time stamp on the "crossing video" and made the determination. The best review software turned out to be Windows Movie Maker, you could step forward or backwards roughly 1/10 of a second at a time and you could easily find the time stamp you were looking for.
Since the timing system computer and the video computer's clocks were synchronized that morning, the time stamp also happened to be the same as the "system time" in the timing software.
My question (again) basically is could a very inexpensive webcam be tied into the Finish Lynx system in place of the expensive IdentiLynx camera? The image was clear enough that there was never any question as to what the bib number was on a runner.
Two peripheral bits of information: 1. Using the Ipico bib chips, in the two sets of races (boys and girls; regional and sectional) over 400 runners, only two times were missed. Also, there were only three results over those 4 races that had to get a couple indiviual's places swapped. 2.At the state meet which I did not time, the results for the boys 2A race were delayed nearly 2 hours as the glare on the cameras viewing the bib numbers was so bad that the numbers were not able to be clearly read.

Knowing that the sun could play a factor in the quality of the image, prior to each race, I verified the image quality by having someone hold a bib up and walk toward the finish line (middle and each side) and we made adjustments as needed.

The answer is still no. The camera won't be identified by Lynx. Secondarily, for track timing, a standalone package is going to put you at risk for a few things.

First, bandwidth. You can't don't want this running on your Lynx computer. Second, time. The time you have to read a cross country/road race image is completely different than the time you have to do a track image. You want the software assisting you as much as possible. You lose this with a standalone system.

I understand your sentiments, but I think the integrated solution is still better. I have two IdentiLynx cameras, I think they're a great choice.

I was reading over this thread and thought I'd add a couple comments. First off you want to ask yourself as a timer what do you feel is an appropriate system to be using at an event? Is it going to be an established well known highly accurate product such as a FinishLynx, Omega, IPICO, MyLaps, etc., or is it going to be a homemade product that isn't as well known and probably not as accurate?

To go along with that, with all the time and effort our high school students are putting into their training, their racing, the sacrifices they make as teenagers to become better athletes and competitors, what type of system and level of accuracy and dependability do you feel is going to accurately represent that athletes performance? Many high school athletes are paying mega bucks to compete in sports. When I was in high school it was $25 per season to compete in sports. Now around Seattle students are paying over $200 per sport per season and I know in other parts of the country schools have to pay to be apart of a State XC Series and to compete in post season races. So my question again is what route are you going to take to provide the most accurate results possible that our high school athletes deserve?

There is a big reason why a line scan camera running at 2,000 fps is expensive. Whatever type of camera you are using as your primary timing and scoring camera you want that to be the best camera you have. In my opinion, webcams that can only time to a tenth of a second is a poor system and frankly provides a disservice to our athletes. Even though time in cross country is recorded to the whole second / tenth of a second (chips) or hundredths of a second when a FAT system is used, whatever system you are using to place the runners needs to be able to step frame in my opinion at a minimum 1/1,000ths of a second. So basically a camera that has a minimum 1,000 frames per second or better.

In the image attached, these runners were separated by 0.005 seconds - 5 thousandths of a second. I had my FinishLynx running at 2,000 fps so every frame on my camera is recorded at every 5 ten-thousandths of a second. I feel 2,000 fps is more than adequate for cross country scoring. If my camera was running at a lower speed it would be a lot harder to distinguish a separation between these two runners. I also use two IdentiLynx cameras for identifying bib numbers. Because I don't use a chip system I use multiple IdentiLynx cameras. All three cameras are integrated and shown on a single monitor attached to my PC.

The one thing that I like with the newer Lynx IdentiLynx cameras is you can set the brightness and gain settings so the cameras auto-compensate for glare conditions. I don't know what they were using at the Illinois State Meet but this feature is sure helpful for when the sun shines. In Seattle that doesn't happen very much though. :-)

Here is a YouTube link showing the video from one of the new Lynx IdentiLynx Pro cameras. The video was filmed in 720 HD so make sure to set the YouTube settings to 720 HD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyhFAlsVe9c

Overall if you want to use a "homemade" system make sure you can justify its use and accuracy versus the other systems out there. Our athletes are working hard to compete. We should be able to reward them with the best equipment possible ensuring their performances are captured with a high level of accuracy.