No one makes a remote lens (aka helmet camera, bullet lens) that is HD. The highest resolution I've seen to date is 520 and the highest resolution I've seen advertised is 580. But that doesn't really matter, because:
SD broadcast uses a resolution of 480.
No currently offered HD camera has A/V in.
You cannot use a remote lens without having a camera that has A/V in.
If you want to do it yourself and save big bucks, you can buy a bullet lens from SuperCircuits. Go to http://www.supercircuits.com and search for the PC263WR. You'll need a small, but powerful 12V battery. The video signal interfaces with the A/V cable supplied with your camera. You _did_ get a camera that has "A/V in", right?
No matter how good the resolution of your remote lens is, the video will never look as good as video shot with the actual camera - using the camera's lens. This is due to several reasons such as the auto-focus (remote lenses are fixed focus) and the AE adjustments (remote lenses just don't AE as well). Additional features such as steady-shot and the ability to zoom will make the camera video look better too.
There's no way to zoom a remote lens. Actually, there is. The SuperCircuits PC263WR comes with a remote that allows some fancy "features", one being a digital zoom, but good luck getting that to work as you'd like.
Digital zoom sucks. No matter what kind of camera or lens you're using.
Optical zoom rules.
When you use a remote lens, the camera becomes a brain-dead pack mule. None of the fancy features are available. Video info goes directly from the remote lens to the recording media (ie tape) without any processing in between. Cool stuff like steady-shot gets bypassed and there's no way to invoke it.
I've been using helmet-mounted remote lenses since 2001 and I have to say, I was looking for
a way out. Oh sure, in the beginning I was quite happy with the results. But as time has
progressed and HD is becoming more prevalent, the compromises in video quality rendered
by a remote lens make the footage less and less attractive.
If you want details on what I mean by compromises, I'll expand. Suffice to say, the exposure
and white balance is less than optimal. And this is true with even the lenses that sport the
"best" Sony chipsets. And there is no "on the fly" image stabilization. If you want a rundown on image stabilization, check out the "Cameras" tab above.
Recently, I was looking for a way to get the actual camera lens onto the helmet; be it with or without
the body of the camera. Mounting the camera on the helmet is fraught with issues. If the
helmet is not tight, the weight of the camera will cause issues - the helmet will shift and
move. A full face helmet does wonders to alleviate this problem at the expense of being
hot. (I live / ride in TX)
If the camera is mounted on top of the helmet, it is susceptible to damage from low hanging
limbs and obstacles. If the camera is mounted on the side of the helmet, there will be a
balance problem requiring neck tiring counter-weight.
In April of 2007, I decided to mount the camera on the side of the helmet. In the "Cameras" tab above, check out how I did this.
The video is fabulous!
I'll still use a remote lens for special angles - like down on the fork leg.