The111

This. ^ And I'd jump just video for a while before adding the second camera, if you haven't already. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I guess I'm dense... why 3 different canopies? What are the red circles pointing out? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Re: defining broadcast quality I've given HD footage to a network before and had it broadcast as seriously down-converted SD. My recent dealings with Discovery channel, I gave them some 4Mbps 720p mp4 samples (watermarked) of some footage that was originally 25Mbps 1080i HDV (m2t). I de-interlaced the samples to make PC viewing better. When they asked for the non-watermarked version, I gave them the original interlaced full-res full bitrate video, and they came back and told me they thought it looked worse than the original sample I sent them, and could I please re-send it with the same quality as the first samples? I spent like a hour on the phone arguing with them about this... if it looked bad on their machine it had to be a codec issue... there is no reason they would want to broadcast footage I had already de-interlaced, since that means it would be re-interlaced for SD broadcast and would end up looking like crap. I couldn't convince them, still curious to see how this one will turn out. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Saskia uploaded some footage from a CX105 to my FTP. 1920x1080, 16Mbps, 25fps, AVC High. It's a .MTS file. Viewed it in Windows Media Player no problem. It uses about 10% of my CPU (i7 @ 3.80GHz) to do so. Basically not even one full core. Takes less than a second to scan from one part of the video from another. Same performance on my OCZ SSD or on a standard 7200rpm HDD. Clocked my CPU back down to stock for the 920 (2.67GHz) and it now utilizes 15% CPU to view the file but still plays fine. So then just for kicks I dropped my CPU clock to 1.6GHz, and disabled HT to remove the 4 virtual cores. Video runs smooth, takes about 30% CPU. Then for a real laugh I disabled all but one core still @ 1.6GHz. At this point it took about 20% CPU just to run my OS, and 100% for the video, which started to finally get a little bit choppy. Then I tried the video on my fiancee's laptop which has a Core 2 Duo @ 1.83GHz. Video ran fine and took about 50% CPU. Then, since I have always been a bit curious myself how clock speeds translated between Core2 and i7, I put my i7 CPU to 1.83GHz, allowed two active cores, and the results were about the same, 50% CPU to view the video. So the bottom line here is that even on the slowest dual core processors you should be able to view this in Windows Media Player. Have you installed the latest version of K-Lite Mega Codec Pack? It is easily found through google... there are several variants but I prefer Mega. And they now have a 64-bit pack that gives better performance for 64-bit CPU/OS, but you still need to install the standard one first. Seriously, K-Lite is incredible... it allows you to use WMP to even view Quicktime files! I tried viewing Saskia's file in VLC and honestly it didn't work that great, it played fine from start but whenever I tried to seek it would get wonky sometimes. I don't really use VLC anymore since I found K-Lite, I am sure there is a config option or something to make it work right, but I prefer WMP with K-Lite. Hope this helped! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Have you (and the others reporting problems with VLC viewing) tried the K-Lite Mega Codec Pack? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Is it a 2.7 dual core? if not, that could be your problem...the minimum you need to play HD video (well) is a dual core. My quite expensive fairly new laptop fails to play HD HQ video from the CX105 without stuttering. Could somebody please host a full quality sample of CX100/105 footage for download? I've seen two reports here of a new i7 system being unable to view it smoothly and I find that very hard to believe. I can give you a login/pass to the FTP for my website if you have nowhere to host a large file. On my old Core 2 Duo (2 cores @ 2.13GHz) system I could process HDV fine (yes I know AVCHD is more intensive), and I converted all of my MPEG-2 HDV to MPEG-4 and compressed it very highly for the results you see here: http://www.matthoover.com/gallery/skydiving-videos/Puerto_Rico_2009-HD.html Streaming 720p MPEG-4, 2.5Mbps - This is a very high compression ratio (about 10:1 since MPEG-4 uncompressed can be up to 25Mbps) and as such requires much more processing power than uncompressed raw MPEG-4. I could view it no problem on my old Core 2 Duo and even viewed it on slightly lesser machines with no chop. I currently have an i7 (4 cores, overclocked @ 3.80GHz) and would like to test out one of these CX AVCHD samples (I'm still rocking my HC5 and HDV footage since it still works fine). I will also try at i7 stock speed of 2.67GHz. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

What in your fucking mind possessed you to fly directly behind and above a deploying newbie? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Obviously it depends on the jump and the requirements, but in general there is nothing wrong with opening at 4000ft on a wingsuit jump... that's what I do when I am wearing my cameras. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I doubt it. As soon as you throw the PC it is going to go straight up, it doesn't care that you are on your back. The force of the PC alone might be enough to start rolling you over, if it's not it will be pulling the bag around the side of your body most likely and you'd get rolled over either there or slightly afterwards as the canopy gets pulled out. The whole "180" idea seems to assume that because you are upside down your canopy will deploy upside down and then you'll do flip to right yourself. It doesn't work that way. You'd probably just do half a barrel roll and get lots of linetwists from the uneven harness weight. Still stupid. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

There are lots of things that can be done; there are even more that shouldn't. This sounds incredibly stupid, and any experienced skydiver (wingsuit flyer or not) should immediately recognize it as such. Not to mention it doesn't really make sense. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

You do realize this power MUST be used to remove Purple Mike from a video entirely, right? How about remove the "horse" from a rodeo dive? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Pictures! CLICKY Sorry for the delay! Not too many pictures either due to the rain and me only doing a few wingsuit jumps. But better than nothing. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

The title of that auction (and the pictures, etc) says OPTEKA, not CENTURY. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I'd be interested in more details. How did Fox get ahold of your photos and why did they use them? For that matter, what's a photo slideshow doing in a comedy cartoon? I haven't seen a Futurama show in a long time, granted, maybe it's changed? Is this some sort of Futurama movie or something? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I just found out recently that Rob was into freediving. We never did get a chance to dive together. Shame it had to happen this way. Zhills won't be the same for me next time I make it back. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Read these posts where I've written some pretty long explanations: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3250051 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3045571 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2900323 In short, the 3 wires from your camera are shutter, focus, and ground. Touch shutter and ground together and it opens the shutter. Touch focus and ground together and it focuses. Touch all 3 together and it focuses and fires. You want to short focus and shutter, and keep ground separate. This way when you press your switch you'll be activating both the focus and the shutter. Some people like to short their focus to ground so that it's "always focusing"... not only do I think this is unnecessary, when I tried it actually wouldn't fire even when I connected shutter to the focus/ground pair... it would just keep focusing forever and never fire the shutter. Try it all out before actually soldering/heatshrinking. You can figure out everything I just explained with 10 minutes of trial and error. Good luck. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I am pretty sure it's at the end of this video of yours. http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=1737 www.WingsuitPhotos.com

The problem is not so much the resolution but the filesize (they are not compressed enough). http://www.avenfoto.com/large/JFF_1835.jpg 995x666 and 600k http://www.matthoover.com/images/2009-02_p02.jpg 600x400 and 45k Bryan, I save my jpg's in Photoshop as 60% quality... the difference is next to impossible to notice and the size reduction is significant. Your 600k image could be 60-80k and look identical if you use the right compression. Then your page would load 10 times faster and you'd use 10 times less bandwidth. Beautiful photos though! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I hate to toot Campos' horn but somewhere oni SDM there is a video from long ago of he and Betsy Barnhouse doing just this, and she isn't even wearing a wingsuit! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Aren't we supposed to applaud him for using the search function? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Best smoke bracket I've ever seen. 100% serious. Simplest is always best. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Yes, something similar has happened to me. And it doesn't matter whether or not the pilot dives on exit, there are a million other variables involved that could put you on a collision path between exit and landing. Not sure why this answer is so hard to come by, but it's simple. EVERY PERSON IN THE AIR SHOULD HAVE A PATTERN. That includes the aircraft pilot. If you know where his pattern is and he knows where yours is (and they are on different sides of the airport), you cannot collide. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

1) Even on a normal speed exit there is enough speed to get "held up" by the relative wind... think about how many people have hit their heads on the horizontal stabilizer. 2) The issue is not vertical support but forward support. If this was indeed a high speed exit there would not only be more than enough lift available, there would be about 10x too much drag for him to hold on. 3) I don't think this happened, but if he was in fact holding a sustained dock, the most logical explanation would be that the plane is in a dive with the engines powered down. After all, we can't see most of the plane in that picture. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

1. Purple Mike 2. SimonBones 3. Matt Hoover www.WingsuitPhotos.com

The important question here... where's the video? Knowing your personality and picturing you having this argument with her is very entertaining to me... www.WingsuitPhotos.com