OzoneJunkie

"Staff" eh? Seems you're getting a bit too excited watching these 4some, er 4way tapes :P

I/we analyze vids a lot. We overanalyze (maybe ;) ) our own team vids. The season we spent doing cartwheels (singles, doubles, triples, docked, etc.) we were ridiculous about watching dives. But, hey, it helps.

You make "a" (probably not "the") good point. I don't know if it's factual, but I'll concede that it probably is. But what if it's not? Or it is, but not next year? Or, what if (a stretch, I know) it sells 1 millions copies? Ok for someone to ask for a discounted copy then? Suddenly it's ok for the production company to have financial incentive, but not the competitors? I never said they shouldn't be compensated. If I wanted even just a raw footage copy, I'd expect to pay for someone's efforts to put that together. Certainly a nicely produced video is worth compensating. I'm merely suggesting that others may feel that the competitors "donating" their footage to such an effort might be considered a compensation-worthy thing as well. How about one for me too, then? I must have said 1/2 dozen times that I'm not looking for something directly for me, that I was merely trying to suggest that there may be a way to make things "fair". And the other people's posts, who sided with my opinions, were doing the same. It's the hostile attitudes such as the one that you're taking ("Suck it up, stop your crying") that's prohibitive to the nature of discussion. Understand that someone else could just as easily view the video producers attitude as being "What's in it for me?" by assuming that it's their right to the footage, and to profit off of it, without regard to the competitors rights and efforts. No need to be sorry. Be pissed off if you want. You're merely stating your opinions and feelings, as am I. The bigger picture, I would think, beyond seeking a balance in compensation (if there's even one to be had), is the idea of the "choiceless" waiver. I don't like the idea that teams don't have a choice about their inclusion of their footage into a video. It goes against the nature of competition. Imagine a team chooses not to compete, for their own reasons, due to the "must concede video" waiver. Supposing that this team is one of the best, or the best, in their discipline. It hurts the competition not to have this team (or a team of any skill level) compete. But seriously, all of this stuff aside - I appologize for my "f*ck that" attitude in my original post - that doesn't get us anywhere. But after that, I merely wanted to open the stuff up for friendly discussion. Most of my replies here are merely attempting to show that there's 2 sides to the coin here. I don't want to come off as unfriendly - those who know me know that's not the way I am. I would like to say "I'm sorry" if I've offended. Missy's got the right attitude = let's keep the love.

Actually, your statement makes me relax less. The idea that the rights of the video are owed to the USPA bothers me. As does the idea that the competitors have no way to "opt out" of inclusion of their video in said production - that their only "choice" is to not compete if they do not wish inclusion of their footage. The waiver should include a yes/no option for the competitors - without that option, teams aren't left with a choice, now are they? This was never the issue (at least, not in my eyes). The issue was that I, as well as others, felt that at the minimum the video should be offered at a discount rate to the competitors. Not that it's owed to the competitors, but it would be "the right thing to do". In regards to the waiver, which essentially grants the USPA and affiliated production groups the right to the competition footage, I feel, is an injustice to the nature of the competition, that essentially teams that do not wish to grant those rights to USPA are only left with one choice, to not compete. I can imagine a situation where a team such as Airspeed is contracted by say, the Discovery Channel, to film video for a televised documentary, tracking the team from training to competition. Suppose that it's Discovery channel's wish to purchase the footage exclusively from Airspeed. The day of sign-in at the Nationals, Airspeed learns of the waiver, which leaves no choice of non-inclusion of their footage in the USPA/AirZoneXtreme's production. I think publicized conflict with such a recognized team would not bode well for the USPA/AirZoneXtreme's "protective" waiver. Protecting who?

Hey, sup Jay, Adam and I have discussed having a more serious season this year - in the sense of doing more training jumps (and, for me, this means being at the DZ more) - but I know Adam is pretty willing to do coach jumps, especially on days that I'm not there.

I really do agree with this. Even if offered money, I'd refuse it (unless the producers were getting rich off of the videos - then I'd think about it ).

I'll be perfectly honest - I have no idea if I signed anything that said that I was giving away the rights to my video. In general, one would expect that the videos would be used for judging, and judging alone. In 2000, I don't think the producers were even directly affiliated with the competition itself. I really don't know. But again, my point is not even to seek out anything for myself - it's more a matter of suggesting that in the future, this may be "the right thing to do" - a single video to the team - sent to the cameraman, is perfectly acceptable in my eyes. Btw, Missy sent me a very nice, sincere private message. I don't have any negative feeling towards anyone here, nor do I even feel bad anymore about my experience with the Nationals video (venting was enough). But, wow, if only everyone could be as cool and nice as Missy - this community needs more peeps like her.

hahaha, yeah, I hear yah.

In my freefly tips thread, I posted a .txt file, which has my previous tips - I think I posted some info/tips in there on hd cartmanwheels, er cartwheels.

VSkyGirl - your picture should be labeled NSFW. I can't get any work done now

Sabre 170, Sabre 150, Sabre 135, Stilletto 120, Velocity 103 x 3 = 7 new mains, since 1996.

I'd like to clarify a few things: I hear (not just here, in this thread, but in general) a lot about this "give and take" within the community. The definition of either of the terms is relative, and means something different to everyone. One may look at coaching as "giving" - offering a service to the community. Or one may look at coaching as "taking" - profitting within the skydiving economy. (just to clarify - I've heard others define coaching both ways - I'm not making this up for my example). One may look at offering a nationals video as giving to the community. Or, it could be considered taking - profitting, using other people's videoes, etc. You may not see a nationals video as taking, but some may. Perhaps the way to make it "right" is to give back - offer the competitors the discount. And so you know, I'm not saying this for my benefit at all. I didn't compete in this years nationals - so I don't expect anything. And even if I had competed, I wouldn't expect anything. It's not about expectations. It's about a balance of the giving/taking within our community.

Believe me, I understand. I think that the minimum concession, here, however, would be to offer competitors the video at a discount. I see many others profit from certain things in skydiving, be it videos, coaching, etc. I doubt very much that Colon or yourself would do coaching for free on a regular basis, especially if you're paying for your own jumps. Imagine if someone took video of you, without your consent, and sold a freefly instructional video. Perhaps this is a bit of an extreme analogy, but it gets my point across... As I said, I was in a bad mood the day I originally replied. I do try to give back to the community in many ways. My freefly tips thread, I'm told, has been extremely useful to many people. That's some useful (and expensive, when you think about it) information. I don't see a lot of coaches offering up free advice - doesn't mean it doesn't happen - I just don't tend to see it. To be honest, I don't have any hard feelings towards anyone - it's more about the idea of doing right by each other in the community, more than anything.

6 chops. Lost a brand new velocity on one of them. Went missing for over 1/2 a year (in a densly wooded area). Was found by chance by one of the dz instructors. The canopy was damaged - not by sunlight, but by bugs. I happy to report that after some major surgery by the fine folks at PD, "patches" is back in the air and doing just fine.

I have competed at the Nationals. Ozone Junkies (the team) competed in the Nats for the first freefly year. My point is, someone else is profitting off of it, and the least they could do is provide all competitors with a copy of the video that they sell. Mind you, I was in a bad mood the day I posted - but my feelings haven't changed about that - just the intensity. They should mail a copy of the video to each competitor, at no cost to the competitor. And, just for clarity's sake, I don't think this is a matter of offsetting the cost it takes to run the competition. I (we) paid for our jumps, plus an entrance fee, plus airfare, transportation, and hotel, plus thousands of dollars in training jumps, so there's no way that I can be convinced that that money is rightfully owed to the video makers, in the name of paying for the competition costs. Don't get me wrong, I love skydiving, and do it for the enjoyment, not the recognition, or any type of remittance. But, honestly, can you say that teams shouldn't at least get a copy of the video? I mean, they are profitting from MY video. Perhaps you should get a clue, Colon.

You know, it's always bothered me how a Nationals video gets made and sold from the videos that should rightfully belong to the teams. Then, they don't so much as even give a free copy to the teams themselves. f*ck that.

I've cleared line twists while spinning on my back. As long as the slider is down all the way, and the g's don't build up, with sufficient altitude, there's a chance. Even if the ground is distorted - it doesn't take that fast of a spin to throw off your judgement. That's the point, at least for me. It's so much easier to check the alti - which often doesn't even require moving any body parts to check, versus getting a potentially inaccurate (or hard to aquire) visual ground check - too distracting. Guess it's a matter of personal preference...

Yeah, well said - about the learning phases. My friends and I often discuss "beginners luck" when hitting a new move or whatever, followed by that luck running out - where the analysis comes in. Analysis gets you to and through the understanding phase, ultimately to the "bust it without thinking about it" phase.

Sorry to keep beating the horsie corpse - but if you have severe line twists - and can't *see* the ground (you're on your back), or the ground looks a bit distorted (high speed spins), then what? I like to know if I have time to attempt to clear the problem. That's one of the biggest reasons I can give for wearing a visual alti.

Yeah, lion should have PLF'd

With a filename like mekenpo.bmp, i'm thinking "hey, this chick is posting some scat pix!!" (makin' poo :P )... sorry, had to.

I wish I trusted my eyesite enough, when spinning on my back from severe line twists, to not use an alti. I don't.

If you have an audible or 2, and your eyes opened, you're pretty much covered - if you can eyeball it. Main reason I jump with a visual alti is for line-twists/chops/etc. I like to know exactly where I'm at in those cases.

She's flying "daffy" in that picture (as opposed to "straddle"). Daffy is still a "balanced" position, even though, at first thought, it might seem unbalanced. But in the same way that staddle is balanced left and right, daffy is balanced front and back. Daffy is sort of like a sideways straddle, legwise, if you can imagine it. Daffy is good to be able to do - it tends to particularly useful for single handed docks - check the tip on taking single-handed headdown docks. It's basically a much less pronounced (legwise) daffy position.

Ok, so I got a new skytronic pro fx for Christmas. I like it, but it's definately not as loud as the original skytronic or skytronic pro. It is still loud - I think still louder than the protrak/etc., but I'd have to side-by-side them. Ashame that it's not as loud as the originals. Oh well, no biggee - it's replacing my 2nd audible anyway, the backup one.