mdrejhon

I meant to say, your book sounds extremely good as I have not seen it. What I wanted to do is avoid sounding like I was "putting your book down", while moving onto other specific points of focus. I should have worded it more clearly in that your book sounds like it is excellent. Very rightfully so - there are risks, since the adjustments for TV's and for monitor's are different, and very different default settings. Among the community that knows what they are doing, it is now possible in many cases to calibrate a 26" or 28" widescreen LCD television to the same settings as a 26" or 28" widescreen LCD computer monitor (of similiar resolution), to recommended computer-usage settings, and thus the different recommendations for these two displays are somewhat contradictory now that both are virtually identical (after calibration to computer usage) from an ergonomic perspective for certain displays. i.e. 24" 1920x1200 flat panel LCD monitors have fallen to only $399 each, and Viewsonic sells computer monitors that are now 26" and 28" in size. Plus television manufacturers have now started releasing very small 1080p LCD televisions, that are similiar in resolution to these. Even Sharp now even has a 22" and 26" LCD HDTV that is full 1080p. Same technology, same eye effect, in fact sometimes they use the same panels in both TV and monitors - for certain models. Yet, the community continue to disagree even though now we have run into the situation of identicalness / near-identicalness. Eventually, there will be better standardizations as time passes, but one thing is definitely true: People are already plonking some of the LCD flat panel TV on computer desktops, against manufacturer recommendations. It can be done more safely though (With the smaller of LCD flat panels, up to approximately 40" depending on desk depth), with a few simple measures such as proper lowered brightness, and sliding it to the very rear of the desk. This original poster *could* be one of these people.

Thanks. Your PM has caused me to add a disclaimer (see edit above in red) I was famous for some time in the home theater world - I regularly went to CES and CEDIA. I designed a few products for Stewart Filmscreen, TAW Inc., Key Digital, and a few other clients. I got mentioned in Forbes magazine (page 214 of July 24, 2000 issue). I was the first moderator of the AVSCIENCE Home Theater Computers forum, beginning in 1999 -- in that day, members of that forum pratically invented the term "HTPC" which is now in widespread use by companies today. Although I am now in the mobile industry, I respect your opinion, but I also am informed on many things. I do apologize if some of my posts presented a risk; but the truth is that TV's have started becoming much better computer monitors recently, especially with the advent of 1080p and when the monitor has a wide range of brightness and will get better (the LED backlights are excellent in wide brightness range adjustments from super-dim to super-bright -- much better than cold cathode) Do this test, which I have: 1. Set up a 40" 1080p monitor. (don't use cheap 1360x768) 2. Configure computer to 1920x1080p maximum resolution 3. Adjust brightness down to minimum. If still too bright, use ATI/nVidia Color Calibration to reduce the brightness down digitally. Use a Spyder colorimeter and ColorFacts if necessary; I used to do some ISF calibrations. There are some disadvantages to doing it this way, as it can compress the color values to less than 8bits, but it's a compromise that is sometimes taken (if the monitor is still too bright) 4. Use regular computer fonts, rather than Large Fonts. Don't use Media Center, DVD, etc -- we're talking about Photoshop, Word, Adobe, Start Menu, Internet Explorer stuff. 5. Sit progressively further away from the display until you cannot read the Start menu. 6. Observe that the sweet spot is approximately 50" or 60" away, and even as little as 40". Sit 2x screen width away and you cannot read the computer text anymore; increasing eyestrain. When you're using maximum resolution on the new higher-end 1080p displays, sitting, 40" works better; this is the sweet spot when using a 1080p 40" display. Thus, I stand by my words that it reduces eyestrain once it's done properly. Many people eyes prove this - I saw some posts in optometrist forums too; especially lesser well-sighted people who find too much eyestrain focussing closer. The big companies just haven't researched this phenomenon; there definitely is a point where minimum eyestrain occurs (on a properly calibrated-for-COMPUTER-use 40" display set to MAXIMUM resolution of 1920x1080 with pixel-free goodness), at less than 1.5x screen width viewing distance. Almost nobody uses an office computer monitor at 3x viewing distance, and the recommendations are from the old days of 14 inch monitors; it's actually a linear relationship: The bigger the monitor, the further away it must go. But it's definitely not black and white like a jump from arm's length to 8 feet away; it's rather a continuous scale depending on how the monitor is used, and how high resolution the computer monitor is, and how bright it is, etc. There are lot of variables. The important thing is for a double-sized monitor, it needs to be placed at double regular computer monitor distance. (i.e. two arm lengths away if you normally use a high-resolution 20" computer monitor at one arm lengths away). I do not recommend doing this with plasma or DLP, since they flicker (colorwheel, and plasma pixel noise) which does increase eyestrain. The store-and-hold nature of LCD is preferable for computer monitor use, when brightness is cranked down low -- to match the safety recommendations of an average computer monitor, instead of a television set. That's the key. I emphasis, primary computer monitor rather than a video/television display. Again, we're talking about the computer world, not the video world. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I actually know quite a few things -- the safety recommendations are actually spot on. But if you do the steps I mentioned above, you'll quickly go into total agreement, being a fellow video tech (even though I'm now a former one), if we're calibrating it for the purpose of a high-resolution primary computer monitor rather than a video/television display. Either way, the original poster will just quickly figure out optimal viewing distance. If he's just setting up the monitor as a videogame monitor, then viewing distance doesn't matter nearly as much as Photoshop or Internet Explorer if running at its full 1080p resolution (instead of zoomed mode). His eyes will quickly tell him what's comfortable. Part of my post was to warn him from setting it up like a regular 24" monitors: In recent times, people are starting to experiment with placing 32" televisions at only one arm's length on top of their monitor. THAT IS BAD. So my recommendations assist to properly calibrate and position a display, in the perspective of computer-specific use; I do apologize I forgot to warn that most TV's are WAY TOO bright for use as desktop computer monitors, but fortunately this is fixable nowadays (through the dual action of the display's adjustments, and the Control Panel, or even better -- using a custom color profile that's perfectly calibrated in the perspective of desktop computer use rather than theater use). Just look at the AVS HTPC forum, for the big boom of students and kids plonking cheap 32" TV's on their dorm-room or bedroom desks as primary computer monitors that also doubles as bed TV's -- and you will see the trend. We are the old generation (although I'm still much younger than you), but we should also watch what the new generation is trying to do too - and you are right, some of them don't know what they are doing and. Kids today, deciding between a cheap $500 32" TV and a $500 24" widescreen computer monitor, sometimes go for the 32" TV and plonk it on the desktop. Apparently the picture quality is starting to become so good enough that it's becoming increasingly done. What I tried to say is you MUST push the display to the REAR of your desk, not the middle of your desk (like most computer monitors) and dial the brightness WAY down... Old 21" CRT computer monitors couldn't be pushed to the rear of the desk, but flat panels now can, such as 32", 37", and 40" LCD's (and you still get roughly same field-of-view between the CRT monitor forced to be closer to your face, versus the much bigger flat panel LCD that can now be pushed to the rear of your desk) Mind you, this may not be what the original poster is intending, but you have to realize that TV's are now starting to be plonked on desktop nowadays by the newer generations. Flat panels are now almost always expected to also have a DVI/VGA computer input as standard nowadays (And computer cards with HDMI output are now available), meaning that flat panel TV's now serve as good computer monitor replacements, and sometimes people are now placing these big TV's on desks instead of across the room. No standardized recommendations exist at the government level, so we have to extrapolate from both the OHSA and from users' experiences. The truth is to follow the steps above in my post, to show that 1 to 1.5x screen width viewing distance is the sweet spot for very high-resolution computer displays (i.e. 1080p), and BRIGHTNESS is the problem: It must be vastly reduced when used at much closer distances than regular television use. Also, in fact, the Apple Cinema 30" display have pixels that are too small to make the monitor placed at the rear wall, so people often use the Apple Cinema 30" from less than 1 x viewing distance (you see this in Apple shops all the time, with people viewing this screen from 0.5 x to 0.7 x viewing distance). This is because this display has extreme resolution at 2560x1600 and you cannot read the text on this Apple computer monitor if you sit at even just 1.2 x screen width -- this produces more eyestrain than at 0.7x because the resolutiopn is so extreme and the text is so small. In fact, it's better to get a lower resolution computer monitor and sit it slightly further away: With the bigger pixels of 1920x1080 of a 32" flat panel LCD (or even 40"), putting it at 1x viewing distance, and at optimal computer monitor brightness, these displays can produce less eyestrain than, say, extreme-sized 2560x1600 monitors. Then again, even sitting 0.7x from a Apple 30" Cinema (that has been heavily lowered in brightness) has less eyestrain arm's length away from a 14" CRT monitor (which the OHSA is based on), because the CRT flickers and the text is always fuzzier on CRT than on LCD. So as you can see, it's not really clear cut. If you've run Final Cut on an Apple 30" Cinema display, I absolutely guarantee you will notice yourself sitting less than 1x computer monitor width a lot of the time, leaning forward to examine details on the screen, much like looking close at photographs -- to read the small text, thumbnails, labels, menus, etc. Yes, that may be bad for eyestrain for some people, unless they reconfigure the Apple to use super large fonts for all applications. The smallest flat panel TV's are now smaller than the biggest flat panel monitors, so the lines are really BLURRING. Flat panel TV's are starting to equal or better resolution of flat panel computer monitors. In fact, there is actually nearly nil difference between a 24" or 28" widescreen TV and a 24" or 28" widescreen computer monitor; if you ISF calibrate both equally, with the same computer resolution (1920x1080 or 1920x1200) they are exactly the same in eyestrain at exactly the same viewing distance. What's important is to be educated on how to properly calibrate the display for its INTENDED use. Which means GREATLY REDUCED brightness, if used desktop-monitor style. Yes, new guidelines may be required. But ISF guidelines, OHSA guidelines, and many books on home theater, don't apply to computer monitors in the recent trend of today's much-fuzzier-line between TV's and computer monitors. But what I am writing is the current prevailing trend of the new generation. Somebody needs to write a book about computer monitors using 2008-era technology of the blurred line between monitors and televisions. I actually even qualify as the author but my money is currently in mobile devices programming, so I won't be authoring such a book. (hint: A book about computer monitors: New book idea for you. Profit opportunity?)

I agree for television viewing, yes. Your book is excellent, but you missed one critical point: Observe that poster wants to use 40" TV as a computer monitor. So 3 x viewing distance does not necessarily apply, given the info the poster posted. Therefore, if this is used as a primary computer monitor, the screen dimension x 1 is a more common measurement. Notice how most people put desktop computer monitors at arm's length? People usually sit an arm's length away from a computer monitor, this is often the case for 20" monitors. But if you double monitor size, you need two arm lengths, which is 3 to 4 feet from a 40" monitor. It depends on the purpose of the computer monitor. Notice the poster says he wants to use this as a computer monitor instead of video. However, if you're a videophile and use a good 1080p projector with good optics and your primary viewing material is always Blu-Ray with no standard-def television, screen dimension x 2 is good, or even x 1.5. For example, 15 feet away from a 10 feet projector screen. Just like watching a 40 cinema screen from 60 feet away; the best-quality Blu-Ray can be sharper than worst-quality mass-copy 35mm print at an average multiplex. (I now watch IMAX wherever possible, that's still much better than home 1080p on a good 1080p. This is the chart. Regular TV Viewing 3 x screen width Primary computer monitor for desktop use 1 to 1.5 x screen width (Yes, people are now starting to actually use 40" TV's as desktop computer monitors now: But you have to push them to two arm lengths instead of one arm lengths AND you must reduce brightnesse to eliminate eyestrain; see WARNING disclaimer at bottom.) High-Def Only Use With 1080p 1.5 to 2 x Screen width (Large-screen projector cinema recommendation) (This even works fine with good quality upconverted DVD) Several custom built basement home theaters, like those you see in Audio Video magazines with folding cinema seats, for use with Blu-Ray players and HDTV television, can go as low as 1 x screen width. 2.35:1 projector screens 12 to 15 feet wide, with a 12 to 15 feet viewing distance. Personally, this is too close to me and a little rich, but I actually have a projector that I use at 1.5 x screen width. Works out perfect, since I never use it for television viewing. At 3 feet away from a 40", most CANNOT TELL the pixels of a 1080p monitor, especially if everything is anti-aliased. Look at 24" 1920x1200 computer monitors. Now, sit 24 inches away from it. Can you see the screendoor effect of a 1920x1200 LCD from 24" away. Nope. Most people can't, and especially with antialiasing in video and images, it's pretty much pixel free. A deep computer desk can be 40" deep, and if you mount a 40" LCD monitor on the wall at the very back of your office computer desk, it becomes perfectly fine to view this 40" computer monitor from 40" away for desktop use; this is excellent for lowered eyestrain, since you're not focussing on a nearby focal plane all day long. The trick is to set it up correctly, for the same pixels-per-radians in your viewing angle, as with other computer monitors. 24" monitor from 24" away. 40" monitor from 40" away. Same thing, for visual acuity. This assumes similiar computer resolutions such as 1920x1080 or 1920x1200. Of course, sharper-eyed people will want to slide the display a little further away, but you Photoshoppers ACTUALLY want to see the pixels - so you may actually want to slide the monitor up a little bit closer; such as 24 inches away from a 40" monitor. As long as you're able to lean forward and back, it works very well -- remember, we're talking COMPUTER use, not television use. 3 x screen width is TOO FAR to see the Start menu if you want to use full 1920x1080 computer desktop (without zooming), you need approximately 1 x screen width distance if you're using it as a regular desktop computer monitor. This is approximately equal to arm's length for 19" through 24", and approximately equal to two arm's lengths for 32" to 40". Two arm average lengths equal approximately three feet. Now... if we're talking lower-quality 720p or 768p LCD for larger size computer text, yes, you need to put them a little further away before you stop seeing pixels. But if you mount your 40" 1080p monitor about three feet away (or four feet away, if your vision is good), computer text looks absolutely perfect, just like viewing arm's length away from a regular 22" or 24" computer monitor. IMPORTANT: If you use a 40" computer monitor as a DESKTOP computer monitor, you MUST lower brightness of a modern flat panel LCD, to the same brightness as a computer monitor, so that the general amount light from 40" monitor is roughly equal to a properly adjusted monitor. This ELIMINATES the monster headaches 100%. Unfortunately, some LCD television brightness don't go low enough, so please test before you decide to use a 1080p television as a desktop computer monitor. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT! Most TV's are too bright at default settings (even in movie mode) for use as a desktop computer monitor, and will cause increased, rather than decreased, eyestrain. Once PROPERLY calibrated from the PERSPECTIVE of a DESKTOP use, it actually REDUCES eyestrain.

You may be right -- reviewer bias. Either way, we both agree a lot of consumer HD camcorders are plain crap! Agreed -- It's really subjective. Right now we're getting into details... In general, that's true, but... At extremes, I would be inclined to disagree (Tomshardware nonwithstanding): I've seen really bad HD that looked worse than really good upconverted DVD. Have you seen the worst Comcast HD channels, for example - when they're multiplexed at 3 HD channels in one 6 Mhz slice? Good upconverted DVD in a top-end upconverting player to 1080p, looks better than some of that. (Just google "comcast HDTV compression" to see the nightmares posted on the Net) Same thing applies, if we're talking about certain first-generation consumer HD recording. The first model of Sanyo Xacti HD1 camcorder, for example, isn't nearly as good as the output from a top-of-the-line DV camcorder. The pixels on a HD sensor is much smaller, and the use of off-the-shelf compact still camera sensors, for use in motion HD, hasn't yet been a well-developed area of development, as well established DV, and of course, the camera skimped on its codec quite a bit, to the point where everything breaks up if there's any bit of motion. Hockey sharpness is better on a good DV camcorder than the worst HD camcorders. (As you talk about encoders, multi passes, etc -- you understand very well that poorly encoded HD can be worse than well encoded SD, even when SD is upconverted to HD). Say, Fifth Element DVD on a Columbia-Tristar Superbit DVD as one example of a superbly-encoded DVD disc. (There are many other examples, but this has been a classic example for a long time). This, upconverted to HD using a very good upconverter (i.e. Toshiba HDDVD player playing this DVD disc), look so much better than the video recorded by many of the current off-the-shelf HD camcorders. You probably know there are many ways to upconvert an image. I actually designed a deinterlacer/line doubler, so I am familiar with the science of upconverting. To a graphics designer, it's easy to imagine: Imagine purchasing a $300 Photoshop plugin to scale a 720x480 image to a 1920x1080 image to the best possible upconverting algorithms. This often look better than bilinear/bicubic scaling. It's not 100% full quality HD definitely, but it definitely looks better than the worse HD -- even blows away the current 2 megapixels consumer HD camcorders. Now, yes, you may argue we comparing apples to oranges, because the best DVD's are always much better than DV. But DVD's is still plain old standard definition. My argument still stands: The best SD always look better than the worst HD. And it still even applies to consumer camcorders: The best SD model can produce, on overall average, better output than the worst HD model. When all factors are judged in, quality of motion, noise, color, and to a certain extent -- even sharpness (influenced by things ranging from optics to excessive chroma downsampling). Have you tried panning a Sanyo Xacti HD1, or trying to film moving water in HD with some of these crappier models? Especially trying to capture white water rafting enthusiasts? Ugh - two models of current HD camcorders failed this test, while there were some DV camcorders that passed this test! Shockers, eh... The moving water is much sharper in DV. Now go film some white water rapids with the worst models, and tell me you're standing by your statement. Yes, most of the HD camcorders will be better (at their max quality settings), but you will observe some of them struggling far worse than the best DV. Also, the color quality of the worst HD camcorders can be a lot worse than the color quality of the best SD camcorders -- i.e. red looking purple, etc. Many other factors... HD from a tiny CCD with one-third to one-sixth the pixel size of a really good SD sensor. One example is the millimeters-sized CCD of the Hitachi HD camcorder. If you've compared a really good 5 megapxel compact camera image to a 12 megapixel compact camera, you'll see that in many cases, the 5 megapixels look better overall, especially in lower light conditions, due to pixel size. Less noise in image. And noise plays havoc with motion codecs. Less need for detail-losing de-noising filters. Etc. So, I assume you're familiar with this. The same general problem actually afflicts HD versus SD camcorders -- to a somewhat lesser extent -- but the point is that you know as well as I do that extra pixels can actually hurt if the sensor pixels are too small -- try shooting all of them in low light situations, you'll notice the best MiniDV camcorders often do a better job of night shooting (especially in motion), although many HD camcorders are quickly getting better. Although there's a lot of overlap (good HD sensors and worse SD sensors), the worst low-light HD camcorder is total garbage compared to the best low-light SD camcorder (even of similiar camcorder size). When you're not allowed to use a video light, this can be a big concern. On average, the trend is that historcically, full-resolution HD camcorders are more sensitive to noise than full-resolution SD camcorders of the same sensor size, due to the 6:1 pixel size difference. Consumer optics aren't becoming 6 times better of a sudden for HD, so what results is a drop in low light quality when going from SD to HD of similiar sensor size (which is still noticeable even at just 3:1 pixel size difference) Again, yes, the best HD always beats out the best SD. That's definitely guaranteed and that's what everyone can agree on.

No argument there about HD, but notice I'm talking about excelling compared to DVD. DVD is not HD. Notice how the Panasonic did a slightly better job at this outdoor scene than the Sony HDR-CX6 (yes, I know there's better Sony HD camcorders...), and far better than the Hitachi: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/hd-camcorder,review-1066-8.html However, have you seen the Hitcachi? Total crap: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/hd-camcorder,review-1066-11.html Generally I don't like the Panasonic, but I think you've misinterpreted me a tad -- I'm not giving it accolades. Comparing it to DVD is an insult, I think -- maybe I should have said "merely excellent DVD quality" not "excellent compared to DVD"; which could be a qualifier that applies to anything good HD... I was merely trying to insult it without insulting existing owners of the camera -- it's not bad compared to many of the crappy alternatives that's even worse than the Panasonic. I agree that excellent optics will be the limiting factor. From what you wrote, I read you're also agreeing that HD video is still far behind resolution-equivalent stills through the exact same optics. So at least we agree on that point A tiny RED Camera that can be helmet mounted would be a dream! You may have heard of the rave reviews by the RED Digital Cinema cameras. Did you know they are developing a pocket camcorder size model -- RED Scarlet -- maybe it will live up to its dreams. Ultra high end pocket memory card camera with RAW video recording capability. That means you can get your 4:4:4 and 1080p with RAW at 120 frames per second. It has a dual RAID CompactFlash memory card array (100MB/sec flash memory recording for RAW video at only $3000!). This would be nearly lossless compression, according to my quick mental codec calculations, for 1920x1080 at 60 frames per second - with each individual frame competitive to top-quality JPEG stills, but for each and every frame. 100Mbytes/sec is enough for almost 2 megabytes per frame. For 1080p/60, and with the efficiency of motion compensated compression, this is may be similiar quality to 4:4:4 JPEG compressed at 99% quality. At slightly lower framerates such as 24p, it may actually record lossless video in RAW with just lossless compression algorithms. Time will tell. Now that's gonna require a powerful computer to convert it to H.264, so it's not going to be your quick tandem jump camera, but could be good for a theoretical future 450-way -- on one or two out of the many videographers that would be on such jump.... If I read right, it's a 3K format as in approximately 3072 pixel wide, bayer. (Don't take my word -- They clearly refer to 2K as 2048x1024, and 4K as 4096x2048 -- so I am definitely assuming 3K notation is somewhere in between. NAB seems to indicate this is the case. So at 3072x1536, this means for a bayer sensor, which RED uses, is about a hair above 6 megabytes uncompressed assuming 8 bits per channel (Though RED generally can record more bits per channel, optionally), which with a good lossless compression algorithm, might be able to squeeze into a 100Mbytes/sec stream. Hats off to them if they pull off full rez full bit depth lossless 3K/60fps recording without needing downconversion. But either way it'll definitely be near-lossless) Sure, I'll just settle for less than this, and a much lower bitrate using good H.264 or even mere MPEG2, lesser quality optics, at least a much better video clip mode on a compact camera -- but at least this kind of camera (RED Scarlet) gives a promising taste of what's yet to come... They are actually scaring the 'traditional' brands a little.

I agree with your whole post. But I think you are missing my premise: I did not say which is better or worse: 3CCD or 1CCD. Really good 1CCD can look better than 3CCD, or vice-versa. Just technicalities (codec quality, CCD quality, optics, etc) What I'm saying is you need at least 2 megapixels for 3CCD, and you need at least 6 megapixels for 1CCD, in order to maximize the sharpness of a 1080p frame. Too many people think that you only need a 2 megapixel bayer sensor, in order to have Blu-Ray quality with 1080p. It's just not possible - you need good spatial resolution for EACH primary color. (De-bayer filters are pretty good nowadays, but a single 2 megapixel bayer sensor is guaranteed to never be as sharp as a downconverted 1080p from a 6 megapixel bayer sensor -- that's assuming all pixels are readout and then downconverted, rather than some of the shortcuts some manufacturers do, such as reading every other pixel row, for performance reasons) But just look at the Panasonic's with 560K CCD's. While they excel in sharpness compared to DVD, it's not if compared to real HD (of the Blu-Ray league), it's all just glorified upconversion of high quality 480p (or equivalent). Not to mention, 4:1:1 chroma sampling is ugly when it comes to colorful skydivers in a bigway formation - those tiny color pixels really need 4:4:4 or 4:2:2. Most compact HD camcorders do only 4:1:1 which is not ideal in the situation of oversaturated jumpsuit colors of faraway skydivers on colorful landscapes, especially if you want the "BLU-RAY" look from a compact camcorder. Even the JPG's generated by my lowly SD750 are just merely 4:2:2 instead of the top 4:4:4 (Top-of-the-line cameras can do "no-subsampling" JPEG's for even sharper chroma, such as the Sigma DP1 digital still camera using the Foevon sensor -- this is equivalent to 4:4:4 chroma sampling in video) I have seen developments (45 nanometer H.264 compressors, and beyond) that is going to make amazing Blu Ray H.264 possible in a Canon SD750 form factor camera. The progress will be incremental for a few years. Yes, the lens is the limiting factor, but watch the progress: The world is going to get 1080p with framegrabs as sharp and virtually the same quality as the same camera's own 1080p stills. We haven't gotten there yet. But mark my words -- we are getting there. In other words, why do widescreen stills from my shirtpocket Canon SD750 look so much better than the framegrabs of most of of the HD camcorders even 10 times its size? These new chips I'm witnessing will solve this problem in the next few years.

Here is precisely some examples of the low-quality stuff going around with pocket HD camcorders: The Great HD Shootout link Acclaimed by a few blogs... Tomshardware HD Camcorder Shootout link Really good stuff, even if they're not as videophile as the pro people, it's very good reading by the everyperson evaluating compact HD camcorders. For example, look at the Panasonic HDC camcorders. They use really low resolution CCD's. Only 560K pixels each for the 3CCD's. click for proof. And they claim to do 1080p. While these are very good camcorders in other respect because the 3CCD produce better color quality and all, this results in DVD-sharpness style images, looking like high quality 480p upconverted to 1080p. The truth is you need 1920x1080 sensors for each of the 3 primary colors (red, green, blue) for a total of 6 megapixels. If you want Blu-Ray 1080p quality in a pocket camcorder, you need about 6 megapixels worth of pixels. If it's a single bayer sensor, then it should be 6 megapixels. If it's 3 CCD, each sensor should be 2 megapixels, in order to get Blu-Ray sharpness out of each 1080p frame, akin to the quality of a stillframe from a still camera. Not denigrating the camera, the pictures are really good, but they shouldn't be advertising it as a 1080p camera -- it's not 1080p "quality". It's just approximately equivalent to inflated, upconverted top-of-the-line 480p. 1080p quality is a good Blu-Ray disc. 560 kilopixel CCD's is NOT high def. Multi-megapixel CCD is high def. This is just like the megapixel war, or the zoom-ratio war. Marketing hype, ya know? Want more? Just ask. I've got novels to write....

Edited my post for adding additional information about the lack of sharpness in tiny pocket size HD camcorders. Not really nebulous. The industry is really going through a lot of innovation right now, and it's taking time for the innovation to get there. It's getting more and more impressive, but the truth is that a framegrab from a 1080p pocket camcorder should look as crystal sharp as a good 6 megapixel photograph resized in Adobe Photoshop down to a 1920x1080 size, with amazing edge sharpness without soft looking edges. It can be done, all that is needed is the right kind of sensor and sufficient processing power -- they're gradually getting there. My Canon SD750 shirtpocket camera takes amazing 1080p still photos -- much sharper a screengrab from a video clip from the world's sharpest pocket high def camcorders. Screen grabs prove this. In three to four years, pocket cameras will also have high def video capability, and as codecs get powerful enough (i.e. realtime full-profile H.264 encoding at full 10-20Mbps, none of the 'lite' subset in the cheaper versions of AVCHD; the pro models do it better though - but we're talking tiny pocket size HDTV camcorders), this will become a reality, for both shirtpocket cameras and pocket camcorder-shaped cameras. High def camcorder makers are getting the "zoom bug" (much like camera makers are getting the "too many megapixels bug") One side effect of this is a very narrow angle of view in compact camcorders, and the use of really small CCD's. I don't really want more than 3X zoom, I'd rather have the larger wide-angle-mode when zoomed wide. There's a tradeoff when you add extra zoom (Due to physical laws of optics, the widest setting suffers when you do 10X zoom in the same amount of cubic space with the same size CCD's instead of 3X). This is the examples I'm talking about. Now, this doesn't just apply to small cameras, but greatly improved video clip modes of regular large still cameras. Imagine being able to use the Video Mode of, say, your Canon Rebel XT III of the year 2011, generating 1080p/60 output with each frame exactly as crystal sharp as a regular still-photo downscaled to 1920x1080p, at full BluRay league quality. Through that existing big wide angle lens and huge CCD, for example, especially if it now also has a good motion stabilizer added too. Of course, not everyone may want to do this, but this is a wet dream of video/color quality. What's certainly true, is we need more processing power to push the maximum possible picture sharpness into each 1080p frame. We are still far away from pulling this off, as proven by a 6-megapixel (bayer) resized down to 1920x1080. BluRay sharpness IS possible on a shirtpocket camera: What's needed is better and faster electronics, since full-profile H.264 encoding is still a processing/power hog. It's all very impressive and the cameras are already getting amazing as it is, but as an engineer, I trust you there is even better to come. *wink* Thus I say again, "as long as manufacturers get their act together".

Just to be clear, there are two meanings for SD: SD - Standard Defintion (Definitely being phased out) SD - SecureDigital memory card (Becoming more popular) My dream camcorder would be a HDTV camcorder that records full-quality full-rate HDTV (at least 20Mbps) to a multi-gigabyte SDHC postage size memory card of 166X performance. Then I can quickly dump videos onto a laptop (an hour of full quality HD, on a high speed card, can in theory be copied VERY QUICKLY to a computer -- about 5 minutes to copy an hour worth of full quality high-def on a 166X memory card. No long DV dumps; just a quick copy operation in a high-speed memory card reader (I recommend FireWire 800 card reader: They actually perform faster than a USB2 card reader). These push the maximum copying speed of ultra high speed memory cards, so you can copy tons of HDTV clips off the memory card quickly, and recycle the same precious memory card over and over. Save tons of time over DV! SD (as in SecureDigital) memory card camcorders are still somewhat skimping in recording quality, but they have lots of advantages -- nearly completely immune to shock, and works perfectly even in the middle of a slammer opening with absolutely no video breakups. HDD, disc, tape, DV, HDV often have difficulty with that. I haven't jumped video, but memory card camcorders are The Way to go (eventually -- once the manufacturers get their act together). I may actually wait for a good high-def memory-card camcorder. Early memory card camcorders are crap though. But as 16GB and 32GB cards (Capable of holding hours of FULL-QUALITY high-def, defined as minimum 20 megabits per second MPEG2 -- similiar to the ATSC bitrate used for the top-quality OTA HDTV broadcasts). I'm not yet happy with many current AVCHD codecs, they need to support full H.264 quality, new codec chips are only coming out, and are becoming integrated into new camcorders; so shortly soon, H.264 compatible camcorders should have an explosion of amazing picture quality in the coming year or two -- perfect fast-motion clarity even at only 12 Mbps for 1080i. Also, for high def camcorders of 1080i or 1080p, bayer-based CD/CMOS sensors need to be at least 6 megapixels to look really sharp at 1080i/1080p. 2 megapixels for a single CCD is not enough for 1080i/1080p because not each pixel is being used for red, green, blue. I find that many high def camcorders look only DVD quality, because they don't throw enough pixels at the video. To make it as good as many television broadcasts, it needs to be 3CCD x 2megapixels (1920x1080), or a single 6 megapixel bayer sensor that is downscaled a little for maximum sharpness. People familiar with this in the industry know that photographs taken by bayer CCD's look much sharper if downscaled by, say 50%. Which is why 2megapixel pictures taken by 4 or 6 megapixels downconverted to 2 megapixels (i.e. resized in Adobe Photoshop to 50% its original size), look much sharper taken by pictures taken by a native 2 megapixel camera. Although good debayer algorithms help a lot, most people agree that many of the current crop of HDTV camcorders even doing 1080p are't good enough. A frame from a good 1080p camcorder should look like a 6 megapixel photo (if from bayer sensor instead of 3CCD/CMOS) downsized to 2 megapixels, except that the photo'd be full motion. I give the industry a couple years to actually realize this and add the necessary processing power to the tiny consumer high def camcorders, in order to pull this off for amazing 1080p quality from compact camcorders. It's technically possible. (Note -- I have worked as a video codec engineer)

If you get a 40" as a desktop computer monitor, you better have a big desk and push it to near the rear of desk. Many really good recent 40" LCD's make very good computer monitors nowadays, but make sure your viewing distance is appropriate - I feel ideal distance is 3 or 4 feet away for a 40" monitor; which puts it flush at the very rear of a large deep desk, or in a very small media room. Otherwise you have to move your head to see the corners of your computer monitor, and you can get eyestrain for having too big a monitor too close. Aim for 1080p display, so you get a 1920x1080 computer resolution. My vote goes for Sony Bravia or the Samsung 81-series (500,000:1 contrast ratio bliss on an LCD -- same screen, not just dynamic, due to individually-controllable area-based LED backlight!), the latter is among the best 40" league displays, if your money can afford it. It has shown to be an excellent videogaming 40" display; rave reviews everywhere. At least, feast your eyes on LN-T4081F at Best Buy, before you make any buying decisions on other 40" monitors. If you play videogames, makes sure you get at least Radeon HD3850 or better, or Geforce 8800 series or better, since that's a lot of pixels to be pushing for 3D graphics. If you want max quality settings with full screen AA in most games including some upcoming ones, you may want to wait for the Radeon HD4870 arriving shortly, or get one of the Geforce 9000 series, or 8800GTX, or go for a dual-card setup (SLI/CrossFire). Just having DVI output is just fine; you can get a DVI to HDMI cable, the signal is actually pretty compatible. Personally, I am using a Radeon HD3870 with my 24" 1920x1200 monitor and am able to get 60fps in all Half Life 2 based videogames, although I did have to turn off AA in Episode 2 to stay maxed at 60fps (since I prefer 60fps over 30fps -- it really makes a big difference to my eyes).

Congrats!!! I remember the first time I was in the tunnel and John was helping me with that. First 15 minutes of course. Now I have 3 hours 40 minutes of tunnel time and I'm doing 3-ways and 4-ways in the tunnel. That's more time than I have skydiving freefall now... I am at Perris P3 bigway camp May 1-4, 2008, so if anyone is there, let me know and say hello!

Tunnel time -- the cure-for-all for orbiting problems. In the tube, the walls forces all members to learn how to fall straight down the tube! I just did my first 3 and 4 ways in the tunnel with no coach in the tube (except watching through the window) Barring any tunnels near you, just keep jumping as always. Eventually you'll get it -- make sure you include coaches and instructors in your jumps so they can make comments.

Reading Brian Germain's Parachute and its Pilot, has given me a habit of loosening my chest strap. Along with deep brakes (if flying downwind) and lifting legs, it has allowed me to return to the dropzone (just on time for 1000ft landing pattern, or at least close enough to get a landing pattern above an adacent farmfield that I'm able to walk from without the embarassment of a ride) from a really long multiple-kilometer spot, more than once... You really can't always do spotting with bigways and sometimes the climbout takes WAY too long However, I sometimes take the toggles and realize the spot is long, and then I have time to loosen my chest strap. So I just hold both toggles in one hand while I loosen with the other. I'm able to loosen my chest strap with one hand. I never intentionally let go of my toggles -- don't want them getting stuck.

Hey, I started keeping a tunnel logbook and I now have 3h40min tunnel time total! That's more freefall time than I have in my skydiving logbook! Team Evolution (the Canada 4-way champions) had a tunnel camp last weekend and I did almost 2 hours of tunnel in one day, in the form of 3-way and 4-ways! Martin and Vincent Lemay and others. You Canadians in Ontario and Quebec has got to go to one of these tunnel camps sometime. Towards the end, they let all of us fly on our own without any coaches in the tube except watching through the glass! I started one-on-one and was able to do 3-way and 4-way with them -- dramatically cutting your windtunnel costs and you get to be able to afford to do an hour of tunnel time at only one quarter the cost because the 4 people split costs for a 4-way. That means about 3 or 4 dollars per minute -- compare that to $35 per Canadian jump or $25 per U.S. jump. Once past the one-on-one required training before being capable of 3-way and 4-ways in the tunnel! So I'm racking up the tunnel time now.... Don't need that many jumps -- I have seen 100 jump wonders doing 3-ways and 4-ways by themselves at this tunnel camp! (After an hour of one-on-one in the wind tunnel, even 500 jump wonders needed coaching when flying tunnel for the first time -- the tunnel is tricky at first; don't be discouraged, spend the full hour with a good coach and then you can do 3-way and 4-way in the tunnel, as a casual novice/intermediate group) I also got some information on the opening of Skyventure Montreal, Team Evolution has a close relationship with the people behind Skyventure Montreal... (My personal guess for SV Montreal opening: First half 2009, if groundbreaking occurs in spring as planned. The 2009 estimate is not their word -- it's mine based on what I have heard + a safety margin based on what I've seen of historical Skyventure delays after actual groundbreaking.) The SVNH people are great, I feel sorry for SVNH who might lose some of my business if Skyventure Montreal opens, because it will become a 2 hour versus 7 hour drive! Maybe Vincent could continue to hold tunnel camps at both, since some people live closer to SVNH, and Skyventure Montreal will probably be slightly more expensive (albiet not for me: The gas costs are getting pretty high these days)

That email is no good either. I give up on Paratec for now... I'll just make do with the visor during this bigway camp, and get a more common North American skydiving helmet... Besides, replacement visors on will cost under $25 instead of $75 (according to paragear.com) ... The FREEZR, while a really cool helmet, has not been without its flaws. The side caps keep popping off, and my right-hand cap (glossy red) is gone forever. They did away with those removable side caps for the FREEZR MK II which I am sure is much better, probably for this reason. So it may be time for me to call this helmet a write-off soon -- due to the high costs of replacement parts for this helmet and difficult-to-reach tech support *sigh*... And nobody on dropzone.com seems to know whether the visors are compatible! So hard to get information on! If I can somehow get the helmet fixed, I'll keep the FREEZR as a spare helmet. In the meantime, I jump with a somewhat worn-looking FREEZR, at least until I get a more common model such as Z1 or Oxygen. As a deaf guy, I generally don't make phone calls, but I may get somebody to call for me or use a relay service to make the call.

jpforget, thank you very much -- I need that list when I go to the Perris P3 bigway camp. Although I realize procedures will be different, the tips are helpful to keep in mind. Study material for the plane ride for sure... As a deaf individual, who often need assistance from teammates (using a notepad in my jumpsuit pocket), I need all the help I can get. Biggest I've done is 30-way with TK Hayes and several 20-ways (including some 2-point and 3-point) with various load organizers, but this will be the biggest yet for me. Going to SVNH for 1.5 hours of tunnel 3 and 4 way. After that trip, I'll actually have more tunnel time than skydiving freefall time. It's hard getting current after a winter layover, with Otter dropzones not yet operating nearby, only Cessna. As a compromise I'm doing small RW as well as delayed exit practice as well (3 second delay) even from a Cessna to dive and dock, as if I'm last to dock on a 20-way... Lots of stuff happening now. Will be exciting!

In Canada, we have braille-like markings on the corners of our paper money... In Europe, they have different sized bills for each denomination. Time for the Federal Reserve to catch up with the Joneses

Cellphone is better than satellite. Faster (usually) and better prices even. When I travel, I prefer a Cellphone with Bluetooth, and a laptop with Bluetooth. One could use a laptop card, but I prefer a separate cellphone when I travel to cottages because that way, you can park the cellphone on a high shelf or where there's better cellphone reception. And it uses Bluetooth to link to the nearby laptop. Works wonderfully in weak-reception areas. To speed up web surfing about 3 or 4 times, you can also use use www.propel.com ($4.95 per month) to accelerate your web surfing -- it is good for satellite and surfing with a cellphoen modem. If this is a more permanent home Internet connection, you can also share a cellphone connection by enabling "Internet Connection Sharing" (Windows XP) on one of your laptops, and then connecting a second laptop through the first laptop (using a direct Ethernet-to-Ethernet cable as crossover, or even using WiFi. If you use an external WiFi router, you'll have to do some complicated configuration; it may be easier to use a Ethernet crossover cable between your two laptops). If you are more technically inclined, there's an even better alternative: You can also install a quick Linux distro to turn another old computer or laptop into a router (i.e. equivalent of your "make-your-own-Linksys-router"), and you'd be able to share your single cellphone connection with all the computers in your household. Works best if you've managed to get 3G cellphone reception though. Make sure you are aware that most cellphone Internet plans are limited in data (i.e. 5 gigabytes per month). If you don't do too much streaming video and/or torrents, then it's typically enough for the average Net household - but might not be in the future...

I have tried without a response -- It might be some kind of mail filter issue, I don't know - or that my English is hard to read by the germans... I had similiar difficulty earlier, when I lost one of the anchoring side caps... Will try again with a different email address, and see if my email reaches them.

Although I am a member of a different niche community (www.deafskydivers.org) your niche is www.anvilbrothers.com -- There's a listing of members (and emails) there with names of dropzones, that should help you track down a dropzone. Ask dropzone.com member BIGUN and many others, I witnessed some useful threads in the last two years. Good info!

Subject says all. I need a replacement visor for FREEZR helmet (original). Will FREEZR MK-II visor fit this?

Ok, the flight's purchased! Arriving LAX near noon Apr 30, and leaving LAX near midnight May 4 (wee hours of May 5). If worse comes to worse I'll rent a car just for myself but rather avoid that. Got a tentative ride already for incoming but I'm still looking at options too, especially outgoing ride on Sat evening. Full gas tank or three free jump tix for one ride (six tix for both directions), or share rental. PM me.

For my rig I found I liked it best with small bands on the outside loops and tandem bands on the two innnermost loops, since I don't use any of the thin line technologies. It's definitely much more than 12 to 14 pounds if I use small bands in the middle loops, and I keep breaking the small bands all the time and the openings are sometimes worse -- In fact I can lift my whole rig off the floor easily if I use the small bands for the centers. Even with tandem bands, the two inside loops still tighter than the last loops, as it holds more lines (cascaded) than the outer bands... Not a swooper here (yet?) so the lines are fairly thick and plain jane standard compared to many I've seen (except CRW) -- Basically I have the same kind of lines they use on student chutes. I don't think it's always a recommended practice, but my lines were sufficiently thick to require that. And packers say it's fine the way it is. May need to do a line force measurement sometime -- but with 99% excellent openings (I now currently ONLY get slammers if I open in a TRACK), I'm loathe to change my packing method...

Hey thanks for the PM. Let me consider the options (while I hear back from you)... Any others? I'm likely arriving at LAX approximately 12:15pm (if go ahead and purchase that fare this weekend). Are there anyone at/near LAX near that time on April 30? That will allow me to do some practice jumps in the late afternoon of April 30...

A few hundred more. Yikes!! Yup, rent a car from LAX. Ontario: $730 San Diego: $730 Los Angeles: $409 Pretty much no brainer