DSE

I can share with you a photograph of a student that was being filmed by a newly minted coach. The coach added a camera. They both went low. The student had 2 out. The newly minted coach is now a very good instructor and will be one of the first to admit they screwed up by wearing the camera (was around the 10th skydive with a camera). That coach is a fairly regular poster. Maybe they'll have something to add to this convo.

You're at 7k. Buddy is attempting backfly in his big suit. He starts to spin out of control. You watch him til around 5k and choose to dive in to stop his spin. At about the same point, he decides the smart move is to get under canopy regardless of the line twist risk, and either pitches main or reserve. There is no way to know when a panicking person might deploy one or the other canopy. There may now be two injured/dead skydivers instead of potentially one. This is precisely why coaches are not allowed to assist students and in my opinion, this carries over to wingsuiting/spins. I don't have an opinion on whether people should or shouldn't have an AAD. I have one in my rig, but that's partially because I travel a lot and many DZ's require them. But if you're not using one, I believe the risk should remain exclusively your own and others should be playing hero.

Well...Butters is a skinny lil' dude where you're kind of a fat-ass like me. I'll bet I smoke you in my Stealth2....When do you get yours? You got it cool yello/blu colors, right?

Unless the tandem agreement is very, very lengthy, and the contract with the photographer is very, very lengthy, then it cannot be stripped (easily) from the creator of the work. If it's a WFH, then copyright belongs to the DZ, but it's pretty hard (and would be _very_ odd) that the DZ would assign it. By default, copyright remains with the creator or the WFH its assigned to. Hi Douglas - Unless the WFH contract specifically states that copyright is transferred, I would think that it still resides with the photographer. If not, the photographers would have to get permission from the DZ to put up shots on their own websites. I'm basing this on stuff I've read from event/wedding photographers over on POTN, that's why I mentioned the DZ contract. Do they explicitly state that copyright is transferred, in your experience? Nope. There is no point in having a WFH if copyright resides with the photographer, right? Our WFH agreement states that photographers give up their exclusive rights to tandem images. FWIW, this is detailed in the Photo forum. Although photographers give up exclusive rights, they still have ancillary rights (this means they cannot resell the photo, but they can use photos for self-marketing purposes).

Unless the tandem agreement is very, very lengthy, and the contract with the photographer is very, very lengthy, then it cannot be stripped (easily) from the creator of the work. If it's a WFH, then copyright belongs to the DZ, but it's pretty hard (and would be _very_ odd) that the DZ would assign it. By default, copyright remains with the creator or the WFH its assigned to.

only real men wear yello. Congrats. Looking forward to you smokin' my ass in it.

I like it. It's a tad more expensive, but it's my first choice for most casual work.

The Raynox isn't a "typical" .3, so it fits outside the generalization by a bit. If you look at the Raynox .3 in the lens tests (can't find the link offhand), it's nowhere near as wide as the Century, Opteka, and the "old guard" .3 skydiving lenses. It's really more of a .4 than a .3, plus its multielements flatten out the image more (and can suffer fogging). Not a fan of people with fat noses and thin faces and if the subject isn't centered, they're far away (with most .3).

Just to play devils advocate since this is the internet and nothing will ever come of it... Have you not seen this on people with over 500 jumps? Camera or not? DZ.com always needs something to bitch about it seems. It used to be low turns, then it was downsizing, now its go pros. First it they were bitching about the quality, now its those wanting to jump it. I predict that they will be allowed to be jumped at around 100 jumps or coaching will be raised to 200. Its funny how technology sort of creates discussions. Not very many years ago someone with 200 jumps would have been well respected and thought to have done a lot of jumps. With innovations in aircraft and parachute technology someone with 200 jumps still gets chump attached after it. I think we are due for a re-evaluation of what can be done at what number of jumps, and not just in relation to go pros. No one is saying that someone with 200 jumps is a chump. The recommendations haven't changed, the only thing that has changed is that turbines have changed the amount of time required to hit 200 jumps. This also translates to less time on ground having discussions with others, less time seeing "oops" moments from others. A coached skydive carries some very minimal responsibilities and some very specific tasks with only one other person in the air. A camera adds a lot to that same jump with a lot more unpredictability. It's backward that many folks believe the challenges of camera flying are mostly resolved by the size of the camera vs how the camera causes people to fly differently than they would without one.

Just gotta share this PM from last week. I won't identify the poster/PM, but check this out... Between some incidents I already knew about, and three more sent to me in PM, we're now up to 14 incidents/issues/oopsies with small format cameras (since January, 2010) ranging from not remembering to wear goggles on a jump to broken bones. If we count three that I was aware of from 2010...that's a fair number that we KNOW about. I'm willing to bet there are 3 more for every one we know of. There is one fatality that has a loose relationship to a small format camera and very low jump numbers, but I'm not wanting to say the camera played a role in the death, just the attitude that the jumper had about cameras, low experience, and "skillz." I've gotta say I'm a little stunned that someone would actually ask the question "do I have any recourse against a DZ if they won't let me jump a camera til I have 200 jumps." Especially someone who understands they're not very current. Lemme see if I understand this right; We don't want people suing a DZ in the event of an incident, but there are skydivers thatwould like recourse if a DZ wants skydivers to adhere to the USPA recommendations?

There really isn't a "longer." It's over so darn fast... We left the aircraft just as the shuttle lifted off. We'd barely covered 2K before it was long out of sight. Pretty spectacular, and the sound of it is intense.

unless you have still images, set Dynamic RAM to 0 if memory management is an issue.

Spot Focus. In the second (or first) menu of all the small format cams. Has to be reset every 12 hours.

Vegas allows for bicubic resampling, it does a pretty decent job IF you set it up correctly. Ultimate S (plugin) can automatically extract stills at XXX intervals or on markers

The Century .55 is a great little/low profile lens. The Raynox .5 is a very nice tandem lens. The Opteka .5 is a very decent lens. Based on PM's (and what's in the Sticky) I'm not a fan of .3 for tandems, even if you're able to fly pretty close. .3 are good for door shots on small door aircraft, but (IMO) they aren't so hot for freefall. They're also great for inside video when freeflying, of course.

FWIW, (IMO) I don't think this is a manufacturer issue, a suit issue, or even a "current skills" issue. Bad juju happens sometimes. Not correcting for it quickly enough makes it worse but it can happen to anyone at one level or another. IMO, manufacturers should quit the "sell any suit to anyone regardless of jump history" mentality, that's simply f**ked up. Going from a P2 to attempting backflying on a mega-wing in a jump or three isn't terribly smart either. But...this can happen on any suit, to anyone. Very glad to see M. is OK, hopefully this will serve as a caution sign for those wanting to make big leaps in upsizing.

probably better to create a new thread for this one. My bridle doesn't come over the flaps, it is entirely under the flap. It reduces the risk of hesitation in low speed deployment, it provides for a smoother opening/clearance in low speed openings. It's no "easier" or "less easier" to pull open when pulling the pin cover open if the pin cover is opened correctly, but many people seem to think they need to get their fingers under that pin cover when they're opening it, thus catching a bit of the bridle.

Which wingsuit are you flying? How many jumps do you have on it?

The two aren't remotely relevant. FWIW, I'm a C/E. Being able to fly a stable base (the primary in-air role of a coach, remember?) bears little relevance to having a third eye, having muscle memory that may save your life in a bad situation, or having the ability to be altitude aware at all times. Congrats on your recent coach rating. Going through the coach training process is a terrific step towards flying a camera.

I don't know about anyone being killed, but I do know that an experienced jumper had never seen a bridle routed the way I route it and when pulling my pin cover he pulled my pin. My reserve pin cover is off limits. FWIW, for the eval jumps I route my bridle like most others, and still had it popped on the ground. In 11 gear checks yesterday alone, my pin was popped on the ground. No one died when my pin was popped in the plane, but there wasn't enough time to re-close the container in the plane and I wasn't happy about riding back down. There are those I trust and those I don't. I don't want others touching my gear without first asking (if for no reason other than courtesy). I'd submit many others feel the same. As an examiner, there are jumps where you *have* to trust, and hope nothing happens. Back to the original post/point...a small format camera is a camera, and of course is a distraction.

Yep...Keeping a log. I'm figuring my "oops" column is around a 3:1 (for every one heard about, there are three that go unreported)

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3888358#3888358

Opps # 11 logged due to small format cameras. I'm sure there are lots more. Thanks for posting.

yes, the file is a QT file that reads in a .mov package on an Apple system...but you still can't edit it at full rez/framerate without conversion. Every app out there can read it natively now, but editing it is still not an easy task. For anything. With the Magic Lantern upgrade, you can get even better pix, but they're that much harder to decode. Conversion (assuming you want full framerate) is another discussion. BTW, the content coming off a GoPro is the same content coming from a Canon series cameras, just packaged differently.

Honest...it's just too easy to copy/paste. The answer is right there in front of you in three different parts of the sticky. One of them is lengthy. If you're not seeing it, it's because you're choosing to not see it. It cannot be missed, no possible way. Your assignment is to re-read the sticky. Man....where is TunaSalad when you need him? You remind me of him in so many ways...Skittles too. And...well...I could go on all night. Skittles was too easy. He tib/fibbed the day after I told him he was gonna get hurt. And he's a really smart and capable guy. His bucket of experience was filling more slowly than his bucket of luck was emptying. I truly, sincerely hope you don't learn the same way.