DSE

You want the CX vs XR. A lot of people confuse "HD" with "HDD"

Would you be surprised to know there is a wingsuiter who is working on a suit like this?

I believe it's possible, yes. But it sounds very strange.

it does get very hot. "Extremely" isn't the word I'd use. If one isn't familiar with file-based camcorders, it probably would be considered "extreme." Tne EX1/EX3 get equally hot...lots of memory buffering, lotsa heat being generated.

once its shot/recorded, it's compressed to its max size (1920 x 1080) Grabbing stills in camera or grabbing stills in Vegas...same thing/result. Set your preview in Vegas to BEST/FULL and hit the "Capture Snapsnot" icon in the preview window. This will give you MUCH greater flexibility than grabbing stills from the camera.

love to see what you're doing. I just left the LA area, won't be back for a coupla months. You're timing the two projectors together and sending two signals out? creating the offset and burning that to a single file?

With that angle/parallax, I don't think you need much concern for synced shutters (assuming video).

You can't. You can store rendered mp2 files and AVCHD files in the MP_ROOT and STREAM folders, but if they've been touched, the camera won't play them. You can store images in the DCIM folder (assuming you've not messed with the file structure) and the camera will SOMETIMES display them. the Index structure of the AVCHD system is very, very particular about what it shows/plays. All that said, i'm assuming what you want to do is write the files back to the card to play movies? The card can be used as a storage/Xfer medium from computer to computer without the camcorder in the flow.

Sweet pix as always, Matt.

you'll have greater resolution, ergo more bigger pictures for your customers. If they're happy and you're happy with the smaller resolution pix, why not? Seems like a sensible choice to have matching cams tho...saves confusion over boxes and if one fails...

There shouldn't be any ghosting. Not from a progressive scan camera. Now that I've seen it on multiple videos, I no longer suspect the NLE/editing side as the culprit. it might be that the camera is using interlaced imagers and combining the fields as a post process when it converts the analog signal and compresses it. It might also be Psf, progressive segmented frames. I'll try to find someone around here that has one. they're not terribly popular in this part of the world.

Umm... You didn't get the Memo. Canucks gots rednecks too, just that their necks are a lil' more white... I'd guess based on other postings, that these guys are funded and even have a production staff.

Without having a Contour to rip into and play with, I don't know much about them. Did two jumps with one and really didn't like it at all, the oversaturation and compression artifacts turned me off. I don't know what the ghosting is, but I see it on yours, too. It might be an artifact from how they're shifting pixels around. I wish I knew.

the 30p is part of the clue. not enough information. Additionally, I'm wagering he's converting 30p to 25p or 50i, given that you're outside the US/Canada/Japan. 30p does not become 25p/50i very well at all. The HD will show more ghosting than SD (DVD) delivery because it shows the image as it's recorded. View the dVD on a big display, pause arbitrarily, and you'll prolly see it. If it doesn't bug you or your customers, have at it.

do all the videos from your Contour have the ghosting? Doesn't appear to be inserted interlacing, but it's consistent through out.

If you look back over some of their other vids, they destroyed a car doing this, and looks like they figured the weights/balances out fairly well. Lots of video toys on that. One query on the YouTube page was saying this is from the "David's Farm" channel, but that was where I stopped digging. Stupid, but then again...they've got lotsa views and getting a small share of YouTube ad rev plus who knows what else.

They change the aspect ratio of the pixels, is how it's done. I understand how it's done, my point was that all things being equal, it should be the same width (same size imager, same lens, same PAR). The cheap/small cams (and HDV, DVCPro) cams screw with with the PAR, whereas that's not "standard." My original point was that resolution doesn't normally impact FOV except in very unusual circumstances where manufacturers screw with the PAR and/or cropping. All that said...if you're good with how these cams work...that's terrific! They accomplish the objective just fine!

Regardless of the goal, there is a progression in all things. Your question is akin to asking "If I want to become a race car driver but have no license, which Formula One car should I buy before I start driving my Kia? Even if today were your first skydive, you're at least several months away from your first wingsuit skydive. You'll start wingsuiting in a small "Kia" and after a lot of trips around the city and freeway, you'll be ready to start driving on the track in a Formula One car. The knowledge acquired while you're driving the Kia will help you figure out which Formula One car you'll want to race when the time comes. Focus on learning to skydive first. Everything else will begin to fall into place as your knowledge, skill, and experience increases.

To support what "claims?" There are photos/video aplenty of Lurch's effort and experiments. I was present for the Hardcase jump, and there is a video I put online. Or are you suggesting that I'm claiming Lurch is alive when he is not? I saw him a couple of weeks ago in MA, and chatted with him on FB the other day. At least...I think I did.

most camcorders don't shift FOV based on resolution because the width shouldn't be impacted by resolution. Width is a function of glass and its relationship to the sensor. Here is a Sony EX5 in 720p30 mode and a Sony NXCAM in 1080p30 mode. Both at full width (no adapter) both locked on the same tripod at same distance. HTH?

Giselle, your enthusiasm is great, and it's a fun (also very funny) discussion. Brian Caldwell, aka "Lurch" is the only non-manufacturer wingsuiter I'm aware of that has built multiple large (and very weird) wingsuits for purposes of the pursuit of knowledge. In other words, he's put his money, time, and life on the line to learn more about how wings on the human body work. His knowledge is not theoretical. And he's still alive. That's saying something. Theories are a lot of fun. They provide stimulus for reality. They spawn ideas and efforts. But to argue a theory without an iota nor ability to put forth any effort is a little silly. Condescension towards Lurch takes it from silly to hilarious. If you knew Lurch in person, he's not only incredibly weird, but almost an idiot savant about this particular subject. , right? It would probably be a funny discussion. I hope you keep the passion flowing. I'm confident that once you get enough jumps to put on a wingsuit and start flying, you'll have an understanding if not repect for Lurch and everyone else here. At the same time, try to see the humor when someone who has never been inside a stadium trying to tell Edison Arantes do Nascimento how to kick a football..

Hellis (and Jontis) I'm confused by your comments about "being further back" for 1080 resolution shooting. Distance and resolution are not related at all. If you have a 1080 camera or a 480/DV camera and say....a .5 lens on an equivalent width camcorder, and are 6' back from the subject, the FOV is exactly the same. The resolution will be different (more pixels per block), but that doesn't affect FOV, it merely affects resolution. I'm wondering if you're confusing that some SD cams have a wide FOV equivalent to 32mm while many small HD camcorders have an equivalent of 38mm? Given identical sensor size, lens adapter, and fixed FOV width, the image width/corners will have the same net result regardless of resolution.

it's not a "no-brainer" IMO. Contour/Go-Pro don't begin to approach the compression quality of any of the AVCHD cams. Put on a large flatscreen the difference is immediately noticeable. AVC at very high bitrate can sometimes compete with AVCHD at low bitrate...but I suspect most videographers want to be proud of their work rather than apologizing for compression artifacting. Not to mention that AVC takes much longer on most editing systems when it comes to rendering, as opposed to AVCHD, which is a fixed standard.

Part II of the experiment can be found online now. I only put two of the jumps in, simply because it was already getting long. The next event is in a wave generator pool, with the idea in mind of being caught near a shoreline and fairly shallow water. We also have another session scheduled at the current pool. The input from everyone so far has been very helpful; PM with any further ideas/suggestions.

when I was in elementary school, we were told that we'd be living on the moon in my lifetime. We were told that no one would ever want a "computer at home" because they ate too much power and were too big. We were told that living on the bottom of the sea would be common-place. They even once sold space shuttle tickets, because the space shuttle was going to be "common travel" in 20 years. 40 years later, the shuttle program is being scrapped. Sure...in "thousands of years" we might have something along the lines of what you're talking about, but in a thousand years, human bodies won't be very much like they are today either. Get your butt into a wingsuit and learn to fly in the "now" and not the "tomorrow." I promise you'll understand the dreams of tomorrow once you've experienced the reality of today.