DSE

Wow. Impressive.

I'm a Canon guy that owns several Nikon lenses, but prefer the Canon way of thinking through how the camera is set up. I also like the color mechanics of Canon, but that's a subjective view too. They're both very good camera brands. Canon top to bottom is easy to connect remote switches to, Nikon is less so on the bottom end (IR vs hardwire), but many also use the lower end Nikon models. Aftermarket lenses are about the same for the two brands in terms of availability.

Link to the proxy form you'll need to print/sign/send. PLEASE do this, as this offers us the chance to change the USPA for the better, allowing us to vote for the BOD in a more efficient, modern process.

24p, 25p, 30p, and 50i are all poor siource framerates for slomo by comparison to 60i and 60p. Very difficult to create more interpolated frames where there were none to begin with, and call it "good." Umderstanding apertures, zoom depth, etc will really help you with image quality more than a different lens will. try shooting everything at f5.6 or f8. You'll have little to kno shallow DOF, but you'll minimize blur. Shutterspeed and aperture will determine blurs, framerates will determine smoothness.

Bolt in pelvis-300.00 Plate/screws- 450.00 Rod spanning L's-175.00 Installation-just over 200.000.00 Stupid hurts and it's expensive.

In fairness....the camera didn't perform well at all in its initial release, and it took Canon over a year to respond to the jelloing issue. DSLR filmmaking is big, no doubt. There are still several issues, but the workarounds now are plentiful, vs what they were a year ago. And of course, you still can't shoot stills and video, nor are video frame grabs a high enough quality to be sellable. Shoto, the uniQoptics lens known as the Razor is a cinematic lens converted for DSLR. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1134620&l=48c7c24e4a&id=1032868837 for a photo of it on my camera. They should be shipping quite soon. to add; I didn't leave a space between Razor and Prime....sorry if that messed up your google search!

For those coming to this thread late, Canon have more or less fixed their jelloing problem except in some odd circumstances. We're working a segment right now that is entirely shot with a 7d, RazorPrime, and it's looking quite good thus far. More on that later.

I really love the faces on the first one. Very animated and alive. Nicely done!

180 degrees optics any less preferable than 120 degree optics? How do you want me to force the point of parallax? Doing this in Hawaii will be easy as pie. I have a setup now that mounts two on the front of my FTP.

Easily, easily done these days, probably more likely than being able to always have someone able to backfly beneath a formation. With the new cams and tools aimed at stereographics, it's quite cost-effective too.

Just because I don't tend to think that using an S3 is a tragedy waiting to happen doesn't mean I condone the use of an S3 for FFC's. Would I use one? No. Would I say something if I saw it happening? Probably. Depends on the circumstances. If nothing else was available, if the coach could do an adequate job of teaching and working with the student, then I do believe the S3 can be used for an FFC. If there were an Intro, Prodigy, GTI, Phantom available, hopefully those would be the first choices in any given situation. But, if you've got no other options except saying "you can't go..." then the S3 is a choice I wouldn't freak out over. I'd merely spend more time training the student, including laying them down on a creeper and pulling their hackey. That said, I have a fleet of several Intro's and Phantoms that are bought and paid for, not given to me for free by manufacturers. In other words, I've laid my money on the table for what I personally believe to be the right choices.

It says a lot about this discipline when this sort of flaming goes on over something that while isn't optimal, next to nothing has been said about coaches that have put multiple students in Blades and Vampires for FFC's, or instructors that don't gear up, sit with, and supervise their students (one of which resulted in a fatality due to missing legstraps). Just last evening broke bread with someone who had a Blade for his first flights. He didn't know what he didn't know, but knows enough now that he doesn't want to fly the Blade for a long while. Yet we're arguing over this subject with this intensity? People have died and less has been said. We are indeed strange birds.

Very nice that you did this for folks. I'll be curious as to who is using AVIsynth for post-processing here. I know it would be very useful in my library for other things. Wanna write a frame-server that Vegas can talk to? Satish's works, but another, more updated/cool factor would be well-received.

Missed it by one this morning. Damn, but ever so close.

They're getting close, but still no cigar and champagne.

This sounds like a huge step in the direction needed. Last summer, a few of us had talked about the software tracking on pixels vs separating backgrounds, but the pixels would need to be identified by hand. If you can run a differencing algorithm in real time, that's terrific. One aspect we'd thought would be helpful is if there were a series of indicators on the screen. Each time the software detected a "complete/satisfactory" then the indicator would flash green and drop a marker for later reference. Does Magnetic offer motion predicting or is it currently a static modeling software that models flux fields? When you do the bitshift, are you comparing/inverting regional pixel values or individual pixels? Given the amount of blur, motion, and highly compressed codecs, it would require a huge amount of horsepower to process this if it's individual or small reference blocks. Sounds like a really powerful step forward, if this can be made to happen!

nicely done, Ben. Looking forward to seeing you in Hawaii.

I shoulda been more clear. That last was sent in by Private Message, not Purple Mike. Another one sent in by private message:

A definition sent in by PM;

nicely done. Love the new wingsuit designer.

rendering time differences vary wildly by machine config, but generally, you'll see 64bit twice as fast as 32 bit. 32 bit support is rapidly coming to a close...Adobe will no longer build 32bit as of last monday.

I don't think the definition of a wingsuit needs to bear any relevance nor relationship to a canopy. Any thoughts on specifying the percentage of the portion of the area between arms/legs that are filled with "material/fabric/membrane" to qualify as a wingsuit that might specifically disclude tracking suits or anything similar? Should the definition specifically disclude hard ribs or other surfaces? Should a mention of ram air membrane/fabric/envelope be part of the definition?

Ummm...I've seen some of the ladies astride Mike's ass....and they do NOT fit *my* definition of a "hot chick." Objection, your honor, goes to subjective and specious (or is that "spacious," cuz her ass was pretty fat....)

I would like to suggest an alternative to DSE's suggestion: A piece or pieces of equipment with flexible material that spans between a skydiver's arms, torso, and legs creating the possibility for sustained forward movement powered by gravity only. The equipment is inflated by the forward movement with the skydiver's body forming the primary frame for the equipment. The inflated equipment is capable of being deflated or mechanically released by the skydiver, at least in part, to aid manoeuvrability and safety at all times. Thoughts, ignoring performance criteria: 1) Need to allow for 1 or 2 piece wingsuits 2) “Flexible material” to exclude rigid wings 3) Tried to shorten long first sentence and suggest keeping whole definition to 3 sentences min/max. 3) Reference to “spans between” arms, torso and legs already excludes tracking and camera suits, in my opinion so TICK. 4) “Equipment inflation” from forward movement (instead of “spanning material from….”) to not differentiate between mono or tri-wing designs or be RAM Air specific with skins etc. The reference to “from forward movement” also excludes inflation devices or systems such as compressed air canisters etc. 5) I like the use of the word “frame” like an “airframe” so TICK 6) I would like to see reference to collapsibility or releaseability of the “wingsuit” by the skydiver for safety and acrobatics etc. (i.e. not specific in terms of cables or zips and which wings or the amount that is colapsed or released). What do people think, especially about 6)? Gecko Great food for thought! I do not understand why the IPC has taken the silly approach that performance doesn't matter. Without having forward motion as some component, a "flock" could merely fall straight down whilst wearing a wingsuit. Since the skydivers are wearing wingsuits, it would qualify as a wingsuit skydive, even if they're moving backwards or straight down. Do y'all feel that a component of performance motion should be added to a definition of the wingsuit?

There aretwo people that have posted multiple times, plus a couple of other posts. More posts from a source=Domination. Nothing inaccurate about that at all. Perhaps impolitic, but so much is these days darlin.' Be "patient" with the 3 IPC people that are moderating? It'll only take 9-30 days for posts to be seen, of course, but it'll eventually get there. Once it's been censored. Or not posted at all because one of the advisory members objects to it. Anyway...how about we actually stick to the subject at hand, in a thread that can't be controlled by anyone in or out of this thread? First we define wingsuits Move on to defining "forward motion" Then we define glide ratio/flight relationships Next we define "distance" relationships. Once we define those factors, we can begin to define parameters of competition even though the USPA already has done so. How about: A piece of equipment that spans material between a skydiver's arms, torso, and legs, creating the possibility for sustained forward movement through the air using only gravity as propulsion. The skydiver's body forms the majority of the frame for the wings of the suit.