DSE

You can use a composite cable and still have significantly better quality than a DV cam offers using that same component cable. Contrast, saturation are both better, even over crappy composite. For composite out, the CX100 is no more a poor choice than a Hi8 without 1394 or a DV camera using composite. For the OP, you'll treat the CX just like any other camera. As Phree mentions, you lose the majority of benefits of tapeless/filebased features, but in the end, the CX is still a camera, still offers real-time playback, and still offers a great picture. The main benefits are quality, speed and easy archiving, all of which are lost when you use linear editing systems.

FWIW, the article is the home page feature.

That case was fucked up by the USPA attorney and the USPA Executive Committee. The posts partially quoted, taken out of context and/or mis-attributed in the complaint did not in any way shape or form validate claims by the plaintiffs. The lawyer & EC were the people that screwed up, not people that made posts here or anywhere. . You miss the point. The posts referred to in the USPA/Skyride documents could have been interpretations of the psychological imbalance of flying fish or translations of the hidden meanings of "Puff the Magic Dragon." The context or lack thereof, misquotes, validity, whatever aren't germaine to this particular discussion. Lawyers have indeed used posts from Dropzone.com in their briefs, they have had an affect on the positioning and posturing of parties a legal action regardless of who fu**ed up what, where, or how.

Coming from a big city attorney like you, that's a whopping compliment! Thanks I suspect there is a lot more to the story too; it would be extremely unlikely that Fox nor any of their production feeds would use non-released/licensed content either with or without malice.

If you're looking for proof positive that the outcome of any case was solely tied to commentary on this (or any other internet forum in any sort of a lawsuit) then you're looking for leprechauns. Asked and answered. Yes. Posts from members of the dropzone.com community have been used as specific evidence in a court case. The case didn't go before a judge because it settled. But the posts did have a direct impact on the proceedings of the case.

mine aren't roses, but I used the photo (shot in Virgin River Gorge, Utah and Byron Bay, New South Wales) to create a "card" for my love.

Canon says it's a 24, which is what I like anyway. Been considering using one, very reasonably priced. Until you figure the RRS mount for it, etc

Any motel reservations in the area? I've been offered a place to share, but I'm a late night working kinda guy and like my highspeed...

just received from Canon USA via email: Canon U.S.A., Inc., will be issuing a greatly anticipated firmware update for the EOS 5D Mark II Digital SLR Camera. This new firmware will accommodate a great number of user requests for manual exposure control in the EOS 5D Mark II video mode. Manual exposure control while shooting video on the EOS 5D Mark II is expected to make a big impact with cinematographers and videographers using the 5D Mark II for high-end HD video production. While being announced today, this firmware will not be available for download until early June 2009.

BikerBabe Andi brianfry713 (Brian) Cashmanimal Feeblemind Flygirl1 (Leah) Grannyinthesky jamiem longwaytofall Monkeyboy mswallin13 NWflyer sivaganesha some guy named mike wmw999 Wendy dse

This site and posts from it are specifically cited in the legal documents between USPA and Skyride/ASC as well.

You're probably right. Having done time representing myself, having paid several lawyers a buttload of $$, and 30 years in the entertainment biz...one kinda gets to know the ropes. But...i'm not an attorney. I just play one in my frustrated moments.

If it's a high grade lens, sometimes small scratches can polish out, sometimes they can fake a repair with acrylic, but it is never the same. If it's a cheap lens, it's best tossed in the trash.

what does that mean and i never said it was simple... "pro se" means I said it with my own voice, or represented myself. It's not hard at all, not in blatant copyright cases. It costs 6.00 to send a certified letter to make a claim. If they received the letter and released anyway, and you can demonstrate it is your work free of encumbrances and releases.... they're in seriously deep shit. It's that simple. Doesn't matter if you photographed the moon from your porch that looks like a bazillion other moon shots...if you can prove you shot it, and prove they used it... they're in seriously deep shit. It doesn't matter how small the damage is to you. Fox recently fired a well-known reporter just for downloading an illegal movie, and Fox is helping the copyright holder in pursuing legal actions against the reporter. It's really that simple. When it becomes convoluted is if there are releases, handoffs, lack of WFH, dissolved partnerships, questionable ownership, etc. Truly...this is an easy one. If it's as simple as you describe (Fox used your copyrighted works without release from you and you can prove you created/shot/authored the work) then _I'll_ act as your representative for 50% of what the award/settlement is. It's that easy.

if ths is really so, then you truly don't have a clue about how the industry works, or else somewhere along the line, you gave up rights. It's that simple. I didn't need a lawyer to go after Buena Vista, I did it pro se. It wasn't easy, but it wasn't nearly as hard as going after a label that illegally sampled my music. If you don't stand up to defend yourself, how on earth can you expect others to do the same? Sorry, I'm not buying that it's as simple as you describe, and anyone who has done any work for DVD release knows exactly what I'm saying. There is more to your story. There *has* to be. Hollywood isn't slime, just cheap and ambitious. Like most of us.

I've mentioned this before. I'm a big fan of sebum (nose oil) for optics. This link has some good info. I'd draw the line at the bartender wiping his nose on my beer glass, however.

Carefully wrap a bit of gaffer tape around just the ring, being sure to leave extra to grip. Carefully wrap a bit of gaffer tape around just the lens, being sure to leave extra to grip. Now hold one while turning the other. Next time, rub some oil from the outside of your nose on the threads before mating them.

You could be right. Body position in a wingsuit with double wrapped locking stoes is a likely candidate for a baglock.

Until very recently, a skydiver with 200 jumps was considered an "expert." By the merit of comparison, I consider myself a novice too. Yet I have 10 times the jumps you do. Stated again, by all standards applied by the media and the general population of participants of our sport, he is an "experienced" skydiver, certainly not a novice. In any event, I feel your poll is leading (or misleading) by the application of a subjective descriptor in only that one option. The other options contain no such definition.

your poll is leading. The jumper wasn't a "novice." By every standard the media and our sport applies, he was an "experienced" jumper with jump numbers somewhere between 100 and 200 jumps.