DSE

I guess I'm confused/misinformed. I was at Cookie's factory in Australia on Thursday when the first 20 boxes were shipped out, so not sure how someone saw one on Friday. At least, Cookie and Jeremy told me they were the first batch shipped. I'd not yet seen a completed box at all. The one on their website is a rapid proto, not a real box. Perhaps Cookie or Jeremy can chime in.

Any DVD, any DVD burner whether it's Bluray or not, can store AVCHD as data, just like a hard drive. Any recent Blu-ray player can play the AVCHD data discs as HD video.

You saw a Cookie Box? He just shipped em' a couple of days ago; I was there in his shop when the first 20 went out (couldn't convince Jeremy to let me bring one home). Maybe you saw the Bonehead or Tonfly?

heal fast and well, James.

You saw the Cookie box? It's not that wide. Certainly no more wide than some of the other boxes for SD camcorders. I've got a lot of pix of the Cookie Box, I'll post em' as soon as I can get to a fast connection.

Funny thing you'd mention the flare. It saved me from a broken something or other this week; I have video to prove it. I'd been warned about landing in that area by Cookie. Dunno why I ended up over there. I could blame it on kangaroos in the landing area as a distraction, but they were behind me already. Stupid Spot The flare on the Storm is quite powerful. Everyone that has seen it has commented on how deep it is, and if you want to pop it, very easy to do.

The AV port is bidirectional

1-Analog out of CX to Analog in of HC5 (it'll be SD) 2-Xfer CX to 'puter, print to HC5 (this will be HD These are the most efficient of the various methods, IMO.

I split this off, as it's worthy of its own discussion and didn't want the "Poached Photo" topic to derail. "Work For Hire" is a very specific legal term. We use it on our DZ to define who owns what. If a photographer is hired to shoot video or stills of a tandem ie; slot is paid by DZ or contracting concession, then it is a WFH on our DZ and the DZ owns all the rights to said photos. There is an unspoken agreement that phographers can use these shots for themselves, so long as it's not commercial work. There is also the possibility of "shared rights" but the ownership still needs to belong to one or the other. "Rights" and "ownership" are two very different discussions. Fun jumps, RW, whatever else...that's all on the photographer and the subject, or whoever is paying for the jump. There are several legal reasons why WFH is a good idea for contracted/tandem work, and virtually no real reason for why it's not a good idea, IMO.

There is actually a fair amount you can do. Report the image violation(s) to their webhost, send them a certified letter. Beyond that, you can threaten legal action, and yeah...it would be a bitch to deal with. Easy to prove, but expensive to defend. I can't imagine a typical skydiver going to that point on either side of the issue. However...if the photos are being used for commercial work in any manner...that's another story. Curiously enough, I'm sitting in the airport and only a few moments ago, shot some candid video of an Asian woman having a very loud temper tantrum on her cell phone. I don't speak Chinese, but "Fuck you" "Asshole" "Screw off" "Mother fucker" were all discernable in the conversation. She was very animated. So...I started recording her on my phone. She grew a bit angry with me, telling me I don't have the right. Well...actually, I do. I have the right to shoot/record her very public conversation in a very public place and post it to the public site "YouTube" etc. What I can't do is use it for commercial purposes, and SHE can't use it on her own website without MY permission. This stuff is fairly easy in concept, but very challenging in practice. The subject comes up a lot. I used to really get my panties in a wad over someone illegally using my work. For the most part, I accomplish a lot more with the "hey...can we talk for a minute? approach." That said: here is a bit of copyright summary: -you don't need to post a copyright notice nor watermark for it to be marked as "may not be used" -the copyright is affixed the moment you create the work. -NO ONE can take your copyright away from you, and signing it away requires at least two statements of understanding that you are completely giving up copyright, unless it's specifically a work for hire. We use Work For Hire on our DZ for all photographers. It's a good practice from a DZ perspective... Finally, your work is worth exactly what you say it's worth. If no one is buying, you might want to adjust your perception of the value of your work whether it's in the air or on the ground. [edit] Karen, just re-read your original post (sorry, it's late here in Oz). A-Send a billing to the poaching party valued at XXX per day the image appears. If you intend on pursuing legal action later on, then make it a reasonable value based on stock photography value charts plus a little extra for the hassle. If you don't intend to pursue legal action and you'd merely like to be compensated or have the image removed, then make the number astronomical. If your primary goal is compensation, then I'd approach it with a "I normally make XXX for a photo; this one is special and I didn't want it devalued by it appearing all over the web. You've devalued my photograph by illegally taking it from my hosting website where it's specifically stated that the copyright belongs to me. How would you like to resolve this? Give em' a chance to fix it, if any relationship value is to be had. Going in guns blazing is likely to leave them no quarter but to merely fight and/or remove the image. But...if the image isn't protected on their site...it's quite possible they've distributed stolen goods. Again..."how would you like to address this problem?" Either way...it's your work. You own it. You don't need to prove anything unless it does find itself in a court of law, and this seems like an easy "prove" anyway. Do with it what your gut tells you is best. Is it about protecting the value of the shot? Is it about protecting your rights? Is it about being remunerated for the shot? Is it personal and you don't want the poacher to have it on general principle? What is the end goal in the "You wrongfully used my work" conversation?

With so many variables...it's impossible to pinpoint each instance on the internet. -Mounting systems -Helmet burble -flying style -chincup/no chincup -parts on camera not secured -parts on helmet not secured -loose element in the wide angle -loose thread on the wide angle -internal lens cover being hit by air -connector door flapping -charger cover flapping -strap fluttering -single screw/no locking screw holding cam in place -other 'thing' on helmet causing vibration -loose internal lens -slow shutter due to personalized settings -NLE that throws away a field or combines them improperly (will make stabilization appear to be off when it really isn't). Lots of potentials to point fingers towards.... One person I've dealt with recently has an OIS cam, same one I was jumping for a season, and they have lots of stability issues. Well...turns out to be the NLE, not the camera. Took three fedexes of finished DVD, raw MPEG files, and finally raw data to figure it out. HTH.

Heavy inhale=suck. And here I thought you only blew.

I think you missed the original post. Rolf is the one claiming to have "invented" wingsuit freeflying or "Birdfreeflying" in his blog. In his own words, in his own blog. I knew this to be untrue, so disputed it with the person that emailed me about it. Additionally, it's that same blog that refers to "birdfreeflying" as a "discipline." So if anyone is chest-puffing or being ego-driven, it's the person who wrote the blog, not anyone in this thread.

Wow...where did you find an IP5? They've been discontinued for a long time. It should work OK as a casual camera. Don't expect it to last long, Xfer may well be a problem, drivers aren't supported in anything, but you should be able to force XP or Vista to use generic drivers. Dunno about an Apple, but you probably can force it to see it too, as it's MPEG isn't any different than a DVD camcorder. Tapes are gonna be a bitch to find. The format never took off. Quality is very poor too, at only 12Mbps. Unless the camera was free, I'd think twice about buying the headache that will accompany it. But if you're shooting for fun, have no cash, don't mind low grade video, and understand tapes will be exceptionally hard to find...it'll work just fine.

Pepperell Tree Landing "An experienced skydiver and mother of three had a nice view Wednesday afternoon, but it wasn't planned, nor joyful.... Rose said she has completed more than 70 jumps over the past three years. Great story, great outcome. Wunderground reports gusts of 24kts in the afternoon. From the description of the landing, sounds like she was trained to go for the center of the tree (and got it) as the article says she "hugged the tree." Pepperell has more than its share of trees...Glad it came out OK.

I've jumped at Picton. Nice place. Heading to byron bay right now. Wish I could get closer to sydney on this trip. Coffs harbor is as close as i'll get. Next time!

Dale, After having seen your entire presentation, heard the passion in your voice, met your instructors...wow. What a series of challenges that most of us never would have considered. Congrats to you for researching so you could teach your instructors so that they could teach you. Very inspirational. Intensely educational. Looking forward to getting you into that wingsuit!

Well...you're close. I tried to do this last night when I saw the blog. Then found out that "wingsuit freefly," "Bird-fly," and "Bird freefly" were already trademarked. Start sending your 20.00 in now; avoid the rush.

The email I got referred me to the Birdman Blog when I disputed the claim. To quote from the blog: "And last but not least: Rolf seems to have created a "new discipline" He already went a couple of times his head down, carving a sitflyer - with his FIREBIRD on... no name yet for this. BIRD-Freeflying? " There is a photo here, too but it doesn't really demonstrate "wingsuit head down" but rather a very aggressive exit or a really flat gainer. Somewhere, I saw video of Heffro and Justin doing a headdown flower with others, but can't find that video on Vimeo. No point in getting into a debate; I merely wanted to support my position that HD wingsuiting wasn't "recently invented."

without both lenses and a resolution chart, it's all speculation. The pix provided don't provide any information. I'm sure the Opteka is a decent lens. Whether it passes the same image as the Century or not...dunno. If Opteka wants to send me a bit of glass to compare straight across...I'll gladly throw it up on a resolution chart. Century and other lens manufacturers are usually pretty happy to send me glass for a week or so to test....Opteka hasn't responded to emails.

I'm aware of a few birds that freefly in their wingsuits, looking for some vid to support that. Got an email from someone this afternoon claiming that the "discipline" was invented only last month... This vid is a couple years old, but it doesn't show what I'm looking for. Anyone got any vid?

Damn! That's almost as large as the 69 way, Mark! Great shot! Love the sperm in the background, too. We use that as a wingsuit landmark.

best shots yet, kid...