DSE

This link has some great information relevant to the topic. https://vimeo.com/36629075 Aimed at firefighters, it also benefits general skydivers.

I'm aware of at least half a dozen DZs that pay their editors by the hour vs the video. Paying 5.00 for a 6 minute process would be inefficient (and costly) for any busy Caravan/Otter DZ.

In re-reading, I see I phrased that poorly. When *considering* lenses for HD photography, remove the - Liquid - Royal - WayCool - X-dream from consideration. None of them resolve more than half SD resolution. I have most of these lenses as well. Somewhere here on DZ.com there is a test sheet with rez charts shot with most of these lenses. I'm too lazy to sift through them all. To the person that made the linked list, many of the links to images are no longer active, yet it is a very helpful list.

That's a fairly old list. If you're shooting HD, remove the: - Liquid - Royal - WayCool - X-dream from the list. None of them resolve more than 240 lines.

I've seen it as low as 20.00, and as much as 45.00. YMMV

That's just how it is with a low-cost lens adapter. Aberration and spherical distortion come with the price.

You know the above list all needs to be completed _before_ your first WS jump, right?

The cameo was a challenge being that I was also the camera op. Grant was an AFF student a few years ago, went uncurrent over the last two years, racking up a total of 40-odd jumps. Before this jump, he needed to get current again, and do a few training jumps before we/I was comfortable with him wearing a tux, hidden chest strap, etc. Other than being target-challenged (winds were pretty high), he did well. This was shot with a Sony NEX 5, Sony AS 20's, and Replay XD's. A GP3 was used to capture one angle of the cake pop. I wish time/budget had allowed for C/C.

Grant Thompson, a relatively new skydiver, has reached 1 million subscribers on YouTube. He celebrated with a skydive, and you can see it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfINUz-utdg&feature=youtu.be Congrats to Grant! (I'm disappointed all the cake explosion angles weren't included).

wine bottle corks make excellent filler without adding much weight.

The hybrid is all but useless for large file block processing by comparison. Although I'm a Mac user, I'm not a fan of Apple for video editing unless forced to use it by a client or producer. That said, having been dumb enough to order a hybrid (kept for about two weeks) the way that allocations are made makes it exceptionally slow for editing.

XAVC and XAVC-s are both supported by Adobe CC products. Apple will have support shortly (although they are the only major NLE that doesn't have support, as always). The image quality plus stabilization of the new cam series is better than the GP, yes. I'll have a review shortly, and have an all-camera shootout scheduled for March 3-6.

Skwrl is a survivor. The road to weight loss may be a little rocky though. 1982 was so long ago.

Mine is loaded at 1.6, and it opens consistently and smoothly. Linetwists are very rare, usually on-heading, and it flies itself very nicely. I never owned a Crossfire 2, but the Storm is sporty if you're looking for quick response to all inputs. I'm not a swooper, so 180 fronts are as big as I go. However, I've watched better pilots perform decent swoops with this canopy. Can't say enough good about the Storm 135 and 150 with a stowless bag.

Perhaps I'm impressed with the low budget, but quality production value. The wingsuit flight(s) are 'meh' overall, IMO. But the concept, the shooting with all the small format cameras, well-edited...seems to fit better here.

push to the 3:20 mark http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/cayenne-v-para

An older gent here yesterday, sees my wingsuit and tells me he was one of the stunt guys in Gypsy Moths, and how much more dangerous those suits were because they were landing straight down. Of course I'm interested. "Are you still jumping?" "nope, I hung it up after that movie." why? "Ken Curtis was a pain in the ass to work with and he was really dangerous around airplanes." I asked if he meant "Ripcord" or "Gypsy Moths" "I know what I meant, it was Gypsy Moths." Ken Curtis wasn't in Gypsy Moths... "The hell he wasn't, I doubled for him for several jumps. The 182 we jumped out of is still over at Perris." I asked if he kept in touch with Carl Boenish. "We exchange Christmas cards, but I haven't seen him for years." Later, he went on to explain that he trained with 2000 square foot parachutes.

Here's the link, for those that missed it: http://squirrel.ws/pages/ffc_warning I'm kinda proud to be on the list of "banned" instructors if this is their approach to criticism. It doesn't matter what people say, as long as they talk about you, right? As the saying goes, "if you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." Why not instead discuss the merits of the suit design, address how their own sponsored athletes have told them pretty much what I've said (I've seen a few of their email exchanges)? I've said I really like the build of the Swift, am impressed with their customer service, enjoyed my few jumps on the Colugo and Aura. With a couple minor changes, I feel the Swift could be a good FFC suit. But what do I know? I'm dangerously inept in the over 800 FFC's we've logged here (without incident). The Swift is not "banned." However, like any other suit that a student may show up with for an FFC, it will be carefully considered. Even Squirrel's own top pilots agree it needs to be "taught differently" than any other entry level wingsuit. That doesn't make it a "bad suit." Matt has never flown with me, not answered my emails about the Swift, and never met me in person yet finds it acceptable to go on the personal attack, and post rumors (that aren't accurate) regarding my school's policy regarding the Swift. One has to question why the attack became personal?

Apparently, you didn't read my post, or you're responding to someone else. I'm not a proponent of "hugging the ball." That would be someone else. The Swift did not respond nearly as efficiently as other wingsuits do, when elevators are applied. Not just my opinion, but body types, experience, and opinions do vary.

And I'm saying that the Swift certainly has a place in the wingsuit offerings out there, but it is _not_ a suit appropriate for an FFC, as many qualified wingsuit coaches seem to agree with.

Bear in mind that the new Mac OS allows for native reading of mts files.

I do wish that those that are dealers/sponsored by the manufacturer would make their affiliations known. The majority of those loving on the Swift in this thread are sponsored by/dealers for, Squirrel. Not being a dealer nor sponsored by any of the companies that manufacture wingsuits, I have no dog in this hunt. Four different brands of wingsuit hang on our school rack. There is some bias here towards PF because PF paid the freight to develop the program we've had in place for four years (and it's incredibly successful). And, students are ridiculously successful in P1/2/3 and Tonysuit Intro's (although Intros are difficult to fly well when placed on a skinny/lightweight).

If there are tandems on the load, we land in the area labeled "wingsuit landing area." If there aren't, you're welcome to land in the main landing area. It's a courtesy to the TI's, as visiting WS have caused problems in the main. Sorry if that offended you. Interesting that people all agree that it's not appropriate for an FFC, as that's my primary point, yet the marketing is ENTIRELY about it being a student/beginner suit. Like I said, it's a very well made suit, but it's not an FFC or early training suit. Good to know everyone is in agreement on that topic.

The lens FOV is identical in all four (there are actually a dozen like this) videos. Then again...what could I possibly know about lenses/FOV?

I don't see this as useful for skydiving (yet) but it is pretty sweet for other purposes (CRW comes to mind) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doncXVVlbH8&feature=youtu.be