DSE

That one question indicates you're not prepared. At all. Take my advice; leave the rig at home. It's a narrow, long landing area with mountains on one side, sea on the other. You cannot land on the beach, and the surf has already claimed lives and the DZ has a lot of injuries (virtually all that I'm aware of are from visiting skydivers). Powerlines, trees, rotors, and you can almost never jump after around 1 in the afternoon due to the trades. The view is incredibly distracting. About a year ago, I watched a whale and her calf for nearly the rest of my life. Pulling below 2.5 is simply stupid if you're not a local, and pulling too high can be equally problematic. Out's should NEVER be a "maybe" issue. They're ALWAYS an issue. You don't want to ever be in the position of saying "I don't need to worry about alternate landing areas, cuz I always make it back." This thread talks about one very unprepared, uncurrent person's unfortunate experience. Here is another one I wouldn't say you're being stupid, I'd say you're unaware and unprepared, plus uncurrent. There are three links right there. Remember links in the chain that you learned about during FJC? I'd leave the rig home, and if Clarence will let you jump, rent a rig. Otherwise, do a tandem. Or, head over to the glider port and have Jonny take you up. You'll get a great idea of the winds, get a terrific view, and have a lot of fun. I did my tandems and first AFF at Hawaii, I'm in love with the place. But even as an experienced skydiver, I'm very cautious about jumping there.

If the memory card fills up during use, it does not roll over. You must intentionally select one or the other in the menu. My recommended workflow is that you leave internal empty, using an 8 or 16GB card. Keep the internal memory for those "oops" moments. Bear in mind, I have a prototype model, and twice now I've seen Sony change code, so a memory card rollover isn't entirely out of the question, although unlikely.

There are many great people at both HI dropzones. Be sure to be letting either DZ know you're coming; they may tell you to leave your rig at home. Jumping in HI isn't for the faint of heart or uncurrent. If your profile numbers and lack of currency are accurate, you might want to reconsider getting current in HI. Constant winds, lots of obstacles, limited outs. Their website has some very specific recommendations.

unapproved, rough draft, but figured I'd share early. CX100 review

Beautiful exposures, Scotty. Makes me sick to have not been there. And I ended up sick anyway.

That's because SLR lenses don't have to deal with myriad sensor sizes, zoom through, etc. The reason you don't generally see threads on wide angle adapters is that filters on the front are usually not a wise move. Flaring, etc are potential problems. I'll have a review of the CX100 up soon.

I bought a couple through this link, because the BH affiliate program puts a coupla coins in a skydiver's pocket. Talked to Barry Schilben at BH today, they're not in the Jersey warehouse, they're initially drop shipping. Interesting. FWIW, I bought red bodies.

Well, the GoPro Hero is certainly low rez, and will output a composite signal straight from the cam. And it's almost 4:3, so it frames four way better.

If it's a secret, it's a badly-kept one. Been hearing of the big BB/SC jump for quite a while now. Too bad the average joe can't access this kind of equipment for a reasonable cost.

That signal won't even be 576. More like 288. It sucks, but in light of what they're apparently not willing to deal with, there you have it. For these comps, Ebay, I suppose, if you want Firewire output. They've at best got another season to get their junk together unless they're going to move backwards.

Seems like a reasonable (albeit poor) bandaid to a problem. Yes, this will allow you to use a composite (that's the YELLOW cable) to send a PAL signal out of the camcorder.

Almost verbatim to what happened with Googlevids/talk/docs

You're at least the 25th person I know who has received this notice. Seems I have this conversation every day. 5 years ago I told people that in 5-6 years they'd be sued for putting stuff online. Turns out no one *wants* to sue, they just want to stop infringement. Dunno if I should say "I was wrong (sorta) 5 years ago, or if I should say "be glad they're not suing you." My next prognostication is that the protection from infringement is a limited time offer, and eventually, labels will begin suing those that are persistent. Royalty-free. It's the new black. Oops, I was wrong again, it was six years ago.

Based on these forums, I'd say it's had it's share of problems. According to Sony's repair shops, they've had fewer problems. Based on the number available from refurb shops, i'd say that Sony's story is probably more likely. I've got three, no problems with any of them. One of our vidiots had one die on him, however, and he's nicer to his gear than I am to mine.

Does your speculation + my speculation equal a fact? I'd say so I'm sure you're right, but in my speculation, I was wondering about those things *really* happening. How hard would it be for me to create a "JT Valente" account on Facebook, steal your photos from your private website,and upload them? If there weren't the social interaction/proof of ownership, but the content was "at large," it would be an interesting case for Facebook. They'd claim co-ownership of stolen property that had been "fenced" by others copying said "stolen" photos. I'm looking forward to hearing what the FBI has to say at this year's NAB conference, they've got a special panel on internet copyright protections and investigations.

I don't think it's being a dick to say that, minus perhaps the "!@#&!" part. It's yours. Only yours. The other option is to start using Aperture or Lightroom and watermark through the middle of the image. I never thought about putting my own shameful comment on the image though...good idea. I'm heading over to Facebook to stir some shit right now.

They'd have a *really, really* hard time profiting from their sale of your work. They can make one argument that if you pull your stuff from Facebook that they're not responsible for your friends keeping copies. That's a legit argument. If it's a news story, parody, educational purpose...there is an argument they could make if they "let" your work outside their world too. But profit... I'd love to see that legal test. I have no worries on *that* front. But let's say that I put up a large format, non-watermarked copy of Scotty Burn's famous shuttle shot that has a handsome hunk of helmet-less skydiver in it. Facebook decides it's a cool shot and they want to use it as a "face" of Facebook for marketing. I'm screwed, and Scotty's shot just became worth less. THAT is where the damage lies. non-controlled distribution of your work. One of your friends gets a copy of your work from Facebook and gives it to a magazine. A-you let your "friend" access it. B-Facebook has zero responsibility, although they share in the copyright. C-you're screwed. Or... You have a GREAT shot. One in a billion. Maybe it's of George Bush flipping off Obama under the table. You put it on Facebook to share with a friend, and then sell it for a bunch of money to the Star magazine. *technically* Facebook could claim some level of ownership and demand a share. Technically. But once a camel gets his nose under the tent...

the "hacked account" idea is an interesting argument...I wonder how that might play. We know that Facebook has already dealt with hacked accounts, faked deaths, etc. I wonder how they'd manage a claim of "my account was hacked" or better still "My account was falsely created by someone else?" Facebook can't put anything back in the box, of course...Look at the poor woman that freaked out in HongKong last week. She's furious that she's a YouTube sensation, but no one can put that video "back" even though her rights probably were violated. **"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and slide on the ice" and from here on out, start every conversation with "You do not have permission to record and distribute this" and get a tattoo on your forehead that says "Copyrighted face" **Apologies to Sydney Friedman

Sort of. Facebook doesn't take exclusive copyright, but they do reserve the rights they reserve to protect themselves as a co-owner of your copyrights. In other words, you upload, you still own. But now so do they. And they aren't required to notify you of their new TOS. If you use the site, you're expected to be aware. This is a subject of great discussion because there is a question of uploaded vs embedded content happening in one of the legal forums I frequent. Facebook does this to protect themselves, and it makes sense. But it does screw you over. I'm in a position where a skydiver has appropriated several photos from my pages, put them on theirs without giving credit, and even had the audacity to tag themselves in my photograph without me being tagged nor credited. Expect more of this. As people ignore more and more copyright based on ignorance, apathy, or because they understand the rules and act without ethic, this will become more and more of a problem. If enough skydivers get their panties in a wad over it, maybe they'll quit posting to Facebook. I have, but it doesn't help me recover my photos being used. Google already got fried over this one...now it's being floated again. It'll be interesting to see if it flies. We already know Facebook and MySpace will share photographs with the media if they deem it 'appropriate' to do so. They'll allow the media to quote pages that aren't generally publically accessible, too. Recently, I couldn't view a deceased person's Facebook page, but the media could? caveat utilitor, fide nominem Post em' here. Dropzone.com doesn't claim ownership of your stuff.

In this context Bill, this makes perfect sense. In the context of the other threads linked above, it's a wingsuit-related discussion, and wingsuiters know Pull Out Devices shouldn't be used due to the burble issues. I believe this is very common knowledge, and is covered in every First Flight Course, or should be. For giggles, just tossed my Voodoo across the room with the pin out, and did the same with both my Talon FX (closed corners) and my Mirage (closed corners). The Dbag came out of the Mirage when it landed on the unholstered chair, but the Talon and Voodoo did not. The Dbag coming out of the Mirage may have merely been a fluke. Hardly a scientific test, but demonstrable that the bag isn't going to just "fall out," and in the case of the Voodoo, the bottom opens while the sides still retain shape/tension, so the container is essentially a three-sided box with at least enough tension on the sides to hold the Dbag in place with minimal forward velocity and mild impact. I'd submit this is more than enough friction to hold the bag in place, and it's been the position that myself and other wingsuiters have held since this somewhat hollow argument against dynamic corners (often known as a 'wingsuit modification') surfaced. It seems there is no data to support that dynamic corners on a throwout system is evil nor prone to malfunction. Hopefully this myth is busted for good?

Not Scotty's fault, i don't think. He was all set up for a beautiful shot of the coastline and the Otter, and then purple mike in a different suit fell into the shot.

Each time I see that photo, it calls to mind a line from The Addams Family; "Mommy, he's scaring me" The Z1 was never before so precariously mounted. My hat is off to you.

Audio module isn' removable like the A1, so that's a downside, but it hasn't had an impact on me with the EX1 or the Z7 (although I wish they weren't there). Looks like a good entry-level cam for commercial skydiving work, but haven't jumped one myself.

I thought you jump with an HC1? Or are you saying you're crazy?