DSE

Tom Green was not legally married to five women. One cannot be married (legally) to more than one partner at a time. Otherwise, it's "bigamy," right? Tom Green was charged with four counts of bigamy, one charge of failure to pay support, and rape of one of his wives. His scheme was that first wife divorces him so that she collects welfare while he marries second wife, and so on. However, all five co-habitate, and eventually, the state proved out that he wasn't legally divorced from first and subsequent wives, and wasn't legally married to later wives, so he has to repay the state for welfare monies the wives received. Either way, he was a fundamentalist only in name, and attended/attends regular Mormon services even in post-prison times. There are polygs in my town as well. Nothing is "spiritual-only" about their marriages. Perhaps we're passing in semantics. ....FLDS can get one marriage license like everyone else. They are married in their temple. Next wife, no state-issued marriage license, but married by the same officiant in the same temple with the same ceremony. In the Mormon sense, a "spiritual" marriage only applies in the next life. Perhaps God sent the 400+ "Saturday's Warriors" down in baskets, as the women didn't have intercourse in their "spiritual marriages?"

It's time to bring a new feline into the home (my cat of 13 years passed on about a month back). We're considering a Toyger or Bengal. Anyone have any experience with the general personalities of these breeds?

Historically,I don't think this is accurate. However, it's possible that this story was created to justify the practice. Excerpted from Jessica Longaker's Religious Studies textbook: On July 12, 1843, Joseph Smith declared that God had given him a new revelation concerning marriage and he revealed it to his brother and other high-ranking male church members. This revelation from God, at one point, specifically instructed "mine handmaid Emma Smith, Joseph's wife" to accept this doctrine and allow Joseph to have as many wives as he liked, as long as they were all "virtuous and pure" (Snowden 191). Emma Smith was a very strong-willed woman, and Joseph was so frightened of her wrath that he sent his brother Hyrum to inform her of God's plan. Emma was understandably scornful, and threw Hyrum out of her house (Wallace 55). Later, she managed to obtain a written copy of the revelation, and while in Joseph's presence, tossed it directly into the fireplace. However, the damage had already been done. Joseph is said to have been married to twenty-seven wives at the time of his death (Snowden 282). Emma left the church after his death and later denied that her husband had ever practiced polygamy (Wallace 65). The LDS doctrine believes Christ was also a polygamist, married to Mary Magdeline, Martha, and Mary. Read McConkie "Mormon Doctrine."

One thing that has not been mentioned, is that the practice of polygamy is only a matter of secular law. Polygamy is promised in the next life for those that have met the requirements for entering the Celestial Kingdom, and it is believed by some conspiracists that the LDS church still performs celestial marriages on earth for a man to be married to multiple women in heaven, although they may not practice plural marriage here on this earth. What is interesting, and worthy of debate, IMO, is that fundamental Mormons and mainstream Mormons believe in the exact same beginnings of the LDS faith. They follow the exact same scriptures and gospel tenets. Both groups practice the same Freemason rites in the temples. Both have the Book of Mormon and Bible. Both do not allow women to hold the priesthood (although in early times of the church, women *did* hold the priesthood powers). However, when the split occured due to the Edmonds-Tucker Act (which eventually spurred the LDS church to abandon polygamy so that Utah and Idaho could become states. In fact, the US government had seized over a million $$ of Mormon-owned assets that would not be returned until Mormons renounced the practice. But I've taken a side road.... How is it that the mainstream Mormons accept that the word of God is dynamic, and may change with the times while the fundamentalists accept that God's word is infallible and forever, yet mainstream Mormonism discounts the fundamentals as being crazy, off-base, etc. At the same time, the State of Utah has made it very, very clear that they don't want "the quiet polygs" to be prosecuted. And very, very rarely are they prosecuted. Only big-mouth's like Tom Green, who went on Larry King to brag about his polygamy, have been prosecuted. Why? Why does the LDS-owned Legislature, the former AG was owned by the LDS faith and was instructed to not go after them. The current AG was told to stay away from the Texas experience. Why are non-FLDS polygs allowed to attend mainstream Mormon sacrament, Sunday school, and priesthood meetings? Why, if they detest and disavow fundamentalists, does the LDS faith wish to "protect" the practice?

Impressive commentary from my perspective. Your thoughts?

Now that Parachutist/Chris is on our DZ, I think he can verify for you that this isn't so. If you're using a Mac, then it's true, but if you're on a PC with Vegas, Edius, or SpeedEdit, you can actually edit from the card (although it's a little painful). dumping footage is significantly faster than capturing tape, rendering on a dual core machine brings it home fast. Wow...using composite input on your analog system? Ouch. It's like putting a silver saddle on a jackass.

*ALL* of the camcorders in this discussion, and most camcorders on the market are highly compressed formats. Some more than others. No, the "flutter" you're referring to comes from OIS, as mentioned several times. The CX7 can suffer from it. It's a combination of helmet type and flying style, plus OIS. I know quite a few freefly guys that have zero problem with the CX7 and there are a couple who have PM'd me saying they have issues. How bad is it? Once you've discovered it's there, you may not be willing to accept it. I wouldn't.

Can't find the thread at the moment, but there is some posted footage linked here, of OIS vs EIS between a Canon and Sony cam. You can turn off stabilization if you're freeflying, and it's not too bad, if you're a solid freeflyer (I'm not). For belly flying, OIS isn't really an issue, particularly for tandems (again, if you'r a solid flyer on your belly, I feel I am). Regarding stills, Phree gave you some very good advice. Putting on a camera and putting everything to auto might get some pix here and there, but it's more about luck than skill. The Rebel is the place to start, IMO. And it may be a place to "finish." Matt Hoover shoots amazing images with his Rebel, good enough to be printed on textbooks and such. Back to the camcorder....research a lot, if money is tight and you absolutely can't afford a mistake. Plan the ENTIRE workflow. Don't make the common (and stupid) mistake of "I want this camera, now I gotta figure out what support tools I need for it."

Pat, story came out very nicely. Your pix look great too! Congrats!

Nope...already written a lot of pages about it in a recently released book (I think you said it was a good book, but given that it only released 10 days ago,I sorta doubt we're referring to the same book). Computer displays and television displays are the first point of convergence, and we're almost there, but not quite. Part of the reason we're not there is because the home movie viewing experience doesn't share the same luma and distance requirements. It'll be a while, and somewhat evolutionary before they do. Panasonic has the best ideas, IMO, on this subject, but even Panasonic offers disclaimers about resolution, distance, and luminance.

I'm aware of what we're discussing. I'm also understanding what he's talking about using the monitor for more than just computer GUI use. Not only do I have an opinion on the subject, so does OSHA. The20/20/20 rule applies as well, but the general industry standard is that any monitor larger than 14" should be as far away as possible while still being readable. The luma factor of the monitor is incredibly painful to the eye when used for any length of time, and most users of computer monitors are staring at them for long periods of time. Saying something doesn't "necessarily apply" assumes a lot more than simply assuming the HDTV will be used part time for computer use and part time for viewing use. Given that health issues apply, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution.

Your friends are talking about OIS vs EIS, and the CX7 is EIS. The HC series are all OIS excepting the HC5. You need to prefix the model number, because there is a CX7(MSPD card) and there is the HC7 (HDV/tape). As far as a still camera, the Rebel series are more or less the standard for skydiving photography with tandems and fun jumps. Some folks jump Nikons and Pentax, but I'd venture a dare that Canon is far more common. mouth switches are easier to find, too. TApeless uses AVDHD, tape uses MPEG. The HD Primer thread might help you understand the differences a bit. It's a good place to start, anyway.

I've seen TomsHardware reviews. No, I don't buy it. No, I don't accept it. Yes, they receive thousands of $$ in advertising from Panasonic directly. Given that we own every camcorder in that "shootout" I'll suggest that there was some intentional bias No offense to MB38, but a RED camera that simply WORKS would be great. Using DVD as any basis of comparative doesn't do anyone any good. What encoder was used? What bitrate? One-pass? Two-pass? Multi-pass? In other words, nothing on a DVD can be compared. Variable resolution input, variable bitrate, variable encoders, anyone can take the same content and make it look bad (or good) on a DVD. The other point is, even bad HD (at consumer levels) is better than good SD in virtually all cases, even when downconverted from HD to SD for delivery on DVD. Yes, I agree that "HD video is still far behind resolution-equivalent stills through the exact same optics. " And have said so many, many times. (wrote that they would be in my first book on HD five years ago). They always will be. Peter Gloeggler (optics designer) has suggested they'll never match up, ever. I don't think we're disagreeing as much as there may be different semantics in play, although I can't imagine anyone taking TomsHardware reviews of cameras to any degree of seriousness. Any more than I'd accept an HDforIndies.net review of computer hardware with any degree of seriousness.

Ouch. Now we'll get into an area where I guess we'll disagree. I *do* look at Panasonic's 560k CCD's and cringe each time I do. They suck. Period. They're soft, grainy, noisy, and for crap, in my opinion. One that's shared by most shooters in my world. Gimme any HD camcorder any day (including a high end PAL SD cam) over a Panny HVX 200, 500, or 3000 anytime. Perfect examples: Panasonic HVX @100Mbps) (Best it can do) Sony EX1 @ 35Mbps Can do nearly twice this resolution) Same size image, same originating resolution same chart, same framerate. Quoting the company "of the big lie" doesn't give your point much support. In theory, a 35mm film camera should be shooting the same image as a 35mm still camera, and this seems to be your point. But it's not the same, and can't be the same. I do agree, some day we'll see frame grabs of 1080p matching a 2MP still camera point n' shoot. My response to that is two fold; A-who cares? 2MP is nothing to crow about. *Most* folks here are shooting 8MP+ stills, some are shooting 16MP+ stills for skydiving purposes. B-The optics plus cost will always be the limiting factor. Notice that one aspect of cameras have NOT changed in decades... That would be the cost of quality glass/optics. Given that the world is now down to 4 quality optics manufacturers, we're not going to see glass going down any time soon, and given the higher cost of precision required for HD, 2K, and UXHD, it's not likely we'll see that cost ever fall (not in my lifetime, anyway). It's a really fun discussion, and one that has been going on amongst some cheap/low-end wedding videographers that are Scroogy enough to think they can offer stills from their crummy progressive video cameras. Ain't gonna happen for anything but the web for a long, long time.

Edited my post for adding additional information about the lack of sharpness in tiny pocket size HD camcorders. Not really nebulous. The industry is really going through a lot of innovation right now, and it's taking time for the innovation to get there. It's getting more and more impressive, but the truth is that a framegrab from a 1080p pocket camcorder should look as crystal sharp as a good 6 megapixel photograph resized in Adobe Photoshop down to a 1920x1080 size, with amazing edge sharpness without soft looking edges. It can be done, all that is needed is the right kind of sensor and sufficient processing power -- they're gradually getting there. High def camcorder makers are getting the "zoom bug" (much like camera makers are getting the "too many megapixels bug") One side effect of this is a very narrow angle of view in compact camcorders, and the use of really small CCD's. I don't really want more than 3X zoom, I'd rather have the larger wide-angle-mode when zoomed wide. There's a tradeoff when you add extra zoom (Due to physical laws of optics, the widest setting suffers when you do 10X zoom in the same amount of cubic space with the same size CCD's instead of 3X). This is the examples I'm talking about. I understand your premise, but to suggest that 3 sensors are lesser than one isn't accurate. In fact, you'll see in a few years that all camcorders will have single sensors, and not necessarily larger. We'll not in any reasonable time see camcorders offering an image identical to those from a point n' shoot or DSLR for many, many years to come. The horsepower required to record constant 60p fps is huge, not to mention glass issues, compression, etc. It can already be done, but at great expense, great storage, and great weight. You're forgetting the optics element when wanting to compare a 1920 x 1080 image from a pocket camcorder (approx 2MP), not to mention all of the compression involved. There are camcorders that record RAW data from a VERY large imager, and it's a format that everyone is struggling with. When we start seeing UXHD as the broadcast norm, we'll see camcorders more comfortably approaching the cheep point n' shoots of today, but until then, 1920 x 1080@72ppi is where we're at. Processing power requires CPU horsepower and CPU horsepower requires battery power and consumers (which is the price point the camcorders we're discussing fall into) won't accept 15-30 min battery life. I'm not following your "zoom bug" idea. Zooms aren't getting longer, they're getting shorter as the optics are lesser and lesser, and body/weights are tremendously reduced in size. One point to reiterate, the idea of multiple imagers being superior to single imagers with all space considerations, simply is no longer accurate. Sony, Canon, and other imager developers have made huge strides. Which is one reason that the newer camcorders for ENG, EFP, and film are not multi-imagers. [edit] I see you mentioned Panasonic as part of your comparative. Notice that Sony, Canon, and JVC aren't mentioned in the same light (BTW, TomsHardware should stick to hardware, they don't know optics (IMO). You know that Pansonic defined the lie in imager/HD, right? a 960 x 540 imager delivering 1080p???? Yeah...I can record VHS to HDCAM too, but that doesn't give me a quality master. Until Panasonic gave birth to the big lie, the industry had policed their marketing fairly well. Sony=1920 x 1080 imagers (full raster) 1440 x 1080 imagers (full raster) 960 x 1080 imagers Canon=1920 x 1080 imagers 1440 x 1080 imagers JVC=1280 x 720 imagers (full raster) Panasonic 960 x 540 (horizontal and vertical displacement)

How is it you feel camcorder manufacturers "don't have their act together?" What aspect do you feel is still nebulous?

I feel ideal distance is 3 or 4 feet away for a 40" monitor; Actually, 10 feet is ideal for a 40" monitor. Multiply the screen dimension x 3 and that'll give you a very rough approximation of where the eye no longer discerns pixels. A 40" monitor will give you a monster headache in no time at a 4' distance. FWIW, I'm a Bravia and Samsung 80 series fan too.

No, there isn't. This is generally done in post rather than in the camera with the direction of workflows.

I agree, the vignetting is unacceptable. At the same time, there are fairly noticable resolution differences, too.

Questions aren't at all stupid, they're asked often enough that the majority of the answers you seek are in the FAQ/sticky, and in the forum overall with some searching. Either way, you'll find that almost any camcorder can be adapted for skydiving. WB is often auto, focus is almost always manual, exposure is probably a mixed bag of those that use auto and those that use a preset, and a few that use manual settings. You're almost always shooting full wide, and often with a wide adapter, depending on the camera. EIS is preferable to OIS. Lighter is better. Tapeless vs tape...personal preference. Since you already have HDV, it makes sense in my mind, to stick with HDV, which limits you to the Sony HC 3, 5, 7, 9 models.

Seems like this needs a bump.

Norman Kent, Mike McGowan, Joe Jennings, and a few others all teach/offer classes on this subject. Norman has a video we produced on the subject. There is a class at Summerfest, and of course, see your local video pro. I guess my point is that there are a lot of resources out there; it seems folks don't avail themselves for some reason. As a newbie camera flyer, I went to Perris starting at jump 30, to begin preparing for flying a camera (missed out on a lot of fun jumps shooting for one discipline, but...got some great instruction on the ground, in the air, and in the tunnel. I felt I at least had figured out that I no longer didn't know what I didn't know, I just needed to learn about that which I didn't know. Now that I have more experience, I'm realizing how much more I don't know that I don't yet know. If you can follow that logic, you've started drinking early in the day. The resources are there at all levels regardless of budget, skill, and geo location, IMO. Just keep your head on a swivel to notice and recognize them.

A very old article I wrote on this subject can be found HERE Hope it helps!?

I'm generally of the approach that I've made more mistakes than I've made successes. I tend to believe I fail more than most people attempt. My posts here reflect that, I've had to eat crow on more than one occasion here (and other forum communities). Blow it off. Perfection is for pussies that accomplish less.

You own an FX1 and you're asking these questions?? Seems a bit odd. No, you definitely don't want to be jumping an FX1 as a normal jump camera. If you had a special, then yes, it's a decent camera to jump, but it's heavy, it's a rudder, and a size best left alone for a long, long while. You're worried about sidemount vs top mount and you're asking about an FX1? Search the forums. Read the FAQ/sticky at the top. They'll help.