DSE

IMO, it is. It's higher than 240 lines...so that classifies it as "HD" but it's not worth the cost, IMO.

That fatality report confused me when I read it, it still confuses me now. First para says she was shooting a 2-way. Description says she was shooting a tandem. Neither one likely was involved in the lack of stability, but the lack of accuracy makes me wonder what else might be missing or extraneous.

yup, but this is a different discussion. You cannot legally show a copyrighted DVD at a block party, church, tavern, it's all spelled out in previous posts. You cannot legally decide to have 300 of your closest friends come over to your backyard on which you show any copyrighted work. That violates the Home Viewing License. Bill thinks otherwise, Bill is wrong. I realize you think my point is juvenile, Bill, and I feel the same way about your position (actually, "juvenile" isn't quite the descriptor I'd use). Not if it's the 300 friends that you referenced earlier. Not legally. If it makes you feel better to continue to split hairs, that's fine. My concession is, and has been throughout this thread, that for the level of discussion this thread represents, these infringements are similar to speeding. That's about it. But speeding *is* illegal. Reading you on copyright is about as valueless as me lecturing you on wingloading and oxygen for HALO jumps. However, I can recognize and admit when I'm wrong. And often do. This isn't one of those times. [normiss] Well...given that I'm not happy with how some of the industry has done what they have ie; BMG and rootkits, RIAA's lawsuits against little kids, etc. I do believe in punitive damages for people that upload content. I don't have the same hard-on for those that download the content, although that is just as wrong.

You go right ahead and continue to believe that showing a copyrighted video to 300 people in any setting is in line with the Home Viewing License. Me...I can't wait til the Tooth Fairy brings my new wingsuit. As for the rest, well...sure. Change will eventually happen. That's life. But at any meaningful level, change is certainly not in the air. EFF and Copyleft? meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Any Earl Scheib attorney can do what EFF does. Apple doesn't own any labels to pressure. Steve Jobs is taking credit for some labels removing DRM, good for him. Interesting he has a double standard when it comes to DRM for video. Either way, it sickens me to the core to read that you condone theft, copyright abuse, and are one of those looking for every corner in which the artist may be screwed. The horse is starting to look pretty ragged at this point.

Width of angle doesn't really relate to resolution. I don't know anyone who is (or isn't) using the Sony High Grade .7. I can tell you it's a fairly cheap lens, manufactured for them by a division of Kenko. In terms of resolution, if memory serves, most of those are in the 350-400 lines range.

The CX does support the 16GB stick.

Search! is your friend. There are other threads as well, I only pointed to one. It's a nice toy.

it's a great camera for taking vid that won't be seen anywhere but the web. Please use the search feature?

2K Composites Skysystems Bonehead Cookie Tonfly all have helmets with cutaway systems on them. None of them have snag points as they come; skydivers create snag points in how they build their helmets. I just ordered a Tonfly Fuego, if you can wait a week or so, I'll have a review up. I primarily jump a Bonehead FTP, which is IMO, the safest kind of helmet to jump due to the large flat area on top, but it still will have *some* snag points. Understand that at 80 jumps, you're going to get some grief. However, if you're jumping solo and are able to do the jumps without a camera in the helmet at first, this will help you learn to deploy, how the helmet will affect your flying, etc. Put a bunch of jumps on an empty and then lightly weighted helmet. Please read the sticky at the top of this forum.

Good luck! those cams are fairly hard to come by, look through eBay's history... Hopefully your friend has improved his skills a bit since the last jump you'd posted about. I use that vid in one of my presentations. Nice to see you over in these parts, Ross.

No kidding. If the RIAA were run by the US government like OPEC is run by its respective governments, we'd be paying 100.00 for a CD/DVD.

No Bill, you cannot legally do so. Not within the scenario which you describe. A Public Performance License is required. Theatrically released titles have either been shown in theaters or, in some cases, been released straight to video consumer market. These DVD/videos are sold and/or rented as Home Use Only titles. Says so right on the front of the DVD when you play it. Many DVDs specifically say that there is no Public Performance License granted, although law does not require the license to be displayed. Check out Title 17 of US Copyright law. In the event you don't wish to read it, here is a summary: Neither the rental nor the purchase of a movie carries with it the right to show the movie outside the home. In some instances no license is required to view a movie, such as inside the home by family or social acquaintances and in certain narrowly defined face-to-face teaching activities. Taverns, restaurants, private clubs, prisons, lodges, factories, summer camps, public libraries, daycare facilities, parks and recreation departments, churches and non-classroom use at schools and universities are all examples of situations where a public performance license must be obtained. This legal requirement applies regardless of whether an admission fee is charged, whether the institution or organization is commercial or non-profit, or whether a federal or state agency is involved. You want to keep playing semantics and what-if's, that's fine, but you're wrong until you prove otherwise. >And no...change isn't in the air on this particular aspect of the issue. It is indeed. And the companies/groups/organizations that capitalize on this new means of doing business will win out in the end, while the people who try to hang on to the older business models will go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers. Please cite where "change is in the air." Attitudes don't count. Provide a legal brief that has been filed and accepted for hearing by the US Copyright Office or Congress. If every record label went bankrupt tomorrow, laws protecting artists would not change. It takes an act of Congress or a filing by the Registrar of Copyright Information with Congress to make a change in the law. The most recent action related to this thread, was one where it was determined that ringtones for cell phones are phono recordings. On a broad level, this supports my position that the laws are not becoming more lax with regard to copyright, but rather more defined, narrowed, and protective. You're not going to find Congress taking away the rights of recording artists, not now, and not for a long, long time to come, if ever. Artists rights were recently extended, again signifying that "change is not in the air" which would lessen the right to copy. Jammie Thomson is just the tip of the iceberg. Ask her lawyer (he's a skydiver). [edit to add] since we're playing on clarity of words rather than having an intelligent discussion based on a solid foundation.... yeah, you *can* show "willing to fly" at your DZ, and maybe even get away with charging for it. Or hold a barbeque for 300 of your closest friends, and show a copyrighted movie. And get away with it. Just like you can drive 10 mph over the speed limit and steal candy from the supermarket. But it doesn't make it legal.

Indeed. All you'll need is the ability to start/stop the camcorder in the middle of the skydive, since it only buffers 10 seconds.

You can download a rez chart and have Kinko's print it. It's not quite as good as a hard-print rez chart, but it's close enough. http://www.sinepatterns.com/images/QA-77.jpg I'd imagine it's around 500 lines, but I'm just pulling that number out of my ass. Royal isn't their own manufacturer, they contract/jobber. Century is owned by a major glass company. The Raynox 5050 remains the highest resolution per line of all the low end wides, but since I haven't seen this Century on a chart... However, it would very hard for a single source lens to be better than a multi-element lens in terms of resolution. [edit] Oops, fixed a typo.

You may not legally share copyrighted works over a network outside of your home. You cannot legally play a DVD on a small or big screen in your church (unless you've got a license from MPLC) or at a block party if the DVD is copyrighted, whether you charge for the viewing or not. You cannot legally copy copyrighted media to another physical device for another person to use, view, or manipulate while maintaining your own copy. Why do you think UGC sites are being sued right and left? Aside from the mechanical infringement, they are also duplication and sync infringements (in the case of video synced to music). YouTube is attempting (badly) to address this through AudioSwap). Wrong. Copyright law applies equally to whether you're making 1 copy or 100 copies. The difference is in the size of fine you'll pay. Statutory damages are $750 for each violation/infringement. Starting at one. You're arguing semantics; just because one *can*/has the ability to rip a CD and share it with their friends doesn't mean it's legal. I can drive 100mph in a school zone, too. You can legally rip a CD or DVD (assuming it's not encrypted) to *any* personal listening/viewing device or media for your own use. Something is really wrong when grownups are of a mind that it's acceptable to copy music from a CD to pass out to their friends, whether on another CD or over a network. It's theft. It may be theft akin to stealing a piece of candy from the Brach's bin a the supermarket, but it's still theft. And no...change isn't in the air on this particular aspect of the issue. No one has proposed amending Berne, TEACH, UCITA, Fair Use, or any other aspect of the copyright code to allow you to make duplicates of copyrighted works for distribution among friends, relatives, or coworkers (or tandem students). Quite the opposite, actually. The NET Act for example, targets noncommercial piracy including posting copyrighted photos, videos or news articles on a Web site if the value exceeds $1,000 and the Net Act is possibly going to be amended to lower that value to $500. DCMA is likely going to be made more stringent in 2008. US Copyright Code: 18 U.S.C. § 2319A 17 U.S.C. § 506. Criminal offenses (a) Criminal Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement. (b) Forfeiture and Destruction.--When any person is convicted of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all infringing copies or phonorecords and all implements, devices, or equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies or phonorecords. ***What is "private financial gain?" H.R. 2265 (The NET Act) clarifies that the “private financial gain” element of criminal infringement includes barter — that is, situations where the illegal copies are traded for items of value such as other copyrighted works, not only where they are sold for money. Second, it redefines criminal infringement to include willful infringement by reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, that lacks a commercial motive but has a substantial commercial effect.

Because it's the biggest thread mount of all the small format cams (except the very weird Panasonic 42mm). And you can easily put a 37mm on a 25, 27, 30, 32, 35, or 37mm mount and not see halo or vignetting using a stepup ring, but if you have a small lens that you'd like to mount on a 30 or larger lens thread, you can't really avoid vignetting/haloing. You can zoom in, but that kills most if not all, the value of the wide angle.

Cost not yet announced. I collared the Samsung PR chick and she couldn't tell me. Supposed to be $1200 or less, tho. Pana has theirs being announced tomorrow too, but unless it's a big improvement over their last series encoder...it's nothing to get excited about.

No, it is not legal to share music you've ripped from CD's, which is why I ask for the clarification. You can share it on a network within your home, but you may not copy it to another mechanical device. you do not "own" the contents of a CD or DVD. You "own" a shiny piece of plastic. You can use it for target practice, frisbee, or as a coaster if you don't want to listen to it, but you may not rip music from it and share it outside of a home network server system. If the RIAA and MPAA are the Gestapo, then every person who has a lock on their home/car and would prosecute a thief also is Gestapo.

Samsung announces a new 30p camcorder. Records to flash storage, so perfect for skydiving. I'll be allowed to handle it tomorrow, but probably not allowed to shoot w/it.

I'm not exactly sure why you responded to me, as your post supports everything I've previously posted, including fabrication printers (although some felt it's not a relevant concern, I do feel it is relevant). I'm sure we'll soon start seeing sculpture, for example, being scanned and pirated for home fabricators. We discussed satellite radio over here. The issue will soon reach far, far beyond the music industry. RIAA is Gestapo? Then so is MPAA, and so is PPA, and AAPS. And any other representative group. I also agree (and posted as much) that the days of the large labels as we know them, are just about over. I'll be signing with a web-based label when my time with Virgin is done. Madonna signed with LiveNation, Paul McCartney signed with Hear/Starbucks, and many other artists are bucking tradition as well. I think it's a good thing. What I don't feel is a good thing, is that some folks seem to think theft of any kind, whether it's music, video, photographs, or any other digital object is acceptable, or that thieves of those objects shouldn't be punished. That said, I can't help but wonder what moron(s) at the decided to go after (and win) against a woman that they'll never, ever collect from. Unless that was the objective, win against someone who they couldn't collect from, who also has no chance in hell on appeal. Nice coincidence is that her attorney is a skydiver. If in this, you mean you can have a music file on your PC and send a copy of that file to someone else, no, you cannot. You *can* in a home environment, have a music server or shared files on a computer that your children or spouse can access over a home network, and listen to at the same time.

Nope...that's LAST YEAR's announcement. Notice the date at the top....Jan 5th, 2007 HD DVD is all but dead, I fear (or maybe I rejoice). Canceling their big bash tonight was one of the dumbest things they could do, IMO. Licking their wounds, I guess.

Should the industry wish to, it could easily go back to only live music (that would suck/EVERYONE loses), or restrictive DRM schemes could be placed on media that would prevent people from enjoying their music when/how they want it. Or subscription-based services could take over. But musicians want to sell music, consumers want to listen to it. So, musicians record. Therefore, there will always exist a Recording Industry Association in some form or another. RIAA controls nothing. It's an association, nothing more.

The only thing camerafilters.com can offer the OP is the ability to purchase a step-up ring, which will assure vignetting/ringing. You can easily go from a smaller mount to larger lens, but you can't properly downsize the lens to a larger mount. Saskia's suggestion (for those still looking at lenses) of purchasing a 37mm lens is overall, the best broad plan, as it allows for resizing lenses to various thread sizes while avoiding/minimizing vignetting.

I'm here, but I'm here on behalf of the "stupid company who Warner Brothers chose to go with..." Thank god it's finally over. Now we can all get with the business of worrying about the content, rather than worrying about what the content should be stored/played on. I kinda like seeing Toshiba's world f***'ed up a little. They did the same thing to me at the LG party last year by serving LG with a cease and desist order when they announced their dual-format player. C'mon over to the Panasonic party Sunday night to celebrate BD.

On the ground. Not air to ground. From Panasonic OK, this is a little expensive, but...this technology will trickle down very soon. Nice way to send from video room to hangar/manifest, or to put a display anywhere you want.