BMFin

In terms of visuality, Crosswind is the best I have seen so far. The 16mm footage is amazing.

I also have sidemounted PC 120 and topmounted 400D on my Bonehead optik. I mount my flash on top of the Dbox, laying on top of it and I secure it with quite simple strapsystem I invented for it. Then I secure it some more with some gaffers tape, since the strap alone wont secure it 100% Its not the most practial way of mounting because it always takes at least 3 minutes to fasten it and it means that you have to take the whole thing off if you want to acces the video after the jump. But on the otherhand its nice, because if you take it off theres no empty bracket left on the helmet. Offcourse FTP style camerahelmet is the easiest way to go, but I like mine because its very versatile. I can fly with a light setup (video only), medium (video + still), heavy (video + still + flash) Actually insted of FTP im more needing a light still only setup. Maby I will get another helmet for still only. I dont care much of the video really if Im shooting something for my self. Also one videoguy at our DZ is jumping a freefly style helmet with sidevideo and top still with two SB-800 flashes on both sides and a batterypack under his suit. He mounts the flashes on the sides with 90 degree bent and placed behind his ears. It looks like a very compact setup also.

The "pancake"lens is 25mm and on Olympus body it would equal 50mm on a Fullframe body. So it is FOV is quite narrow with that setup. Not exactly an allaround lens for freefall photography. If light weight is your priority, maby some kind of compact camera is what you are looking for ?

Unless you are BASE jumping with your canopy, may I ask you what difference does it make if the canopy opens offheading ? Offheading openings are very common for skydive gear. No need to worry about this at all.

I dont have a scanner availeable right now, and I think the only way to really see the result is to look at the actual print. I can post the original picture though. You can easilly imagine how it looks like if you rotate it 90 degrees and then strech it really a lot, to fit the horizontal layout of the calendar. I think even a child understands you simply cannot strech photos like that to have them fit the page. And what makes it even more disturbing is the fact that I sent the photo to them edited as a horisontal composition. (like it is here as an attachement) IMO it works best as horizontal and thats the way I ment it to be. I dont understand why would they first flip it to vertical and then strech it to fit horisontal again..

Yeah. Yours looks nice. Its a very nice photo, not taking into account the Zhills logo which was stamped there without any kind of effort to resize it poperly. (which ofcourse is not your fault at all). I also denied the full release of the photo. Basically I thought that submitting the photo may promote our DZ and therefore I was willing to hand it out for free to this calendar. Would I have known the calendar will look like it was put together with MS paint I would have kindly just said no. Im sure this may happen with other publications too, but after this Im gonna be more carefull with this. Anyways there are some professional publications out there too, like parachutist for example. For the march 2009 issue, they had decided to rotate a photo of mine about 6 degrees to the right and they sent me a PDF file to show me how it will look like and asked me if Im ok with it. It looked great and I was happy to reply I was OK with it. This is how it should be done when any alteration is done to your photos. Colors can be difficult to match sometimes, since it also depends on your own monitor also how your photos look like when you edit them. Personally I dont have a top of the line calibrated monitor, so I accept the fact that when printing the results may differ in terms of colors from what I had intended them to be. But honestly I must say I was disapointed to see my photo streched the way it was..

I just saw the strong calendar 2009. WOW was I suprised to see how the calendar looked like. I´ll be honest here: It looked horrible. Seriously. Im sorry to say this but thats what it really looks like. Not to offend any photographers featured in the calendar, I will just comment what was done with my photo: The photo, which was originally a horizontal composition, had been rotated 90 degrees as vertical and then actually streched to fit the horizontal propotion of the calendar. Yes, you heard me right. It was streched without constraining propotions. At first I though, this must be a mistake. The print subcontractor must have made a mistake on the printing process. After taking a look at the whole layout of the calendar it became quite evident that the printing process most likely has no part in this. This is going to be the last time I send my photos to be published by someone of whom I cannot be sure that they know at least the basics of graphic design. I hate to have my photo ruined and then published with my name on it. No thanks. I cannot understand how a company such as Strong enterprises can afford not to have someone do the layout properly.

I would recommend reinforcing the mount with something else also. It maybe strong enough for studio mounting, but not necessarily strong enough for freefall photography..

Never posted any real photos to facebook. Not that I would be really scared of them using my pics in anyway, but because it packs the photos with poor algorithms which will make the pics look bad. I think it the terms of use are there merely to protect facebook from copyright indictments, not that they would actually want to use your photos commercially. Infact I think if they ever did such a thing it would raise a LOT of noise and would tremendously effect their business..

Yeah.. It apparently weighs 5,2 kilos. The picture angle is 220 degrees ! Some info here And sample image here

Check this out ! I would like to see someone flying one of these ! One of the most bizarre optics I have ever seen

I think he ment 1d mark II

Ok.. thanks for the info. Intresting to know that it has been already built ! So is it still not completely finished or why isnt it open for visitors ?

BTW. Do you know anything about the aerotruba tunnel in moscow ? Are they building it already or how is it ? Thanks !

Yes, there are differences on different filters. Not very big differences though. I very much suspect you would have had lens flare in that exact situation with some other filter also. Here is a test where different (chep/expensive, coated/non-coated, circular polarizer and other) filters are tested in terms of lens flare. The site is in finnish, but the first pic is without filter and the rest are with different filters. It demonstrates well, how filters (all those that were tested) add lens flare, and therefore compromise the picture quality. The multicoated ones did yield less noticable lens flare however.

This shows well how problematic lens flare can get. Great pictures, but almost all of them have annoying lens flare.

Filters will add lens flare. Personally I wouldnt use filters unless I need to use one for a specific reason.

It is only a tool that people may utilize at websites that support it. (such as facebook or flickr in example) Its not a website layuot that might annoy people in general. Those who have the plugin, may use it if they wish. (and not use it if they get annoyed by it. )

I did use Piclens (its the former version of Cool Iris) It worked well with some websites like Flickr, but it can be slow sometimes and some pictures dont scale nicely with this program so it may affect the picture quality..

Im quite positive the content is clean. (what that means in this case) It was shot by a fellow photographer from finland on my request.

Ok.. I didnt know that. thats interesting.. (regarding skydiving, I think they are too large though) That is why the D70 has such a high resale rate for a 6MP DSLR. Nearly every skate, snow or mountain bike action photog has a D70 in the bag for just these capabilities. check out: http://erikseo.com/5.0/index.php for some great examples of high speed sync work using the D70 OH SHIT! that is some of those photos were phenominal !! Thanks for the link !

No. I asked a fellow photographer to run this Gspot application like you suggested earlier. I posted the screenshot he took. I never claimed it was taken by me, and to be honest what difference does it make even if I took it or not ? It is correct you sent me data that was non specific to 5D. More so it was totally irrelevant to this interlacing issue in general. Frankly I cant understad why you sent it to me ? (however I will respect your wish about it being confidential so dont worry) Well, basically I was asking you where you got the impression that the data of 5d is interlaced ? The question still remains. You are free to point out the source of information. However, in the mean while I have pointed out information that suggests the data of 5D is not interlaced like you have claimed it to be. If you are travelling and not being able to answer, so be it. You may answer when you have time. You still have time to do it when you wish.. I dont quite understand you saying: your quest for information is more important than my time during travel when I don't have the software tools, don't have the camera in my hands Look, I asked you a question, and when ever you feel like you may answer it. thats it. its very simple. What exactly do you mean by this ? Do you mean I shouldnt write to this forum anymore ? I should go look information elsewhere ? (and for the record, I never recommended your book to anyone. I actually critizised the way you answered some quesions by merely recommending your own book rather than answering the question)

Oh.. and the Gspot program you suggested doesnt say that it is interlaced either. Screen shot Fields/s section is empty which suggests it is progressive and not interlaced.

well, my point of view is that the purpose of this forum is to talk about (also) technical issues related with any camera equipment that might be used in skydivng. Basically everyone should be able(and even encouraged) to bring out any tech related issues. After that anyone can decide themselves if the issue in question has any importance or not. (to some it may have, and others it may not have any importance) However, I do feel that when bringing out information that is factual and specific (not just opinion) it is always more constructive to validate this info stronger than just saying "you can buy my book" or to lecture about the theory in general without validating the source of info on the specific question.

From http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2A.HTM "There's a Mini-HDMI output port for viewing images on a high-definition display, and you can obviously also watch your movies this way. The output is 1080i (interlaced), not 1080p (progressive), whereas the 5D Mark II's movie files themselves are captured and saved in 1080p, which is preferred. Perhaps you were confused with the mini-HDMI output port putting out interlaced ? Maby this is where you got the idea it is also stored in interlaced stream, which seems not to be the case ?